Colorado LegiSource

An informational and educational resource for the Colorado General Assembly by the Office of Legislative Legal Services.

Author: olls

  • Happy Thanksgiving!

    A view of the capitol dome through orange leaves

    Happy Thanksgiving from the Office of Legislative Legal Services 

  • What’s So Special About a Special Session?

    Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on May 10, 2012, and has been updated with information pertaining to the upcoming special session commencing November 17, 2023.

    The Governor recently issued an executive order calling the General Assembly into a legislative special session. At this point, many legislators and other people may be wondering what, exactly, is a special session and how does it work?

    The most obvious things that are different about a special legislative session are:

    1. The General Assembly is in session even though the regular, 120-day legislative session has ended, and they can remain in session as long as they choose to do so; and
    2. The General Assembly is limited to addressing only certain subjects while meeting in special session.

    Governor’s Authority: Article IV, section 9 of the Colorado constitution authorizes the Governor to convene the General Assembly “on extraordinary occasions” by a proclamation, known as “the call,” that specifies the purposes for which the General Assembly is to convene. The only business the General Assembly may transact during the special session is the business the Governor specifically identifies in the call. The Governor decides what is an extraordinary occasion and sets the agenda of issues that the General Assembly may consider. The Governor’s call also sets the date and time at which the special session must begin.

    The Governor’s recent call and subsequent amendments to the call, direct the General Assembly to convene in special session at 9:00 a.m. on November 17, 2023. The Governor has identified several issues that the General Assembly may consider, mostly related to addressing the effects of Colorado’s rising home values and corresponding increases in property tax bills to provide relief to those affected by the steep rise in in the cost of living:

    • Concerning a property tax relief package to reduce Coloradans’ property tax burden in 2023;
    • Concerning the fiscal impact of the tax relief package on the interests of schools and local governments that are funded with property tax potentially utilizing reserves, TABOR surplus, and general fund;
    • Concerning necessary administrative changes attributed to the tax relief package only for 2023;
    • Concerning TABOR refund mechanisms only for the 2022-2023 fiscal year;
    • Concerning rental assistance only during the 2023-2024 fiscal year;
    • Concerning adjustments to the Earned Income Tax Credit only for the 2023 tax year, utilizing resources available from the 2022-2023 fiscal year;
    • Concerning the creation of a process to review and make recommendations on long-term-property relief; and
    • Concerning the nutrition of over 300,000 food-insecure Colorado children during the summer months by establishing departmental authority to authorize the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer program in Colorado beginning in summer 2024.

    Agenda Items: The Governor sets the agenda items, but the Colorado Supreme Court has held that he cannot prescribe the specific form of legislation; he cannot describe the agenda items so narrowly that the General Assembly is forced, in the words of the Court, “to do the bidding of the governor, or not act at all.” The General Assembly decides whether to enact legislation to address the agenda items and, if enacted, how the legislation will address the agenda items.

    It is the advice of the Office of Legislative Legal Services that the question of whether a bill or resolution fits within the agenda items is a substantive, not a procedural, question and cannot be decided by a ruling of the chair of a committee or by a ruling of the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Similar to deciding whether a bill is constitutional, the Senate and the House of Representatives decide whether a bill fits within the agenda items when they vote on the bill or resolution.

    Timing: Although the General Assembly must convene on the date and time specified in the call, the General Assembly need not pass, nor even consider, any legislation while in special session, and the General Assembly decides how long the session will last. The Governor may not set a date by which the General Assembly must adjourn.

    General Assembly’s Authority: During a special session, the General Assembly retains its full plenary authority, other than being limited to considering only the agenda items. The General Assembly may convene and, after establishing the presence of a quorum, immediately adjourn. The General Assembly may consider but refuse to pass any legislation during a special session, or it may pass one or more bills that address one or more of the agenda items on the Governor’s call. The Governor has no authority to either force the General Assembly to stay in session or force the General Assembly to adjourn.

    Rules and Procedure: Although the agenda is limited, a special session operates under the same constitutional requirements and legislative rules, other than the deadline schedule, that apply during a regular session:

    • Each bill must have a single subject;
    • Each introduced bill must be assigned to a committee and receive consideration and a vote on the merits; and
    • The vote on second reading and the vote on third reading must occur on different calendar days, so it still takes at least three days to pass a bill.

    All of the legislative rules with regard to committees and the operations of the Senate and the House that apply in a regular legislative session also apply in a special legislation session. If you have additional questions about how the General Assembly operates during a special session, please consult the special session FAQ memo available on the Office of Legislative Legal Services website

  • The Borders of Colorado: From Kansas Territory to Statehood – Part 2

    by Sarah Meisch

    Colorado’s State Lines

    In Part 1 of this series, we explored how the US created its states, prioritizing geometric simplicity over geographical variance. Colorado stands uniquely symmetrical and rectangular among other states, and Part 2 of this series will examine how Colorado’s shape and dimensions were placed – and why its borders have been so controversial.

    Throughout its history, Colorado has been under the control of France, Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and the US. The Rocky Mountains formed a natural barrier between the American-owned Louisiana Purchase lands and the area belonging to Spanish Mexico. What would become the western and southern parts of Colorado were acquired by the US government through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Before the Anglo population grew in Colorado, the land was occupied by several indigenous tribes, including the Ute, Jicarilla Apache, Arapaho, Anasazi, Navajo, Comanche, Cheyenne, Kiowa, Pueblo, and Shoshone. Many of these tribes were forced to consolidate or give up their land when white settlers moved into the region. When Kansas Territory was created in 1854, most of central Colorado and the eastern plains were absorbed into Kansas; the parts of Colorado that lay west of the Rocky Mountains had become part of Utah Territory in 1850. 

    Following the Pike’s Peak gold rush of 1858-1860, the Front Range and foothills of the Rocky Mountains became more heavily populated, with most of the growth attributed to young and single male miners. The population would diminish over the following years as the spoils of the gold rush faded and the lawlessness of the region made the area unsettling for young families.

    With Kansas Territory’s capital being in eastern Kansas, inhabitants of present-day Colorado began to wish for a closer form of government, as well as more locally-enforced law enforcement of the region. In November 1858, Denver residents elected a delegate to the US Congress to officially request that Congress create a new territory.

    Colorado’s request was particularly troublesome, as the territorial population was strongly Republican, and Southern Democrats were concerned they would not find support in the area. In the heat of deadlock over the slavery debate, Congress would refuse to act on this request until 1861.

    In 1859, Colorado residents decided to take matters into their own hands and, without congressional approval, formed Jefferson Territory, named after the president who had overseen the Louisiana Purchase. For a year and a half, the territory illegitimately elected officials, created territorial boundaries, and established a legislature that adopted legislation related to personal and civil rights. The enlarged borders of Jefferson Territory would have made Colorado about 70% larger than it is today and would have included areas within Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, and Kansas. This additional land would have contained much of the gold and silver of the region for mining and would also have brought the territory agricultural land, diversifying the economy of the territory from relying entirely on mineral resources. Geographically centering the Rocky Mountains within Jefferson Territory, rather than placing the mountains at the borders, would also “prevent disputes over profitable mining claims.”[1]

    Creating a provisional territory was not unusual. Other parts of the country had instituted provisional governments until Congress officially recognized territorial governments: Deseret became Utah and the State of Franklin became Tennessee. Jefferson Territory adopted a similar extralegal approach until Congress had established an official territory.

    A census found that Colorado was occupied by only 34,277 residents in 1860, making it too small to be a state but large enough for another structure of government. And most Colorado voters refused to vote for statehood when they had the opportunity in 1864, due to the higher taxation associated with new statehood. As a territory, the federal government footed the bills; however, this made the extralegal entity of Jefferson Territory unable to collect taxes from residents.

    Jefferson Territory ceased to exist when Congress and President Buchanan created the Colorado Territory on February 28, 1861. Members of Congress opposed naming states and territories after individuals, so the name Jefferson was dropped. Although some legislators favored naming the new territory “Idaho,” the delegate from Colorado successfully convinced legislators that “Colorado” would be a more fitting name, as the Colorado River started within the territory. Jefferson County is the sole remaining county from Jefferson Territory. 

    In the 1860s, there were several attempts by residents to make Colorado a state, but with Civil War and Reconstruction era policies dividing up the political scene in Washington, Colorado was not admitted as a state until 1876.[2] 

    The Borders of Colorado

    The eastern border of Colorado was determined by Kansas’ western border when Kansas achieved statehood in 1861, only a month before Colorado Territory was created. A contentious statehood debate raged over the possibility of a “Big Kansas,” which would have included large swaths of Nebraska and possibly areas of Colorado that had already been part of Kansas Territory. Some Kansans raised concerns over how the population of the mining areas in Colorado would upset the balance of power in Kansas. During the 1859 Wyandotte constitutional convention in Kansas, some local delegates claimed that eastern and western Kansas Territory varied too widely in culture and politics or that the Kansas government was too far away from the mining areas of Colorado to provide much responsiveness; linking these areas permanently in statehood would raise the potential for conflict. Others were concerned with the cost of having such a large state, with Republican delegate and future Kansas congressman M.F. Conway stating, “Had we retained the Pike’s Peak region, the mere mileage of the members of the Legislature and officers going to and returning from the State capital would more than exceed the cost of the whole State government.” Political divisions were clear on the matter, as “many Democrats opposed the exclusion of the western territory, while many Republicans approved of the rejection.”[3]

    The arguments for keeping part of present-day Colorado with Kansas were resource-driven. Some wanted the wealth of the mining industry in the Rockies to flow to Kansas, and others believed that the railroad builders would look favorably upon investing in Kansas with its connections to Colorado mineral resources. A few members of the convention argued that cutting off the Rockies and their mining settlements would bring the population of Kansas down to a point where statehood would be off the table, as territories needed to cross a certain population threshold to become a state.

    In 1859, the Wyandotte constitutional convention agreed with the “Little Kansas” proponents, which gave the state of Kansas its current size. Creating a homogenous Kansas and allowing the miners to create a government for their region was well-received in both Colorado and Kansas.

    When Colorado residents, including many miners, drew the boundaries for the extralegal Jefferson Territory, the same line was drawn with Kansas, exemplifying inhabitants’ agreement with Kansas’ proposed boundary line. Kansas became a state in 1861, solidifying the boundaries voted on in the Wyandotte constitution.

    Congress drew Colorado’s western borders according to the equitable principles outlined in Part 1, and with the western landscape largely open, Congress had a chance to make border divisions as equal as possible. The prairie states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas all have three latitudinal degrees of height. Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana have four latitudinal degrees of height – the extra degree, given out of fairness, allows for the less arable agricultural land these states share. Colorado, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Oregon, and Washington also have nearly seven longitudinal degrees of width per state. This was intentionally done to promote border equality in the western states. Therefore, the western border Colorado shares with Utah was drawn to give the state seven longitudinal degrees of width from the border with Kansas.

    The northern border of Colorado was initially proposed to be drawn at the 42nd parallel, aligning with a 1790 agreement called the Nootka Convention, which was signed between England and Spain as a way of dividing their interests in western North America. This line currently provides borders for Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah.

    However, Congress wanted to ensure that four longitudinal degrees of height in Colorado were observed, so the northern border was lowered by a degree, as the southern border with New Mexico Territory had already been loosely planned in 1850. This allowed Wyoming and Montana to have four longitudinal degrees of height when they became states years later.

    The northern border of Colorado was initially proposed to be drawn at the 42nd parallel, aligning with a 1790 agreement called the Nootka Convention, which was signed between England and Spain as a way of dividing their interests in western North America. This line currently provides borders for Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. However, Congress wanted to ensure that four longitudinal degrees of height in Colorado were observed, so the northern border was lowered by a degree, as the southern border with New Mexico Territory had already been loosely planned in 1850. This allowed Wyoming and Montana to have four longitudinal degrees of height when they became states years later.

     Colorado’s southern border with New Mexico was largely determined by the territorial acts of Utah and New Mexico in 1850 and has been rooted in controversy and violence. Colorado residents initially lobbied for Jefferson Territory to include northern New Mexico. There were several gold mines in the north central part of New Mexico Territory, and Coloradans wanted access to as much gold as possible to sustain its thriving mining industry. This expansion also unconstitutionally included a corner of Texas. When Congress set the southern border at the 37th parallel, it did so with the same logic that determined Colorado’s northern border – a desire to create a column of states with the same height and width. Simplicity of shape and size were prioritized over geography, and the border setting truncated the Hispano population in the San Luis Valley of New Mexico Territory. This set off animosity at the local level and in Congress. 

    In May of 1862, the House of Representatives debated dividing New Mexico in order to create Arizona Territory, and New Mexico’s delegates voiced anger over Colorado’s border with New Mexico Territory. John S. Watts, the delegate from New Mexico, recalled how residents of the San Luis Valley were betrayed when Colorado Territory was made “merely for the purpose of beautifying the lines of the new Territory of Colorado.” The following year, New Mexico’s legislature expressed resentment at the loss of territory and memorialized Congress about the boundary with Colorado, which had been left unsurveyed. New Mexico claimed that Colorado had taken advantage of the unsurveyed land and had started exercising their authority much further south than they were entitled to. 

    In 1865, New Mexico delegate Francisco Perea spoke before the House Committee on the Territories in favor of bringing the San Luis Valley settlements back into New Mexico Territory. He derided the “evenness and symmetry” of Colorado’s southern boundary, stating that the focus on a straight border cut off a fertile part of New Mexico and betrayed the long-standing interests of people who had always belonged to the rest of the New Mexico Hispano culture. His sentiments were echoed by the Santa Fe Weekly Gazette, which wrote that although clean-cut borders were pleasing to the eye, the border setting between New Mexico and Colorado did a disservice to the local population of Hispanos. In the end, Congress refused to change Colorado’s southern border, beyond addressing small surveying inaccuracies.

    Surveying ambiguities over the exact location of the border were left unresolved by Congress over the years, despite mounting frustration from New Mexico. In 1925, the US Supreme Court deemed that although a more accurate survey of the border existed, the boundary in force took precedence over a later survey. This confirmed that New Mexico would officially lose thousands of acres to Colorado.

    So it is that Colorado stretches from 37 degrees to 41 degrees latitude and 25 degrees to 32 degrees longitude. And you might be surprised to learn that it does not have four sides, but 697 – due to a large amount of small surveying errors. There have been attempts to change Colorado’s borders; as recently as 2013, northeastern Colorado county commissioners encouraged a small movement for the area to become its own state, which would be known as North Colorado or New Colorado. This was mostly a symbolic discussion, as some Colorado counties wanted to make a statement against policies being made at the state level. The boundaries determined by the state constitution in 1876, however, have not changed since Colorado became a state.

    Colorado’s borders were influenced by a desire by the US government to create states of equitable size, placing a priority on geometric design instead of working around or with geographic barriers. Colorado’s four borders are consistent with this policy and have given us a uniquely symmetrical shape and size on the nation’s map.

    [1] Everett, “Creating the American West,” 14.

    [2] To read more about Colorado’s failed attempts at achieving statehood before 1876, please see the following article: https://www.denverpost.com/2006/07/31/civil-rights-role-in-colorado-statehood/

    [3] Gower, “Kansas Territory and Its Boundary Question.”

    References

    Abbott, Carl, Stephen J Leonard, and Thomas J Noel. Colorado: A History of the Centennial State. Fifth. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 2013.

    American Library Association. “Indigenous Tribes of Colorado.” American Library Association, November 21, 2017. https://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/denver-colorado-tribes.

    “Articles of Confederation (1777).” National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed August 31, 2023. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/articles-of-confederation#:~:text=The%20Articles%20of%20Confederation%20were,day%20Constitution%20went%20into%20effect

    Berwanger, Eugene H. The Rise of the Centennial State: Colorado Territory, 1861-76. Urbana, Illinois: University Of Illinois Press, 2007.

    Cengage. “Jefferson Territory | Encyclopedia.com.” www.encyclopedia.com. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/jefferson-territory.

    Everett, Derek R. Creating the American West: Boundaries and Borderlands. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.

    Frederic Logan Paxson. History of the American Frontier, 1763-1893. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Riverside Press, 1924.

    ‌Geurts, Jennie. 2014. “How Rivers Shaped the Shape of Colorado.” Water Education Colorado. July 24, 2014. https://www.watereducationcolorado.org/publications-and-radio/blog/how-rivers-shaped-the-shape-of-colorado/.

    Gower, Calvin. “Kansas Territory and Its Boundary Question, 1: ‘Big Kansas’ or ‘Little Kansas.’” Www.kshs.org 33, no. 1 (1967): 1–12. https://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-historical-quarterly-kansas-territory-and-its-boundary-question/13180.

    History, Art & Archives: United States House of Representatives. “Draft Bill for Colorado Territory | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives.” history.house.gov. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://history.house.gov/HouseRecord/Detail/15032436207.

    History Colorado. “Carving up a Continent: State Boundaries in the American West, Feat. Dr. Derek Everett.” www.youtube.com, October 5, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUit0Mj5QH8.

    History Colorado, and Michael Troyer. “Colorado Territory | Articles | Colorado Encyclopedia.” Coloradoencyclopedia.org, February 25, 2016. https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/colorado-territory.

    Humeyumptewa, Aleks, and Tracie Etheredge. “An Inventory of the Records of Arapahoe County, Colorado.” Denver, Colorado: The Colorado Historical Society, 1994. https://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018/mss.00015_arapahoe_county_colorado.pdf.

    “Is Colorado a Square State?” 2016. Denver Public Library History. August 1, 2016. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/colorado-square-state.

    Jacobs, Frank. “Colorado Is Not a Rectangle—It Has 697 Sides.” Atlas Obscura. Big Think, April 14, 2023. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/is-colorado-a-rectangle.

    Library Of Congress, and Sponsoring Body Library Of Congress. Center For The Book. How the States Got Their Shapes. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, -07-15, 2008. Video. https://www.loc.gov/item/2021687996/.

    Maness, Jack. “When Colorado Was Kansas, and the Nation Was (Even More?) Divided.” Denver Public Library, January 26, 2017. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/when-colorado-was-kansas-and-nation-was-even-more-divided.

    Paxson, Frederic. “The Boundaries of Colorado.” The University of Colorado Studies 2, no. 2 (July 1904).

    Stein, Mark. How the States Got Their Shapes. New York: Smithsonian Books/Collins, 2008.

    The U.S. Today, with Dates of Statehood Wall Map. Mapszu. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0268/2549/0485/products/maps.com-the-u.s.-today-with-dates-of-statehood-wall-map_2400x.jpg?v=1572562951.

    Trembath, Brian. “Jefferson Territory: The Renegade State That Almost Replaced Colorado.” Denver Public Library, June 24, 2020. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/jefferson-territory-renegade-state-almost-replaced-colorado.

    www.native-languages.org. “Colorado Indian Tribes and Languages.” Native Languages of the Americas. Accessed June 6, 2023. http://www.native-languages.org/colorado.htm.

    Wikipedia. “Colorado Territory,” June 2, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Territory.

    Wikipedia. “Four Corners,” May 7, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Corners#:~:text=The%20Four%20Corners%20area%20is.

    Zimmer, Amy. “Jefferson’s Legacy in Colorado.” www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org. Colorado Virtual Library, April 11, 2013. https://www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org/resource-sharing/state-pubs-blog/jeffersons-legacy-in-colorado/.

  • The Borders of Colorado: From Kansas Territory to Statehood – Part 1

    by Sarah Meisch

    How State Lines are Drawn

    Looking at a map of the United States, one spots a difference between the symmetrical states in the West and the more irregular borders of the East. At first glance, Colorado seems to have been easily drawn with its four clean borders. But why don’t we have the winding borders the eastern states have? Why are our mountains in the middle of the state, rather than drawn as a border? Is there a reason for the way our state cuts into part of Nebraska? This two-part series will address these questions and more, showing how the placement of Colorado’s state and territorial lines was part of a grander vision for political and cartographical harmony across the United States.

    Throughout its history, the US has drawn its state and territorial borders according to geometry, with a focus on equity between the states and their resources. The Confederation government (1781-1789) solidified the Enlightenment-era precedent of drawing boundaries in straight lines through several ordinances in the 1780s, creating a distinct preference for geometry over geography. Most scholars of boundary-making have expressed disapproval of this approach, with historian James Bryce writing in the 1880s that state lines “are for the most part not natural boundaries fixed by mountain ranges, nor even historical boundaries due to a series of events, but purely artificial boundaries determined by an authority which carved the national territory into strips of convenient size.” 

    In the US, only part of a single state line follows a chain of mountains; this line lies along the Continental Divide dividing Idaho and Montana. Only one-third of states incorporate rivers into their boundaries, and outside of relatively small surveying errors, American states are generally neat and well-defined. It was always the intention of the US government to create cleaner boundaries based on straight lines, rather than borders based on unpredictable natural barriers. This explains the confusion over the state boundaries here in Colorado, as according to historian Derek Everett “geographically, there is no sensible reason for the state of Colorado to exist….[T]he simple rectangle that demarcates Colorado’s boundaries affords practically nothing…capable of bringing this disparate region into a single political entity.”[1]

    However, in spite of the criticism aimed at geometric boundary-making, drawing lines based on geography has its drawbacks. Rivers are unreliable boundaries because they change dramatically over time; there have been several issues with the Missouri River as a boundary-maker over the years, as parts of Nebraska were found on the Missouri side of the river in the 1870s. Only the most entrenched and immovable rivers can realistically be used as boundaries, but these make up a very small portion of rivers. When the western states were being divided, there was a bit of public support for placing major rivers in the center of states instead to encourage riverine city and commercial development, but these petitions ultimately failed to convince Congress. 

    Mountain ranges as natural barriers are also difficult to use as state lines. It would be enormously difficult to survey a mountain range from peak to peak and cleft to cleft in all kinds of weather, even with modern technology. In the 1890s, scientist and explorer John Wesley Powell recommended state and county lines be drawn according to river basins, which are far less changeable over time than rivers, and also prioritize natural boundaries over geometric lines. There were many limitations with his plan for law enforcement and land ownership, and his suggestions came after the continental US had been divided up; therefore, it was too late to practically consider implementing Powell’s proposal.

    Congress attempted to create equality between states, drawing lines in order for states to share access to water, agriculture, and maintain relative equality of size. States that are far larger than others, such as California, Texas, and Alaska, are states that created themselves. When Congress asked California and Texas to readjust their borders after admittance to the Union, few borders were actually altered, and the economic benefit of these states being part of the US outweighed the high risk of alienating them to preserve boundary equality.

    Slavery was another integral piece of boundary making. To maintain an uneasy peace in the years leading up to the Civil War, the North and South would admit a slave-owning state when they would add a free state. This tit-for-tat division influenced the border placement of many states near the 36th and 37th parallels.

    Even as new territories and states were in the offing, the US Congress had an eye on the future. Congress placed an emphasis on intentional planning, allowing for and encouraging the explosive growth in the West. The tapestry of our nation could very well have been checkered with states of different sizes, shapes, and names from what exist today, if it hadn’t been for the vision of equity and symmetry championed by our Enlightenment thinkers.

    Stay tuned for Part 2 of this piece next week, which will explore the reasons behind Colorado’s borders, and how they have changed over time!

    [1] Everett, “Creating the American West,” 11.

    References

    Abbott, Carl, Stephen J Leonard, and Thomas J Noel. Colorado: A History of the Centennial State. Fifth. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 2013.

    American Library Association. “Indigenous Tribes of Colorado.” American Library Association, November 21, 2017. https://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/denver-colorado-tribes.

    “Articles of Confederation (1777).” National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed August 31, 2023. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/articles-of-confederation#:~:text=The%20Articles%20of%20Confederation%20were,day%20Constitution%20went%20into%20effect

    Berwanger, Eugene H. The Rise of the Centennial State: Colorado Territory, 1861-76. Urbana, Illinois: University Of Illinois Press, 2007.

    Cengage. “Jefferson Territory | Encyclopedia.com.” www.encyclopedia.com. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/jefferson-territory.

    Everett, Derek R. Creating the American West: Boundaries and Borderlands. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014.

    Frederic Logan Paxson. History of the American Frontier, 1763-1893. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Riverside Press, 1924.

    ‌Geurts, Jennie. 2014. “How Rivers Shaped the Shape of Colorado.” Water Education Colorado. July 24, 2014. https://www.watereducationcolorado.org/publications-and-radio/blog/how-rivers-shaped-the-shape-of-colorado/.

    Gower, Calvin. “Kansas Territory and Its Boundary Question, 1: ‘Big Kansas’ or ‘Little Kansas.’” Www.kshs.org 33, no. 1 (1967): 1–12. https://www.kshs.org/p/kansas-historical-quarterly-kansas-territory-and-its-boundary-question/13180.

    History, Art & Archives: United States House of Representatives. “Draft Bill for Colorado Territory | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives.” history.house.gov. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://history.house.gov/HouseRecord/Detail/15032436207.

    History Colorado. “Carving up a Continent: State Boundaries in the American West, Feat. Dr. Derek Everett.” www.youtube.com, October 5, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUit0Mj5QH8.

    History Colorado, and Michael Troyer. “Colorado Territory | Articles | Colorado Encyclopedia.” Coloradoencyclopedia.org, February 25, 2016. https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/colorado-territory.

    Humeyumptewa, Aleks, and Tracie Etheredge. “An Inventory of the Records of Arapahoe County, Colorado.” Denver, Colorado: The Colorado Historical Society, 1994. https://www.historycolorado.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018/mss.00015_arapahoe_county_colorado.pdf.

    “Is Colorado a Square State?” 2016. Denver Public Library History. August 1, 2016. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/colorado-square-state.

    Jacobs, Frank. “Colorado Is Not a Rectangle—It Has 697 Sides.” Atlas Obscura. Big Think, April 14, 2023. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/is-colorado-a-rectangle.

    Library Of Congress, and Sponsoring Body Library Of Congress. Center For The Book. How the States Got Their Shapes. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, -07-15, 2008. Video. https://www.loc.gov/item/2021687996/.

    Maness, Jack. “When Colorado Was Kansas, and the Nation Was (Even More?) Divided.” Denver Public Library, January 26, 2017. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/when-colorado-was-kansas-and-nation-was-even-more-divided.

    Paxson, Frederic. “The Boundaries of Colorado.” The University of Colorado Studies 2, no. 2 (July 1904).

    Stein, Mark. How the States Got Their Shapes. New York: Smithsonian Books/Collins, 2008.

    The U.S. Today, with Dates of Statehood Wall Map. Mapszu. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0268/2549/0485/products/maps.com-the-u.s.-today-with-dates-of-statehood-wall-map_2400x.jpg?v=1572562951.

    Trembath, Brian. “Jefferson Territory: The Renegade State That Almost Replaced Colorado.” Denver Public Library, June 24, 2020. https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/jefferson-territory-renegade-state-almost-replaced-colorado.

    www.native-languages.org. “Colorado Indian Tribes and Languages.” Native Languages of the Americas. Accessed June 6, 2023. http://www.native-languages.org/colorado.htm.

    Wikipedia. “Colorado Territory,” June 2, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Territory.

    Wikipedia. “Four Corners,” May 7, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Corners#:~:text=The%20Four%20Corners%20area%20is.

    Zimmer, Amy. “Jefferson’s Legacy in Colorado.” www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org. Colorado Virtual Library, April 11, 2013. https://www.coloradovirtuallibrary.org/resource-sharing/state-pubs-blog/jeffersons-legacy-in-colorado/.

  • What Does Your Drafter Need to Know to Start Drafting?

    What Does Your Drafter Need to Know to Start Drafting?

    by Jery Payne and Patti Dahlberg

    It was a great stakeholder meeting. The stakeholders arrived prepared and ready to negotiate. The discussion was respectful, weighing the pros and cons of the policy alternatives. Because the discussion was good and the meeting was ebbing, I looked forward to the legislator and stakeholders settling on a policy. So you can imagine my surprise when the legislator looked over to me and said, “Do you have everything you need to draft this legislation?”

    After I cleaned up the coffee, I replied, “Well, I think you have a few decisions to make.”[1]

    What Are the Basics?

    So what does your drafter need to know to begin drafting your bill? The answer is, “It depends!”

    Helpful? Yep, that’s so helpful. If you’re not convinced, here are a few guidelines to help fill in the necessary details:

    • What problem are you trying to solve or address?
      • Is it a lack of access to a government service? Is someone defrauding the state or businesses? Is it an exploitative business practice? Is it a lack of habitat for wildlife?
    • What is the proposed solution?
      • Is it a grant program? Is it creating an exemption to a current prohibition? Is it a prohibition of a business practice?
    • What are the conditions that make the statute apply?
      •  Who is eligible for the grant? How do you define the prohibited business practice?
    • How does the state know whether these conditions apply?
      • If a grant recipient needs to be low income, how will the agency verify the low income status? If a business is prohibited from vertical integration, how will the state identify that the business is vertically integrating? Should the state require a type of business to be licensed? Or should the state authorize law enforcement to investigate complaints?
    • What happens when the policy isn’t followed?
      • What if a business decides to keep doing the exploitative business practice? Will the state fine the scofflaws? Will the state throw them in jail? Maybe the state will deny them a license? What happens if the grant money isn’t spent appropriately?
    • If you are working with stakeholders on the bill, the drafter will need to know who has drafting authority and who is authorized to give and receive information on the bill.
    • A promissory note to give the drafter a bottle of the drafter’s favorite beverage if you fail to provide this information… I suppose this isn’t absolutely necessary. … Okay, my editor is telling me to cut it out—I was just kidding anyway.

    Now where was I? Oh yeah:

    If you don’t have all these details figured out, it’s okay to give the drafter what you do have and then talk with your drafter to work out the rest. By the way, this is one of the reasons why submitting the bill request a bit earlier is a good idea: It gives you time to have these discussions with the drafter.

    Other Helpful Information to Tell Your Drafter

    In addition to these basic requirements, let your drafter know about any of the following:

    • Are there any no-go zones? In other words, should the bill avoid entangling with any other issues?
    • Background information is helpful, but your drafter doesn’t need all the political information, such as a list of the organizations who will support the policy or your argument for why it is good policy.
    • If your bill is based on an act from another state or if it is based on another Colorado statute, share that with the drafter.

    The drafter usually discovers additional decision points while they are drafting the bill. A great example is when your policy conflicts with something in current statutes. Your drafter will contact you to discuss these issues.

    Procedural Questions You’ll Need to Answer Before Introduction

    Before your bill is introduced, procedural questions need answers, such as:

    • Is it okay to release the bill for fiscal note analysis?
    • If the bill contains reporting requirements, should they expire in three years?
    • Do you prefer a safety clause or a petition clause? The default is a petition clause.
    • Do you want your bill to take effect on a specific date?

    For more detailed information on these questions and potential answers, see How Would You Like Your Bill? Questions a Bill Sponsor Must Decide.

    [1] Although this precise scenario hasn’t happened to me yet, I’ve been in many meetings that aren’t far from this scenario in different ways.

  • Ed DeCecco Called Up to Be OLLS Director

    We are pleased to announce that the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council appointed Ed DeCecco[1] to be the next Director of the Office of Legislative Legal Services, effective October 1, 2023.

    Ed started his career with the office on November 19, 2001, as a staff attorney on the Government Team, which specializes in issues concerning state and local government, government finance, taxation, infrastructure, transportation, PERA, and elections. Since then, he has earned respect and recognition as a top expert in the subjects of government finance, taxation, and the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

    In addition to drafting bills and providing legal counsel to the General Assembly, Ed has successfully performed various roles on behalf of the office over the years, including:

    • Assisting with matters affecting the General Assembly, including issues related to legislative rules, open government, social media, litigation, and training new legislators.
    • Serving as the office’s liaison to the Joint Budget Committee, to assist the committee and its staff with legal issues related to the budget process and to oversee the drafting of committee bills.
    • Serving as one of the office’s Director’s designees on the State Title Board, along with the Attorney General’s and Secretary of State’s designees, to set titles for citizen initiatives.
    • Advising the General Assembly and its staff on ethical issues.  
    • Mentoring, advising, and supporting colleagues regarding bills, legal issues, appropriation clauses, and initiative procedures.

    In addition to his wealth of qualifications, Ed is loyal to the office’s primary responsibility: To provide excellent and highly competent non-partisan legal services to the General Assembly.

    Above all else, Ed is a proud husband and father, a true gentleman, and a genuinely good guy.

    Please join us in congratulating Ed on his well-deserved appointment as OLLS Director!

    [1] Pronounced “deh-check-o”.

  • A Fond Farewell to a Dedicated Public Servant: Sharon Eubanks

    Besides the usual ghosts and goblins, Halloween 2023 holds an additional specter for the Colorado General Assembly and the Office of Legislative Legal Services. On October 31, 2023, 37 years of knowledge, experience, and dedication will depart the Colorado State Capitol when Sharon Eubanks, Director of the OLLS, retires from a career of exemplary service to the state of Colorado.

    It’s hard to imagine the Office without Sharon, who began as a staff attorney in 1986—two years before the Office of Legislative Legal Services was even established by HB88-1329. Sharon brought three years of legislative experience with her to Colorado, having previously worked as a legislative attorney for the Oklahoma House of Representatives. And when she started with the OLLS, she had the good fortune to learn under the tutelage of the original pillars of the Office: Douglas (Doug) Brown, Rebecca (Becky) Lennehan, Charles (Charley) Pike, and Alice Ackerman.

    Sharon quickly proved her worth as an excellent drafter and trusted advisor to legislators. Because of her sharp legal analysis and understanding of statutory construction, she was entrusted with drafting significant—and, in some cases, ground-breaking—legislation, including the act that established the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District and the act that created the Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District, which resulted in Denver receiving a Major League Baseball franchise. Other notable legislation that Sharon drafted includes the act that authorized public school open enrollment within and across school districts in Colorado and the act that provided economic incentives to United Airlines to build its maintenance facility at Stapleton International Airport.

    But the work that probably most defines Sharon’s career with the Office—and for which she is best known—involved assisting the General Assembly, its members, committees, and staff with interpreting and complying with Article X, Section 20 of the state constitution, commonly known as the “Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights” or “TABOR”, approved by the voters in 1992. Within days after the election, the Director of the OLLS at the time, Doug Brown, appointed Sharon the lead attorney in the effort to understand TABOR and assist the General Assembly in implementing its provisions. This was a significant undertaking that included providing legal analysis and advice regarding TABOR’s meaning and impact, drafting legislation to implement and address issues resulting from the passage of TABOR, and assisting with litigation stemming from subsequent TABOR-related legislation. With her work, Sharon established herself as one of the state’s premiere experts on TABOR and, as a result, she was—and likely still is—the person who legislators, legislative staff, and even members of other branches of government and the public called regarding its legislative, judicial, and administrative interpretations.

    Recognizing her extraordinary capacity and sharp legal mind, Director Brown promoted Sharon to Senior Attorney within four years after she started with the OLLS and later to Team Leader of the Finance Team, in which role she led, trained, and mentored a team of drafters and legislative assistants. Sharon’s revising skills are equally revered and feared; there isn’t an attorney in the Office who hasn’t felt a twinge of anxiety upon receiving the abundant comments, questions, and edits resulting from her thorough review of the attorney’s work. But each attorney will also readily admit to having benefited from her revising and mentoring skills and acknowledge that her keen abilities have made us all better drafters and attorneys.

    Sharon’s career continued to soar, and by 2004 she was promoted to Deputy Director of the Office. In this role, she took on a wide assortment of special projects for the Director, including representing the Office on the state title board, setting ballot titles for citizen initiatives, often a contentious endeavor. She drafted myriad legal memoranda and opinions and assisted in multiple lawsuits involving the General Assembly and its members. Her excellent writing skills and legal analysis served well the General Assembly and the legal counsel representing the General Assembly as she worked on pleadings, briefs, and oral arguments.

    In 2017, the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council appointed Sharon director of the Office, and almost immediately Sharon found herself guiding the General Assembly and the Office through an astonishing number of first-time issues. During her very first legislative session as director, Sharon faced the unprecedented expulsion of a member of the House of Representatives based on charges of workplace harassment and the accompanying unique procedural, ethical, and legal issues. In the aftermath, Sharon helped guide the General Assembly through an overhaul of its policies and procedures related to workplace harassment complaints.

    Then, while still relatively new to the director position, Sharon suddenly found herself challenged with another unprecedented situation when a worldwide pandemic shut down the General Assembly mid-session. Undaunted, she led her staff and guided the leadership of the General Assembly through the development, adoption, and implementation of new legislative rules, protocols, and procedures allowing for remote work and participation in the legislative process by both legislators and staff.

    These are just two examples of the constantly changing, challenging, and unique circumstances that Sharon has faced – and overcome – during her tenure as director. Added to these are the continuing challenges of increasingly partisan legislative sessions and the resulting unprecedented increases in stress and workload for nonpartisan staff. In all of these situations, Sharon has continued to exemplify the best in nonpartisan service for legislators and effective leadership for her staff, continually working to provide the people of the OLLS with the support they need and the appreciation they deserve.

    The Office of Legislative Legal Services, the General Assembly and the many legislators who have served during the last 37 years, and the citizens of the state of Colorado have been the fortunate beneficiaries of Sharon’s lengthy and distinguished career. Thank you, Sharon, for your innumerable contributions, dedication, and remarkable service to the Colorado General Assembly and to the state of Colorado.

  • The 2023 Session Fades in The Rear View Mirror

    by Jery Payne

    As we head down the road towards the 2024 session, looking for a nice rest area with green grass and blue sky, the 2023 session is now in our rear view mirror, and although each session has its own special scenery, road curves, and interesting viewpoints, 2023 was quite a ride. Sometimes it felt like we were racing down an open highway, windows open with the wind blowing through our hair. And other times we waited in a traffic jam, peering out over the steering wheel to count the number of cars ahead, only to shrug our shoulders, turn up George Strait, and sing along, “And there’s a road, a winding road that never ends ….”

    If this road hasn’t ended, at least we’re pulling into the motel for the night. The General Assembly has adjourned sine die. The regular session is done, and it’s time for some rest and relaxation.

    Despite the long hours, the number of bills introduced is actually pretty normal. I count 617 bills introduced this session, which is about the same as the last few sessions: 657 bills were introduced in 2022, 623 bills in 2021, 651 bills in 2020, and 598 bills in 2019. But the number of bills doesn’t really tell the whole tale because the word bill can refer to a three-page bill or to a 300-page bill. This year did seem to have more of those longer complex bills than normal. But again, that doesn’t really tell the whole tale. The 2023 session felt long because it was a session with many long debates, which makes for long hours for legislators and staff.

    The 2023’s regular session is done. Staff is still getting bills signed, writing digests, and getting the bills ready to go to the governor, who has to decide what he will do with these bills. If there are 10 days left in the session, the governor has 10 days to sign, veto, or ignore a bill. But if there aren’t 10 days left when the bill is presented, the governor has 30 days for those same options. If the governor signs a bill or ignores it for the required time, the bill becomes law. If the governor vetoes a bill, it does not become law and the governor must send it back to the House and the Senate with a letter explaining his reasons for vetoing the bill. Normally, the General Assembly can override a veto, but not if the General Assembly has adjourned sine die. (I suppose the General Assembly could call itself back for a special session to override the veto, but let’s hope that’s a road trip it does not take.) 

    For now, the legislative votes have been taken and we await the decisions of the governor.

    Enjoy a bit of downtime, but the 2024 session is coming, so don’t wait too long.

    Before you know it interim committees will be starting up. In addition to the existing committees, this year the General Assembly will be forming three additional interim committees: The Colorado’s Child Welfare System Interim Study Committee, the Recidivism Interim Study Committee, and the Legislative Interim Committee on Ozone Air Quality. The first two were created through the letter process, while the third was a product of House Bill 23-1294. So now enjoy your interim. We will be also enjoying our interim, and LegiSource is going on hiatus for the summer. But the 2024 session is coming. Today, the motel is calling you from the road, but tomorrow, the road will be calling you from the motel.

  • Maximizing the Interim: How OLLS Staff Can Help Legislators

    Maximizing the Interim: How OLLS Staff Can Help Legislators

    Editor’s note: This article was originally written by Debbie Haskins and posted on July 6, 2017. It has been updated as appropriate.

    Legislators, especially those serving in their first legislative session, often comment that they wish they had more time to work on their bills. They sometimes learn the hard way that failure to engage in robust stakeholder processes leads to bills that are difficult to pass. Sometimes it takes multiple bill drafts before all sides feel that the concerns they represent are adequately addressed. While the interim is a good time for legislators to take a well-deserved break from the hectic pace of the previous legislative session, many also find that the interim is a great opportunity to prepare for the upcoming legislative session.

    During the interim, legislative staff in the Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) can assist legislators in the following ways:

    • Researching what other states do to combat a particular problem the legislator is interested in addressing via legislation;
    • Researching prior legislative efforts in Colorado to address a particular issue;
    • Researching legal issues that arise in proposed legislation;
    • Facilitating discussions or participating in stakeholder meetings that bring a wide variety of parties together to discuss how to address particular issues; and
    • Drafting and redrafting bills.

    Legislators may ask an OLLS attorney to attend drafting meetings or stakeholder meetings that are held at the State Capitol Building or in the Capitol Complex. While OLLS attorneys cannot attend meetings with or on behalf of a legislator outside of the Capitol Complex, we are happy to meet with legislators and their contacts over Zoom, Google Meet, or any other videoconferencing platform.

    In addition, OLLS staff provides legal research and bill drafting for interim committees and committees that meet year-round, such as the Capital Development Committee, Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws, Committee on Legal Services, Joint Technology Committee, and Statutory Revision Committee.

    If you are a new legislator—or even if you have a couple of sessions under your belt—you may want to use the interim to brush up on the legislative procedures or learn more about a particular subject area. The OLLS staff are available to help in these areas, as well. Staff attorneys are happy to provide one-on-one review sessions of the legislative rules or to help you drill down in understanding Colorado’s laws on a particular subject. Also, each interim, the OLLS provides in-house continuing legal education (CLE) programs. Legislators, especially those who are attorneys, are welcome to attend many of them. Contact the OLLS to receive notice of these programs. For more information on all of the OLLS’s interim activities, click here.

    Nonpartisan legislative staff at the OLLS are here to help legislators maximize their interim. Let us help you get a jump start on the 2024 legislative session.

  • Automatic Rule Changes During the Last Days of Session

     Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on April 18, 2019. This version has been updated where appropriate.

    by Julie Pelegrin

    On May 9, legislators, legislative staff, lobbyists, and capitol reporters can all hit the snooze button and roll over for another hour of sleep. But between now and then, there are several amendments to read, bills to consider, and differences to resolve. To help ensure that both houses can complete their work by midnight on May 8, the legislative rules automatically speed up or suspend certain procedural requirements in the last few days of the session.

    Last 5 Days of Session:

    • Joint Rule 7: One day after a bill is assigned to a conference committee, a majority of either house may demand a conference committee report, and the committee must deliver the report before the close of the legislative day during which the demand is made. If a bill has been assigned to a conference committee at any time during the session and the committee hasn’t turned in a report, the committee must report the bill out within these last five days of session.

    Last 3 Days of Session:

    • House Rule 25 (j)(3); Senate Rule 22 (f): Each House committee chairperson must submit committee reports to the House front desk as soon as possible after the committee acts on a bill. No more waiting for two or three days to turn in the report. This requirement—to submit the committee report as soon as possible—actually applies to Senate committee chairs in the last 10 days of session. And during these last 10 days, at the request of the Senate Majority Leader or President, the chairman must submit the committee report immediately. If that doesn’t happen within 24 hours after the request, the committee staff person is required to submit the report to the Senate front desk on the chairman’s behalf.
    • House Rule 36 (d); Senate Rule 26 (a): The House and the Senate can consider the amendments made in the second house without waiting for each legislator in the first house to receive a copy of the rerevised bill and for the notice of consideration to be printed in the calendar.
    • House Rule 36 (d); Senate Rule 26 (b): Legislators can vote on conference committee reports as soon as the reports are turned in to their respective front desks—even if the report has not been distributed to the members and has not been calendared for consideration. The usual practice, however, is to try to distribute copies of conference committee reports to legislators before the vote.
    • House Rule 35 (a): Throughout most of the session, a Representative may give notice of the intention to move to reconsider a question. In this case, the Representative has until noon on the next day of actual session to move to reconsider. However, during the last three days of session, a member may not give notice of intention to reconsider.
    • Senate Rule 18 (d): Throughout most of the session, a Senator may give notice of reconsideration, and the Secretary of the Senate will hold the bill for which the notice was given for up to two days of actual session. During the last three days of session, however, this rule is suspended, and a Senator cannot hold up a bill by giving notice to reconsider.
    • House Rule 33 (b.5): Usually, the House rules only allow technical amendments on third reading; offering a substantial amendment on third reading may result in the bill being referred back to second reading. During the last three days of session, however, a Representative may offer a substantial amendment to a bill on third reading.

    Last 2 Days of Session:

    • House Rule 35 (b) and (e): A motion to reconsider usually requires a 2/3 vote to pass. In the last two days of session, however, a motion to reconsider – in a House committee or in the full House – requires only a majority vote.

    Before the 117th legislative day, the Speaker of the House or the President of the Senate may announce that the House or the Senate, respectively, is in the last three days of the legislative session. This does not mean that either the House or the Senate will adjourn sine die before the 120th legislative day, but it does trigger the rule changes that apply in the last three and last two days of session.

    Digest of Bills

    With these expedited procedures, bills will probably be moving quickly. If you find yourself wondering which bills passed and what they do, you’ll want to check the digest of bills. The Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) annually publishes the digest, which contains a summary of each bill enacted during the legislative session, organized by subject matter. The OLLS will publish a preliminary digest before the end of session that will include all of the bills that have passed and been signed by the Governor or allowed to become law by that time. The OLLS will publish the final digest once the 30-day period for Governor action is passed. Copies of the preliminary and final digest will be available in Room 091 in the Capitol basement and posted on the OLLS website.