by Patti Dahlberg

Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on October 15, 2015. It has been updated for this posting.

The 2018 legislative session is only a month or so away, which means the bill drafting season is quickly heating up. This seems like a good time to address a few items regarding bills and bill requests that may have perhaps gotten a little “lost in translation” here and there over the years. . .

The legislator who submits the first bill request on a subject gets first ‘dibs’ on bill requests in that subject area and can prevent other legislators from submitting a similar bill request.
The Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) records each bill request into a bill tracking system as a legislator submits it and then assigns the request to a drafter according to the subject of the request. The OLLS attempts to assign seemingly similar bill requests to the same drafter. This helps in identifying potentially duplicate bill requests, which in turn helps the office to avoid duplicating bill drafting efforts by different drafters. If the OLLS identifies potential bill duplicates, the drafter will also try to notify the affected sponsors so that sponsors can decide whether they wish to introduce duplicate bills. But the office will not refuse a bill request on the grounds that it may be the same as another legislator’s request.

Because of confidentiality concerns, the sponsors of the duplicate bill requests will need to agree to allow the drafter to share some information about their bill requests before this notification process can take place. See also “What happens when one bill is just like another?”, posted on December 1, 2016, for more information on duplicate bill requests.

When a legislator submits a bill request, he or she is also “pulling a bill title” or otherwise deciding on the bill’s title.
The OLLS considers the information it receives at the time of the bill request submission to be a starting point for the bill drafting process. This information enables the OLLS to describe the subject of the bill request in order to enter it into the bill tracking database, assign a tracking number, and assign a drafter based on the subject matter. Practicality dictates that the bill request will be referred to in some manner during the drafting process, but it is important for all to understand that whatever a bill is referred to during drafting is not the bill’s title. A bill’s title is the official, legal title of the bill when it is introduced, which must be a single subject. The drafter and bill sponsor will decide the bill’s title during the drafting process to ensure that the title accurately reflects the contents of the introduced bill. See also “Keeping a Bill Title Constitutional and Informative”, posted March 13, 2014, for more details.

Being a joint prime sponsor on a bill will only count as half a bill request.
Joint prime (or co-prime) sponsorship occurs when two legislators in the same house decide to jointly and equally sponsor a bill as it moves through the legislative process in that house. On the bill itself, joint prime sponsorship is indicated by the word “and” between the first two names listed on the bill. The rules concerning joint prime sponsorship are similar in the House (House Rule 27A) and Senate (Senate Rule 24A) and both state:

(3) For purposes of any limitations on the number of bills that a member may request or introduce, bills with joint prime sponsors shall be counted as being requested and sponsored by both the prime sponsor and the joint prime sponsor. If either the prime sponsor or the joint prime sponsor has already requested or introduced the total number of bills authorized within any bill limitation, such sponsor shall obtain permission from the delayed bill committee to exceed such limits prior to requesting or introducing such a bill. (Emphasis added)

In other words, the joint prime sponsored bill counts as one of each legislator’s five bill requests. For additional information regarding joint prime sponsorship, see “To Prime or to Joint Prime”, posted December 22, 2011 and “Bill Sponsor Basics and New Rules on Joint Prime Sponsorship of Bills”, posted on December 22, 2016.

Are there any facts regarding bill requests?

As a matter of fact, yes!

• The first bill request deadline is December 1. The second bill request deadline is the seventh day of session, usually falling on the first Tuesday of the session calendar.
• Joint Rule 24(b)(1)(A) limits legislators to five bill requests each session. These five bill requests are in addition to any appropriation, committee-approved, or sunset bill requests that a legislator may choose to carry. A legislator may also ask permission from the House or Senate Committee on Delayed Bills to submit additional bill requests or to waive a bill request deadline.
• To request the five bills allowed by rule, a legislator must meet the bill request deadlines listed in Joint Rule 23(a)(1)—submitting three requests by the December deadline and two requests by the January deadline for a total of five bill requests.
• Because Joint Rule 24(b)(1)(A) allows a legislator to submit only two bill requests after the December deadline, legislators are encouraged to submit more than three bill requests before that deadline. Submitting more than three requests by Dec. 1 may allow a legislator the flexibility to replace a bill request if he or she later withdraws a request. If a legislator only submits one request by the December deadline, then he or she forfeits the other two of the three “early” requests.
• If a legislator has requested more than five bills before the first bill request deadline, the OLLS will contact that legislator early in December to have him or her identify the five bill requests that the legislator wants the OLLS to continue drafting. Bill drafting will stop on any bill request not designated as one of the legislator’s first five bills until the legislator receives delayed bill authorization for introduction of the bill.

For additional information on making and keeping bill requests, see “Bill Requests – Making and keeping the five allowed by rule”, posted September 1, 2011. Please disregard any references in the article to specific session dates.

by Dan Cartin

If you attend a legislative committee meeting at the State Capitol, you will see this sign posted in the Senate and House committee room hallways:

Maintaining decorum and civility during the course of legislative committee meetings is the cornerstone of a productive hearing on the bills before that committee. Persons who come to testify on legislation and those who attend a committee hearing to peacefully observe and listen to the proceedings often travel long distances to the Capitol on the day of the hearing. Everyone attending can reasonably expect that the meeting will proceed in an environment of mutual respect among the legislators, witnesses, and audience that is free from disruptions. One commentator has observed that “[p]reventing disturbances at public meetings is essential to achieving the dual goals of fostering citizen participation and ensuring the efficient accomplishment of public business.” (“Civility in Government Meetings: Balancing First Amendment, Reputational Interests, and Efficiency.” 10 First Amend. L. Rev. 51 (2011)) The right to attend and participate in a committee meeting is necessarily balanced with the committee’s right to ensure that its proceedings are not disrupted.

But legislative committee meetings are occasionally disrupted by verbal outbursts, such as cheering, booing, shouting, or applauding, by persons attending the meeting. Signs, clothing, or distracting electronic or photographic equipment may have a similar, if less audible, disruptive effect on the ability of persons to freely testify on legislation. These distractions illustrate the need to balance the public’s right to freedom of speech and to petition the government with the right of the legislative branch and committee witnesses to engage in a process that ensures decorum and civility.

The Colorado constitution, state statutes, and legislative rules all authorize the General Assembly to preserve decorum generally and in legislative committee meetings specifically. Article V, section 12 of the constitution authorizes each house to adopt rules that address disorderly behavior and enforce obedience to its process.

State statute authorizes the Senate and House to adopt rules or joint rules or to authorize the Senate President or the Speaker to adopt regulations protecting the safety of legislators, staff, and the general public. The rules must be “consistent with public convenience, the public’s right of freedom of expression and to peaceably assemble and petition government, and the established democratic concepts of the openness of the legislative process.” This includes the ability to adopt rules:

• Regulating admission to legislative areas;
• Prohibiting signs, banners, placards, and similar display materials without authorization;
• Restricting the placement of television and photographic equipment;
• Authorizing the sergeants-at-arms to clear the committee rooms and the chamber galleries if there is a disturbance that disrupts legislative proceedings or endangers legislators, staff, or the public; and
• Addressing any other matters that may be appropriate for the orderly conduct of the General Assembly’s affairs and protection of the health, safety, and welfare of all the participants in the legislative process.

Senate Rules 22A and 31 and House Rules 23 and 25 address decorum in the chambers and committee rooms. House committee chairpersons are specifically authorized to have a sergeant-at-arms remove persons who impede, disrupt, or hinder a meeting or endanger the meeting’s participants. The Senate does not have a similar rule, but Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, section 805, suggests that Senate committee chairpersons also have this authority. Fortunately, removing a person or persons from a committee hearing for disruptive behavior occurs very rarely.

Before 2013, the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate each developed policies for the use of committee rooms. Each policy prohibits signs, placards, and banners, as well as clothing with words, pins, or buttons that express support or opposition to issues before a legislative committee. During the 2013 legislative session, Senate and House leadership directed staff to post the “Welcome to the Colorado General Assembly” signs in the hallways outside of the Senate and House committee rooms.

Legislative staff have also created a “Guide to Public Hearings” to supplement the signs. It’s available under “General Legislative Information” on the General Assembly’s website.

So, welcome to the Colorado General Assembly! Hopefully, the information in this article will help ensure that, whether you are coming to the Capitol to testify on a bill or just watch a committee meeting, your experience will be respectful, civil, and free from disruption.

by Julie Pelegrin

With the opening of the Second Regular Session of the 70th General Assembly, now might be a good time to spend a few minutes thinking about civility and why it’s important. The Colorado General Assembly actually doesn’t have a problem with civility; the debates under the Gold Dome are, in most instances, very civil and relationships are generally cordial. But the General Assembly is facing many important issues this year and there is significant disagreement on how to address most of them. And it’s an election year. So reviewing what we know about the importance of civility and what civility means is time well spent.

First – what is civility? The Institute for Civility in Government says:

Civil Politics describes their view of civility as:

Second – why is civility important? Recently, an organization called FairVote teamed with the Bipartisan Policy Center to look at state legislatures in which one of the chambers was evenly split between Republicans and Democrats and how the chambers made power-sharing work. In their report – Best Practices for Collaborative Policymaking – they looked at the Oklahoma Senate (2007-08), the Oregon House (2011-12), and the Washington House (1999-2001). While tied, each chamber adopted what is called a “co” agreement – pairs of members from each party held the leadership and committee chair positions.

Interestingly, legislators from Oklahoma and Oregon described their time under the “co” agreements as being very productive and cooperative. Legislators in both states remembered these years as times of great bipartisan agreement and civility.

In Washington, however, the legislators remembered their years of power-sharing as a time of gridlock during which few significant bills were passed and partisanship was especially rampant.

Why the difference?

The report concludes that one reason is a difference in how the legislative rules in each state distributed the power to control the agenda. In both Oklahoma and Oregon, the rules ensured that both parties were able to get their legislation on the committee calendar and on the House second reading calendar without being blocked by the other party. In Washington, however, committee co-chairs had to agree to calendar legislation for committee hearings, and each co-Speaker could block consideration of the other party’s legislation on second reading. Each party used this power in retaliation for actions by the other party, leading both parties to feel shut out of the process.

But, in talking with legislators from all three states, the researchers concluded that the relationships among legislators – and especially among the leadership in both parties – were more important to achieving a successful legislative session than the rules. The report quotes political scientist Thom Little, commenting on power-sharing arrangements: “Trust between the leadership of the parties is by far the most important factor. No matter what the rules are, if the two leaders don’t trust each other, it will be a disaster.”

And in Oklahoma and Oregon, where the power-sharing agreements were successful, the researchers found that the co-chairs of committees and the rest of the legislators in the House followed the example of trust and mutual respect set by the co-Speakers. Further, the co-Speakers specifically emphasized civility and cooperation from the beginning of the session.

Even though Colorado’s General Assembly isn’t operating under a power-sharing agreement within a single house, control of the chambers is split between the parties: Republicans hold the majority in the Senate and Democrats hold the majority in the House. This means that relationships of trust, mutual respect, and civility between the leadership in the two chambers and among all of the legislators are the key to a successful legislative session for the entire General Assembly.

In May of 2011, the NCSL Executive Committee adopted a Civility Accord. It sets out six principles of civility:

• Respect the right of all Americans to hold different opinions.
• Avoid rhetoric intended to humiliate, de-legitimatize or question the patriotism of those whose opinions are different from ours.
• Strive to understand differing perspectives.
• Choose words carefully.
• Speak truthfully without accusation and avoid distortion.
• Speak out against violence, prejudice, and incivility in all their forms, whenever and wherever they occur.

And the Accord closes with:

Good words to keep in mind as the legislative session progresses.

By Kathy Zambrano

As the General Assembly moves toward the end of the regular legislative session, you may hear the terms “10-day bill” and “30-day bill” bouncing around the capitol hallways. What’s the meaning of these terms? And why does the General Assembly care?

Section 11 of article IV of the state constitution specifies that every bill passed by the General Assembly must be presented to the Governor before it can become law. If the Governor approves of the bill, he or she signs it and returns it to the legislative house of origin with a letter detailing the date on and time at which he or she signed it. If the Governor vetoes a bill, it is returned to the house of origin along with an explanation of the Governor’s objections, which are then printed in the journal of the House of Representatives or the Senate, whichever is the house of origin.

If there are 10 days or more left in the legislative session when the Governor receives the bill, the Governor must act within 10 days after receiving the bill or it becomes law without the Governor’s signature. If there are fewer than 10 days left in the session or the General Assembly has already adjourned when the Governor receives the bill, the Governor has 30 days after the date of adjournment in which to approve the bill, allow the bill to become law, or veto the bill and file it with the Secretary of State.

If the General Assembly is still in session when the Governor vetoes a bill, the bill is calendared for “consideration of Governor’s veto” in the house of origin. Two-thirds of the members in both the House of Representatives and the Senate must vote affirmatively in order to override the veto.

So, a 10-day bill is a bill that the Governor must act on before the end of the legislative session. And, if the Governor vetoes a 10-day bill, the General Assembly may override the veto. With a 30-day bill, the Governor can wait until after the session is over to act on the bill. If the Governor decides to veto a 30-day bill, the General Assembly cannot override the veto.

To comply with the constitution, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Governor’s office enter into a formal memorandum of understanding regarding the details for delivering and returning bills, computing the ten-day and thirty-day periods for action by the Governor, and calculating the date when bills become law without the Governor’s signature.

Delivery and return of bills. The House, the Senate, and the Governor’s office agree to maintain regular weekday business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. During these hours, staff must be available to accept any documents, bills, or other communications from the Governor or the House or Senate. The parties agree to provide advance notice of any unusual circumstances relating to the delivery or return of bills. The delivery or return of bills is typically made within the regular business hours of the office unless other special arrangements are agreed to in advance.

When the Governor signs or vetoes a bill or allows a bill to become law without his or her signature, the Governor’s office delivers a letter from the Governor to the house of origin as soon as possible on the same day the bill is signed or vetoed or allowed to become law or, if the bill is signed or vetoed after business hours, the Governor’s office will deliver the letter the next morning that the house of origin is in session.

Computing 10-day and 30-day periods. In counting the 10-day period for action on a bill, the day that delivery is actually made is not counted. For example, if a bill is delivered to the Governor on a Monday, the first day of the 10-day clock for the Governor’s action is Tuesday. Since Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays are considered legislative days, they are counted in calculating the 10-day period.

However, if the 10th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, the day on which the bill must be returned to the General Assembly is extended to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. For example, if the House or Senate delivered a bill on Wednesday, February 11, 2015, the 10th day would fall on Saturday, February 21, 2015. The Governor need not return the bill on Saturday or Sunday because the 10th day would be extended to Monday, February 23, 2015. If the Governor did not sign or veto the bill, it would become law at 12:01 a.m. on Tuesday, February 24, 2015. Similarly, if the House or Senate delivers a bill on a Wednesday and the 10th day is extended from Saturday to a Monday, but the Monday is also a holiday, the return date will be further extended to Tuesday.

This seems pretty straight forward, but if the General Assembly or the house to which a bill is to be returned is in session and conducting business on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, and the 10th day falls on that day (for example, President’s Day), then the Governor must return the bill on that day. For example, if the Senate delivers a bill on Wednesday, March 4, 2015, the 10th day is Saturday, March 14, 2015. If the House was adjourned for the weekend but the Senate was in session and conducting business on Saturday, March 14, 2015, the Senate bill must be returned by that date. If a bill is delivered on Wednesday, February 4, 2015, the 10th day is Saturday, February 14, 2015. The 10th day would therefore extend to Monday, February 16, 2015. While February 16, 2015, is a holiday (Presidents’ Day), if the General Assembly or the house to which a bill is to be returned is in session on the Monday holiday, then the Governor must return the bill by that date.

If the Governor does not sign or veto a bill but allows it to become law without his or her signature, it becomes law at 12:01 a.m. on the day following the end of the 10-day period. For example, a bill delivered to the Governor on Monday, February 2, 2015, would have to be acted on and returned to the house of introduction by the 10th day following delivery, Thursday, February 12, 2015. If no action is taken, it would become law without the Governor’s signature on the 11th day following delivery, Friday, February 13, 2015, at 12:01 a.m. A bill delivered to the Governor on Tuesday, February 3, 2015, would become law without the Governor’s signature on Saturday, February 14, 2015, at 12:01 a.m.

If the General Assembly prevents the return of a bill during the 10-day period by adjourning sine die, the Governor has an additional 30 consecutive days after adjournment within which he or she may sign or veto a bill and file it with his or her objections with the office of the Secretary of State. The Governor must also act within this 30-day period on all bills enacted during the session and delivered after adjournment. If the Governor neither signs nor vetoes a bill but files it with the Secretary of State within the 30-day period, then it becomes law without the Governor’s signature. The 30-day period begins to run on the day following the day that the General Assembly adjourns sine die. The same rules apply in counting the 30-day period as apply in counting the 10-day period. For example, if the House or Senate delivers a bill to the Governor on Monday, April 27, 2015, the Governor may elect to take no action before adjournment and have an additional 30 days to act. The 10th day is Thursday, May 7, 2015. If no action is taken before the expiration of the 30-day period on Friday, June 5, 2015, the bill will become law on Saturday, June 6, 2015, at 12:01 a.m.

Important dates to know in April:

• For purposes of the 2015 Legislative Session, the 10-day clock expires April 24, 2015, assuming that neither house of the General Assembly works the weekend of April 25 and 26.
• All bills delivered to the Governor beginning Monday, April 27, 2015, are considered 30-day bills since the General Assembly must adjourn sine die, Wednesday, May 6, and the 10-day clock will expire Thursday, May 7.

by Kate Meyer

Colorado, the nation’s eighth-largest state by land area, is justifiably renowned for its iconic landscapes, topographic variety, and diverse climate. However, with legislative sessions spanning treacherous winter and unpredictable springtime months, these quintessentially Coloradan features often conspire to impede the ability of the state’s citizens to travel to Denver to testify on legislation. Additionally, time, money, and accessibility concerns can deter residents of more distant locales. As a result, residents hailing from the more far-flung areas of the state can be underrepresented at legislative hearings. To address this inequity, there may soon be an alternative to the requirement to appear in-person in order to give testimony.

Last session, the General Assembly passed House Bill 14-1303, which enables and directs the Executive Committee of the Legislative Council to promulgate policies that facilitate the receipt of public testimony from remote locations around Colorado. The bill is the General Assembly’s latest effort to adapt modern technology to the legislative process, but don’t expect to see citizens using FaceTime to testify on every bill when the legislature convenes this January. Like many of its forays into the new era of communication, the legislature will implement this bill cautiously and, likely, incrementally.

What does HB14-1303 do? The bill directs the Executive Committee to “consider, recommend, and establish policies allowing legislative committees to take remote testimony from one or more centralized remote sites located around the state.” If the Executive Committee ultimately approves the use of remote testimony, at least one of those remote sites must be located on the Western Slope. And the Executive Committee is authorized specifically to contract with state institutions of higher education, which are typically well-known and well-equipped, that are willing to serve as those centralized remote sites. Further, the use of video conferencing can be implemented in phases.

What doesn’t HB14-1303 do? Although HB14-1303 will allow some remote testimony, logistical circumstances, fiscal realities, and technological uncertainties require that the scope of the bill be somewhat limited. Therefore, HB14-1303 also put a number of crucial limitations on the way in which remote testimony will be accepted. Specifically, the bill does not:

• Require every committee to take remote testimony, on every bill, at every hearing;
• Erode the General Assembly’s ability to establish and enforce rules of procedure and decorum;
• Allow citizens to provide remote testimony from any location they wish (say, their kitchen tables or Waikiki Beach); or
• Require two-way video-conferencing capabilities.

Other states allowing remote testimony. Two states currently permit remote public testimony. Like Colorado, these states’ capital cities are located in areas that often present geographic and meteorological challenges for many citizens.

• Alaska’s Legislative Affairs Agency has set up 23 remote Legislative Information Offices throughout the state, which, in addition to providing general legislative information, allow members of the public to participate in committee hearings taking place in Juneau.
• In 1991, the Nevada legislature appropriated moneys to set up a video conferencing link between committee rooms in the legislature and a room at the Cashman Field Convention Center in Las Vegas, the state’s most populous city.

What are the next steps? Legislative Council Staff (LCS) is now in the process of evaluating potential vendors for the technology that will be involved with remote testimony. Three committee rooms are being adapted to allow for remote testimony, and LCS is developing related policies for the Executive Committee to consider.

On September 5, 2014, the interim Water Resources Review Committee participated in a “trial run” of remote testimony. The committee met in the state Capitol, and received testimony from Hanna Holms at Mesa State University’s Water Center in Grand Junction. This “real-world” experience will undoubtedly inform the policies being developed.

The General Assembly will be checking in on committees’ use of remote testimony through the next two sessions. HB14-1303 requires the director of research at LCS, before August 1, 2016, to submit to the members of the General Assembly a report detailing the extent to which remote testimony has been utilized, the costs associated with offering remote testimony, and any technical or other issues that arose in connection with remote testimony.

By Jery Payne

Imagine you’re a senator in the Colorado General Assembly. You’re sitting at your desk and feeling good. Session is winding down, and you’re done with that monster bill you’ve been working on. All you have left is a short cleanup bill. (more…)

By Esther van Mourik

Did you know that the General Assembly is now SMARTer? It is! Last session the General Assembly passed House Bill 13-1299, which repealed and reenacted the “State Measurement for Accountable, Responsive, and Transparent (SMART) Government Act”.  (more…)

by Julie Pelegrin

The opening day of the First Regular Session of the Sixty-ninth General Assembly is just around the corner: Wednesday, January 9, 2013. For many legislators and legislative watchers, the hoopla and falderal will be old hat, but for those who are new to the process, here’s a quick overview of what to expect and some explanation of why they do what they do. (more…)

by Nate Carr

You’re feeling great!  The bill you’ve been working on for months has just cleared third reading on the floor.  A few amendments were added before it passed, but that’s okay.  Leadership dismisses everyone for the day, and you leave the chambers.  The next morning you return to your desk to find a letter from the Publications Coordinator and the Revisor of Statutes titled “Revisor’s Comment”.  Both work in the Office of Legislative Legal Services.  You open the letter to discover that they are alerting you to a conflict that your bill has with one or more other bills circulating through the process.  You may experience a touch of anxiety, but don’t worry, the OLLS staff is ready and willing to work with you to resolve the conflict. (more…)