Skip to content

Senator Pat Steadman's Blog

“Colorado State Senator for District 31”

July 19, 2011 New Reapportionment

Once every ten years, after the census results are published, Colorado appoints a Reapportionment Commission to draw new boundaries for House and Senate districts in the state legislature.  The main purpose of this exercise is to equalize the population of the districts to ensure the constitutional imperative of “one person, one vote.”  This 11-member commission meets throughout the summer and fall to produce new maps of Colorado’s 35 Senate Districts and 65 House Districts.

The Colorado Constitution does not require perfect numerical equality, and slight deviations in population between districts are permitted.  Because growth occurs in different places and at different rates throughout the state, the current districts vary widely with some containing vastly more population than the ideal average number, while others are underpopulated and must become larger.  Rural Colorado will see House and Senate districts expand their territory to take in the necessary number of people, while fast-growing suburbs will see their districts become more compact.

The Colorado Constitution instructs the Reapportionment Commission to consider various factors when drawing district boundaries, with population equality being primary, while other important considerations respect county boundaries, municipal boundaries and preserve ”communities of interest.”  Because of geography and dispersed population it is impossible to draw maps that achieve every consideration, but the Reapportionment Commission must balance those interests and follow court interpretations of the constitutional directives.

The commission is appointed by state officials in all three branches of government.  Legislative leaders appoint four members, the Governor appoints three, and the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court appoints the remaining four.  Appointments occur in this sequence, and there are requirements for participation from different political parties and various parts of the state.  This year, the commission consists of five Republicans, five Democrats and one unaffiliated voter.  The unaffiliated member was appointed by the Chief Justice and serves as chairman of the commission.

The commission has almost finished a first draft of maps for the House and Senate.  Once the last details are worked out, the commission is going to take their draft maps on tour across the state in August, holding public hearings in 25 different cities and towns to receive feedback from citizens.  A schedule of these hearing can be found HERE.

Drawing the boundaries of legislative districts is an inherently political process.  In some parts of the state slight changes in boundaries will favor one political party over the other.  These “competitive” districts are the subject of much debate as partisans seek every possible advantage.  Enormous amounts of data are analyzed to determine not only the population of proposed districts, but also their racial composition and voting predilections.  Federal laws protect the ability of minority communities to influence election outcomes, but how this is accomplished is often the subject of controversy and litigation.

Below is an excerpt of the proposed map for a portion of the Denver metro area.  The yellow district numbered ”31″ is where I live, and it differs a great deal from the current SD 31 that I now represent.  It contains about 14,000 more people than my current district and it is less racially diverse.  It is entirely within the boundaries of the City and County of Denver, except it contains the Arapahoe County enclaves of Glendale and Holly Hills.  My current district extends north into Adams County and includes the neighborhood where I lived as a teen and the high school I graduated from in 1982.  With his proposed map I won’t get to represent those areas after the next election. 

July 14, 2011 Caylee’s Law

Count me as just a little skeptical about proposals to create “Caylee’s Law.”  In the past two weeks I’ve received over 300 emails asking me to support reactionary legislation to create new felonies for not promptly reporting a missing child or a child’s death.  There are different versions of the email and none contain draft legislation, so the details of the proposal are a bit fuzzy.  But count me as skeptical. 

Given the outcry surrounding the Casey Anthony case it is likely the Colorado General Assembly will debate this issue next January when we’re back in session.  I will look forward to hearing from law enforcement and child advocates as to whether they consider such a law needed or useful.  By way of example, I did a quick check with the website for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to see if they had a position on Caylee’s Law, but could only find a press release distancing themselves from some of the hype and marketing surrounding the case.

One difficulty with this law is proving when someone has knowledge that another person is missing.  A parent may think their child is late coming home from school or other activities, but the point in time when they realize someone is missing is hard to pinpoint.  But because elements of a crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, there could be instances when a prosecutor would not be able to establish a clear violation of the time limits in this proposed law. 

Another challenge in enacting such a proposal is a requirement in Colorado that legislation creating felonies must contain appropriations of funding for prison cells for future offenders convicted under the law.  As a member of the Joint Budget Committee and Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee I know that Colorado’s budget is already stressed and the prospect for new funding for new crimes is challenging. 

The current political climate may also prove challenging, as Colorado is undertaking efforts to reform our criminal justice system and sentencing laws.  Creation of new felonies may run counter to this effort and there is resistance to new “boutique crimes” tailored to narrow fact patterns where laws of more general applicability already exist.  The Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice has been working for several years now to simplify our criminal code and make it more efficient and just. 

I understand the outrage surrounding the verdict in the Casey Anthony case, but it is important to note that the Anthony case was handled by authorities in Florida, and that their laws differ from those in Colorado.  I would also note that Colorado law already makes it a crime to conceal a death. 

Here are a few critiques of the proposal that raise other points to consider:

I will, of course, carefully review any proposals that are introduced in the next legislative session and I will listen to experts in the field.  We all want effective laws that make children and communities safer and we want prosecutors and law enforcement officials to have the proper tools at their disposal.  I am not yet convinced that Caylee’s Law would make a difference in how parents behave or how law enforcement agencies protect children.

November 23, 2010 Budget Balancing

Colorado’s Constitution requires a balanced budget.  It also places limits and restrictions on growth in the budget and requires voter approval for many fiscal policy changes.  Being a budget writer in our complicated system is quite a challenge.

State government is funded through a variety of sources of revenue, although three broad categories describe these sources.  Federal funds, as the name implies, are derived from the federal government.  They generally come with lots of strings attached and little or no opportunity for the state legislature to control their use.  Cash funds are generated by fees and fines and revenues from purchased services, such a tuition.  The General Fund is where most tax revenues are deposited, mainly income tax and sales tax.  The legislature has the greatest discretion over General Fund spending, but most of the General Fund is already allocated to a handful of major programs such as schools and prisons.  To say the legislature has discretion is a bit of a stretch, as most spending is dictated by the state constitution or participation in federal programs such as Medicaid.  The vast majority of the state’s budget is on auto-pilot.

The need to make spending cuts to keep the budget in balance has challenged this notion of a budget on auto-pilot.  Last year the legislature made cuts to the school finance act despite the state constitution’s ”Amendment 23″ requirement to keep pace with growth and inflation.  Clever interpretations of the constitution and some mental gymnastics to implement them permitted education cuts, and so far no one has challenged the result.

Additional discretion to deal with budget shortfalls could be found in drastic measures such as closing prisons and setting inmates free, but that’s not a realistic solution.  Hence our corrections budget is largely on auto-pilot, driven only by caseload increases.  Fortunately, we’re now seeing the second consecutive year of declining prison populations.

Health and Human Services is another area of the state budget where discretion theoretically lies, but most programs bring federal matching funds to our state, so any reductions in state spending are amplified as they become service reductions to vulnerable or needy populations.  It’s not feasible to eliminate Medicaid, mental health or child welfare services because the resulting pain would be acutely felt and greater costs to other systems would soon come home to roost.  For instance, reductions in mental health spending invariably lead to increases in prison spending.  In theory we could make these cuts, but in reality people would suffer and we’d end up paying even more in the future.

Courts and colleges round out the “Big 6″ program areas where most of Colorado’s General Fund is spent.  In fact, these 6 departments of state government consume almost 96% of the General Fund, leaving about 4% for things like agriculture, the National Guard, the legislature, and protections for civil rights, public health and the environment (to name just a few).

As a member of the Joint Budget Committee I’ll be working for the next five months to draft a balanced budget and move it through the legislative process and onto the governor’s desk.  I’m in the process of adding some new features to my website to increase transparency and help citizens follow the process.  I’ll be writing most of my blog posts about budget issues, as I’ll be most focused on this work.  I welcome your questions and suggestions.

November 17, 2010 Joint Budget Committee

Two days after the November general election the newly elected legislators that will comprise the 68th General Assembly met to conduct leadership elections.  Senate Democrats voted to retain Sen. Brandon Shaffer as the President of the Senate.  In the House, term limits and a change in partisan control required a new Speaker to be selected.  Also determined that day were the members who would sit on the Joint Budget Committee for the next two years.  I was honored to be elected alongside Sen. Mary Hodge to represent my caucus on the JBC. 

When the new JBC held its first meeting a week later, my motion to elect Sen. Hodge as the chair of the JBC and Rep. Cheri Gerou as vice-chair was unanimously approved.  One year from now those roles will be reversed and Rep. Gerou will become the chair.

The JBC, as its name suggests, is a joint committee comprised of members from both the House and Senate.  Each chamber sends two members from the majority party and one member from the minority party to the JBC for a total of six members.  With the Senate under Democratic control and the House now controlled by Republicans, this means the JBC has an equal number of members from each party.  Bipartisanship will be the key to writing the state’s budget for the next two years.

The Joint Budget Committee meets in the Legislative Services Building, located across the street from the Capitol at 14th & Sherman.  All six members have offices in this building adjacent to the committee’s meeting room.  I started moving into my new office the Monday after the election and am now starting to feel settled in. 

The symbolism of the JBC meeting in a building separate from the Capitol is apt – the committee’s process and rules are different from what goes on under the dome.  The JBC doesn’t hear bills (but it does originate quite a few) or take public testimony.  Instead we hear from budget analysts, economists and state agency staff.  It sometimes seems a little lonely as compared to the hustle and bustle of a typical day in hallways of the Capitol.

Colorado’s budget process is largely driven by the framework of our state constitution.  We have a balanced budget requirement, we must pass an annual appropriations bill each year that funds the ongoing operation of state government, and substantive legislation cannot be included in the annual “Long Bill.”  State laws sets out deadlines for the executive branch to supply information and requests for the next year’s budget.  The 120-day limit for the legislative session requires the JBC to begin its work in November in order to pass a Long Bill by the following spring.

We’ve spent the first week of JBC meetings receiving briefings from our staff on the executive budget request.  These briefings are broken down by department and in some cases agencies or divisions within departments.  The JBC staff briefs the committee on the programs operated by the department and the requests they’ve made for changes to ongoing appropriations of funding for their programs.  Newly passed legislation (state or federal) that changes or adds to a department’s responsibility can prompt discussion of a budget proposal.

As the staff briefs the committee on budget requests and issues they’ve identified about a program or new legislation, we formulate an agenda for the next step of the process, which involves a hearing where leaders from the department or agency come before the committee to defend their budget request and respond to questions from the committee or our staff.  Often the member of the Governor’s cabinet that heads up the department will come before the committee during these hearings, usually with their budget directors and senior staff backing them up.  Sometimes we grill them, sometimes we pitch softballs or lavish praise, and sometimes we prod the department to be more proactive about serving the public, implementing changes or managing their budgets.  It’s an interesting process.

These staff briefings and hearings with departments continue from November through mid-January, when the legislative session convenes.  Once the session is underway, the JBC spends some time conferring with the other committees of the legislature about the budget requests for departments they oversee to get their perspective on the decisions that lie ahead.  We then go back across the street and begin putting numbers on paper as we draft budget bills.  “Supplemental appropriations” bills make mid-year adjustments to the current budget as it was set out in the previous year’s Long Bill.  And once the current year’s budget is final, we have the base upon which the new Long Bill is built.

The deadline calendar requires the Long Bill to be introduced in approximately the fourth week of March.  It generally takes two full weeks to move through the House and Senate, after which it invariably is referred to conference committee to iron out the differences between the houses.  The JBC members comprise the conference committee for the Long Bill, which means the JBC usually puts the final version back into a form that resembles the bill they introduced in March.

Serving on the JBC is a lot of hard work, a lot of tedious attention to detail, and a lot of responsibility.  The Governor’s budget request for fiscal year 2011-12 tops the $20 billion mark.  The general fund only supplies about $7 billion of this amount , with the remaining amount coming from various “cash funds” and the federal government.  Understanding how it all works and making it all balance is a huge challenge, but with six members dedicated to the task and an incredibly capable staff backing us up, the process seems to work quite well.  I’ll be writing about it quite a bit for the next two years – I hope you’ll find it interesting, or at the very least, perhaps you’ll be glad to know who’s watching your tax dollars at work.

November 7, 2010 Saying NO to Ballot Initiatives

One of the best things that happened in the 2010 election cycle in Colorado was the defeat of every single ballot initiative.  The “Ugly 3″ went down to crushing defeats, as did the extreme Amendment 62.  The “bail bond bailout” measure Prop 102 was also soundly rejected, and 53% of voters turned down Amendment 63.  Not a good idea in the bunch, and all failed to pass.

I hope this cycle is not an aberration and that voters in Colorado have learned to cast a cynical eye on ballot initiatives.  Although the initiative process gives power to the people and allows them to bypass the normal legislative process of elected representatives deciding policy, it is quite susceptible to abuse by those with deep pockets or hidden motives.  There’s a reason these bad ideas didn’t go through the normal legislative process where their flaws could be examined and debated and the wording and content of the measures could be tempered or perfected by the give and take of amendments and fine-tuning that legislators are accustomed to making.  These bad ideas couldn’t have survived that process, or wouldn’t emerge from that process as deceptive or extreme as their proponents intended.

I’m a big proponent of initiative reform, and I’m hopeful that the stinkers before voters in the 2010 cycle will make it easier to move our state toward a more thoughtful and measured initiative process.  Perhaps we’ll see something on the ballot in 2012 to improve the process and restore voter confidence.  I’ve written blog posts on this topic in the past and will continue to work on this issue in the future.

August 18, 2010 The First Amendment Comes First

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association – all rights we cherish as Americans.  But recent headlines suggest that we really have a love-hate relationship with these most basic rights.

Let’s start with freedom of expression.  A homeowner’s association in Thornton has instructed a resident to not display the Gadsden flag, saying “Tea Party flags are not permitted.”  While some may quibble that HOAs are not governmental authorities subject to First Amendment prohibitions against censorship, Colorado law does authorize and regulate HOA activities.  And in 2005 lawmakers enacted protections for the free speech rights of residents of property controlled by HOAs. 

The free speech protections in the 2005 legislation, SB 100, were primarily aimed at displays of political yard signs.  In some HOA communities this basic form of political expression was forbidden and disputes flared each election year.  SB 100 expressly authorized the display of political yard signs within certain periods of time prior to elections. 

But as SB 100 was being debated, amendments were proposed to also protect displays of the US flag.  A bit of context may be helpful:  the legislature had spent several years arguing about the pledge of allegiance and amendments to bills protecting the pledge and Old Glory were routine outbreaks of this running spat.  Ultimately SB 100 was amended to prevent HOAs from banning political yard signs, the US flag or a flag of any branch of the US armed services.

Arguments were made and rejected that the flag amendments were too narrow and in fact violated the First Amendment because they created a preference for certain symbols.  First Amendment scholars call this “content discrimination.”  An essential component of freedom of speech is that you shouldn’t be freer to say some things as opposed to others.  All messages are equal.

Fast forward five years to the Thornton HOA situation.  The HOA seems to be taking advantage of this particular provision in SB 100 that favors some flags more than others.  Perhaps this dispute will become the test case that leads to the invalidation of the restrictively narrow state law, or perhaps it will establish First Amendment protections for HOA residents.  I’m rooting for the Gadsden flag in this one!

There is of course a small bit of irony in this story that needs to be pointed out.  The US flag amendments to SB 100 were proposed by conservative lawmakers as a ploy to question the patriotism of those that dared to oppose the amendment as drafted.  These same conservatives rejected the argument that their amendment was discriminatory and created a favored set of symbols.  And today these same conservatives are enraptured by the strident Tea Party movement and its rejection of any infringement of civil liberties. 

So let’s next turn to freedom of religion and the peculiar penchant of certain politicians for demonizing Muslims and Islam.  Free exercise of religion was one of the driving forces in the founding of this country, but the insistent messaging from the right that our country was founded on “Judeo Christian principles” has drummed our history out of our collective memory.  It is now popular to believe that certain religions are preferred and that Wiccans, Pagans and Muslims are a threat to our national security. 

Should a mosque and Muslim community center be built near the site of “Ground Zero” in lower Manhattan?  Apparently the property owners have complied with local zoning and land use regulations, but that isn’t good enough.  Would the result be different if Buddhist monks wanted instead to build a meditation center in that location?  I think we all know that proposal would not generate the current controversy, but for some reason many are not bothered by the fact that the religion in question is the determining factor.  Instead, many are exploiting the divisive potential for political gain.

Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the context.  Just as a particular religion shouldn’t experience a different outcome in a land use determination, neither should certain flags enjoy heightened protection from the HOA thought police while others may be banned.  There are important principles at stake in these disputes and in each case our most precious civil liberties risk diminution by political passions. 

My mother once showed me a drawing by Elizabeth Layton entitled “Censored” that included Ira Glasser’s famous quote: “The first exception to the First Amendment will not be the last.”  I’ll always remember this lesson and stand firm in defense of the liberties the First Amendment protects.

July 12, 2010 Vote NO on Amendment 62

Divisive and unnecessary constitutional amendments plague the ballot this year.  Amendment 62 certainly falls into this category, and I’ll be campaigning against it. 

Amendment 62 shouldn’t take long for most voters to figure out, as it should look very familiar.  Remember Amendment 48 from the 2008 election?  Well this is virtually the same thing.  It’s back!  And it’s just as wrong as before.  Over 70% of Colorado voters rejected this proposal in the last general election, and I’m hoping an equal or larger number will do so again.

Amendment 62 would amend the Colorado Constitution to say that a fertilized human egg, “from the beginning of biological development,” is a person entitled to full protection of its constitutional rights.  Although the measure is being promoted by anti-abortion groups, its potential ramifications go far beyond reproductive rights.

SO WHAT WOULD AMENDMENT 62 DO?

Amendment 62 would interject the government, lawyers, and courts in our personal lives.  It will affect important life decisions that should be made by individuals, their doctors, and families, not extremists rewriting the state constitution.   Amendment 62 has the potential to eliminate a woman’s right to make personal private decisions about her own body and her health.  It invites government intrusion into matters best left to individuals and their families.

Amendment 62 simply goes too far.  Public policy should protect the sanctity and privacy of the doctor-patient relationship, but this amendment does just the opposite.  The backers of Amendment 62 want to ban all abortions — even for victims of rape and incest, or when a woman’s life or health is at risk.  It could make criminals out of a woman and her doctor.

Amendment 62 would impact literally thousands of laws — from when property rights are granted, to inheritance rights, to who can file a lawsuit.  A legal nightmare would be established in our constitution, clogging our courts and allowing lawsuits against anyone associated with a woman’s health. 

This is a constitutional amendment with far-reaching consequences for important life decisions.  By giving legal rights from the beginning of biological development, this amendment could ban emergency contraception for rape and incest victims.  Because birth control options like the Pill and IUDs can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, they could also be banned.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO STOP AMENDMENT 62?

First and foremost, Vote NO, and tell everyone you know to Vote NO on 62.  But don’t stop there.  Get involved.  A broad coalition of groups opposing Amendment 62 will be working to educate Colorado voters prior to the November general election.  Join the effort and help spread the word.  For more information visit                  http://www.protectfamiliesprotectchoices.org/

July 1, 2010 July 1, 2010 – A New Fiscal Year Begins

Today is the first day of the new fiscal year for the State of Colorado, and many new laws enacted during the 2010 session take effect on this date.  The annual budget for the state is probably the most important bill that becomes effective today (HB 10-1376), but many other new laws kick in today.

Some of the notable new laws on today’s list include the following: 

    • SB 10-158 – authorizes the Creative Industries Division within the Economic Development; part of a package of bills I supported to promote the arts and Colorado’s creative economy
    • HB 10-1284 – regulates medical marijuana growers and dispensers; establishing a framework for a brave new industry
    • HB 10-1135 – protects children caught in custody disputes involving domestic violence
    • SB 10-20 – authorizes the CoverColorado board of directors (of which I am a non-voting member) to negotiate fee schedules with providers, helping keep the plan solvent for those with no other resort
    • SB 10-128 – closes the loophole in the Peeping Tom law that we learned about because of the creepy guy that drilled a hole in the hotel room wall and watched on a live feed but didn’t record
    • SB 10-156 – expands the rights of residents of mobile home parks
    • SB 10-199 – updates the Probate Code to clean-up the Designated Beneficiaries Act and provide protection to parents and kids in second parent adoptions, among other provisions
    • and several “fixes” to the FASTER vehicle registration legislation from 2009.

Two of the new laws starting today have my name on them.  I was the Senate sponsor of:

    • HB 10-1277 – extends prison sex assault laws to facilities with the Division of Youth Corrections
    • HB 10-1255 – continues the Colorado Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing

 

As I was researching bills for this post, I discovered that very few of the bills I sponsored took effect today.  In total, 30 of my bills were signed into law by Gov. Ritter, but only the two listed above specified a July 1 effective date.  The majority of my bills won’t take effect until August, or they were effective upon the signature of the governor.

To understand the intricacies of when new legislation takes effect one must consult a few key provisions of the Colorado Constitution.  Referendum petition rights are reserved in Article V, section 1 of the Colorado Constitution.   No act of the legislature may take effect until a 90-day period of time for citizens to collect signatures on referendum petitions has elapsed.  The exception to this rule is legislation “necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, and appropriations for the support and maintenance of the departments of state and state institutions…”  In such cases the law may take effect sooner and no opportunity for citizens to collect signatures on petitions and force a referendum on the act is afforded.

Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

 It is from this language in Article V, section 1 (3) of the Colorado Constitution that the so-called “Safety Clause” is derived.  This clause, frequently appended upon a piece of legislation, prevents a referendum.  Without the potential for a 90-day delay due to a referendum petition, an earlier effective date is possible.  When the Safety Clause is included and no other effective date is specified, the new law is effective upon signature of the governor. 

There are many legitimate reasons why the legislature employs the Safety Clause, but its overuse has been rightfully criticized in recent years.  For legislation that really does promote public safety an effective date as early as possible is warranted.  For legislation that appropriates funding for a fiscal year (which always begins on July 1), the Safety Clause is necessary for the money to flow in a timely manner.  Routine “sunset review” legislation generally has a Safety Clause just to deal with specified July 1 repeal dates in a timely manner.  Finally, many criminal laws require a date certain to be specified so that potential defendants may be on notice that their conduct is now criminal, otherwise Due Process violations could be asserted as a defense.  But of course legislation specifying criminal conduct is easy to fit under the Safety Clause and justify its early implementation.

The 2010 legislative session saw fewer bills using the Safety Clause and thus fewer laws with a July 1 effective date.  I think this is a positive trend and am glad to have contributed to it.

June 12, 2010 Some of the New Laws I Passed This Year

I’ve often noted that I carried too many bills in the 2010 legislative session, and many have been the subject of blog posts or press coverage.  This post lists a half dozen random, overlooked but worthwhile bills that I sponsored that are now the law in Colorado.  It’s been fun to watch the bills being signed into law, but now that dust is settling, here’s a look at some miscellaneous accomplishments during my first year in the Senate:

SB 87 concerns the regulation of lobbyists.  This is a topic I knew a few things about, so I readily agreed to sponsor this bill when a representative of the Secretary of State’s office asked me to consider it.  They wanted to increase late filing fines and create the legal authority to deny registration to lobbyists with outstanding fees or fines.  I liked these ideas, but added a few more of my own.  Although the bill originally sought to bring “volunteer lobbyists” into the same regulatory scheme as paid professionals, those sections of the bill were deleted (and as I remarked prior to the final vote on the bill, “I’ll never take on the volunteer lobby corps again!”).  SB 87 creates a new section in statute that clearly spells out prohibited, unethical conduct for lobbyists.  These provisions were borrowed from other states’ laws, but include several common sense measures that people were surprised to learn were heretofore not covered by Colorado law.

SB 172 extends the life of three voluntary “check-offs” on the Colorado income tax form.  These check-offs allow taxpayers to make charitable contributions to various worthwhile causes and organizations and have the Colorado Dept of Revenue transmit their donation to the charity.  There is only room on the form for 15 different check-offs, and from time-to-time there is some competition for space on the form.  For that reason, state law requires each check-off to net a certain threshold amount each year or else it loses its spot on the form, and each has an expiration date that requires the legislature to periodically reauthorize them.  We learned in a Senate Finance Committee hearing that three check-offs were set to expire after this year, and to my surprise, no one was coming forward with a bill to reauthorize these established and popular charities, so I introduced SB 172 to renew all three in one fell swoop.  Because they’ve all proven their worth, SB 172 gives them each a ten-year extension.  The Domestic Abuse Fund, the Pet Overpopulation Fund and the Breast and Women’s Reproductive Cancer Fund all will be available for your charitable contribution when you fill out our tax return next year, and nine more years after that, so keep them in your thoughts.

HB 1035 originated from the Early Childhood and School Readiness Commission, of which I am a member.  It deals with eligibility for the Child Care Assistance Program and makes the program work better for children and families.  Currently, families are required to apply for eligibility every six months.  HB 1035 changes this to a 12-month eligibility cycle and aligns this cycle with other programs that some or all of the children also may be participating in, namely Head Start or the Colorado Preschool Program.  12-month eligibility prevents kids from “falling off” the program mid-year, which makes families scramble and interrupts the continuity of quality early childhood education programs.  Less “churn” means more kids learn.

HB 1083 was a rather unique bill.  It’s an act of the legislature, but it doesn’t create any new state law.  Instead, it authorizes the Dept of Corrections to enter into a lease-purchase agreement for the construction of a new outpatient surgical center on the grounds of the Denver Reception & Diagnostic Center.  The savings in transport and security escorts for inmates needing minor surgeries will more than pay for the cost of constructing the facility.  HB 1083 is a win-win-win for inmates, taxpayers and public safety.

HB 1359 concerns court procedures in dependency and neglect cases for children entering the child welfare system.  Specifically, HB 1359 spells out procedures to be followed in change of venue situations, where the family has moved to a different county within the state.  Because Colorado’s child welfare system is county administered, families with child protection cases that move from one county to the next can be hard to track, and some have fallen through the cracks.  HB 1359 creates rules that must be followed to notify the county and the court in the new county of residence about the transfer of an open case file.  This was one of several recommendations of the Child Welfare Action Committee, which was created by Gov. Ritter to examine the shortcomings in Colorado’s child welfare system. 

HB 1395 also concerns court procedures and is the product of a committee at the Colorado Bar Association and their work with the Colorado Supreme Court to improve court rules.  HB 1395 authorizes what are known as “interlocutory appeals” in civil cases and gives the appellate courts jurisdiction to hear them.  An interlocutory appeal is a procedure where a trial is put on hold while a question of law can be resolved by an appellate court.  For lawsuits where there is no guiding precedent it is more efficient to certify the legal question for appeal rather than proceed with a trial that potentially mis-applies the law.  In such cases where there is no precedent for guidance, whichever side loses at trial would likely appeal anyway, and if they prevail on appeal the case would have to be tried all over again.  HB 1395 creates a time-saving procedure that conserves judicial resources.  It won’t likely be used that often, but similar procedures are available in federal court and other states, and now it is available in Colorado.

May 25, 2010 Criminal Justice Reform Bills Signed

Today Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law several important pieces of criminal justice reform legislation, many of which I sponsored in the Senate.  Witnessing his signature on these bills was the culmination of almost a year’s work.  These changes to state law will have a very real and immediate impact on people’s lives.

Last summer I was appointed as a member of the Drug Policy Task Force, which is an advisory committee to the Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice.  This task force met every two weeks for most of the summer and fall, and most of our recommendations were adopted by the CCJJ at their November and December meetings.  The CCJJ operates by consensus as much as possible, and a super-majority of their membership is required to endorse policy recommendations.  A report of their recommendations for the 2010 legislative session can be found here.

Three of the bills signed today originated in our Drug Policy Task Force.  HB 1352, which reforms sentencing laws for drug possession offenses, was the major focus of the task force recommendations, but HB 1347 on repeat DUI offenders and the money laundering bill, HB 1081, also were the products of our work.

HB 1352 was originally going to be a bill I introduced in the Senate.  By the time session was starting in January intense negotiations were taking place to recruit a House Republican sponsor for the bill.  Eventually Rep. Mark Waller agreed to introduce the bill in the House, and I was teamed-up with Sen. Shawn Mitchell to carry the bill in the Senate.  With this remarkable bipartisan effort the bill avoided political pitfalls and steadily gained momentum throughout its journey to the Governor’s desk.

HB 1352 is the beginning of a new approach to sentencing drug offenders.  The bill includes a new legislative declaration as a preface to the Controlled Substances Act that sets out a new philosophy favoring treatment over incarceration.  Taking our cues from a wealth of scientific research into evidence-based best practices for drug offenders, the task force recognized addiction as a medical issue best treated outside a correctional facility. 

HB 1352 is important merely for its signal of a new approach for treating drug offenders, but the substance of the bill goes much further.  By changing the level of various drug possession offenses the bill reallocates precious resources within the criminal justice system.  The fiscal note prepared by the nonpartisan Legislative Council Staff estimates that over the next 5 years HB 1352 will shift almost $55 million away from prisons and instead spend those dollars on community-based treatment programs.

HB 1352 makes a few changes to drug distribution offenses as well, most notably by creating a new offense for those selling drugs to minors.  It also increases the surcharges offenders pay to support treatment programs.  Because so many sentences were being reduced a great deal of surcharge revenue would have been lost, so an agreement was made at the outset to ensure “revenue neutrality.”  One of the goals of the legislation was to build capacity, quality and accountability among treatment  providers.  Surcharge revenue is used today to fund treatment programs, and in order to build additional capacity, none of that existing revenue could be lost. 

These adjustments to surcharges caused my friends in the marijuana legalization movement to have very mixed feelings about HB 1352.  While generally supportive of the new direction and philosophy of the bill, they objected to the fact that the $100 surcharge on the petty offense of marijuana possession of less than one ounce was being doubled, even though the quantity of marijuana that would now be classified as a petty offense was also being doubled to two ounces.  This is a great example of how legislative policy gains often are accompanied by certain sacrifices as well.

The Drug Policy Task Force was initially set to recommend a much more ambitious change to drug sentencing laws than those contained in HB 1352.  But in reviewing an early draft of the recommendations the CCJJ expressed concern that treatment resources were inadequate to handle the number of offenders, and that research into effective programs was somewhat lacking, making it more difficult to hold treatment providers accountable. 

Last fall I was disappointed by the hesitancy of the CCJJ to endorse the more ambitious recommendations, but having worked through this legislation for the ensuing six months I think they were correct.  HB 1352 is a first step, and an important step, and it will build capacity in the treatment community and enable quality programs to become models of accountability.  It will lay the groundwork for the next round of drug sentencing reforms.  We probably need to let HB 1352 play out for a year or two, but the next steps will hopefully include new sentencing options for those charged with distribution of controlled substances who are dealing to feed their own habits.  Addiction is a complex issue, and while the evidence favors a community-based treatment model, we have some work to do to build such a system.

HB 1081 is a re-write of the money laundering statute.  It moves the offense out of the Controlled Substances Act and relocates it in the article of the criminal code dealing with fraud offenses.  In so doing, the application of the statute is broadened beyond those laundering drug money.  HB 1081 also incorporates money laundering crimes into the definition of “racketeering” so that more complex schemes can be prosecuted under the Organized Crime Act.

Another bill signed today, HB 1360 was not a CCJJ recommended bill, but it is built upon recommendations for improving the outcomes for offenders transitioning back to the community while on parole.  HB 1360 also reallocates resources, this time by reducing the time served on “technical violations” of parole (breaking rules or failing a drug or alcohol test, but not necessarily committing a new crime).  By reducing the time served for technical violations the money that would have been spent on prison beds is instead dedicated to wrap-around services that help parolees succeed – things like mental health, substance abuse, job training and housing assistance.  By helping parolees find jobs and housing we decrease the likelihood that they will commit another criminal offense and end up back in the system. Reducing recidivism saves money, increases public safety and literally saves lives.  Like HB 1352, HB 1360 is a great example of being smart on crime.

Also signed today was HB 1338, another CCJJ recommendation to restore some judicial discretion for offenders with a prior criminal history.  HB 1338 slightly relaxes the so-called “two prior felony rule” so that certain repeat offenders may still be considered eligible for probation rather than prison.  The individual offenders must have committed a narrow class of non-violent offenses and be assessed as low risk.  But this small change to sentencing policy saves over $2 million in the first year, and these savings are used to fund some of the other bills signed today, such as HB 1081, HB 1277 and HB 1347 (plus a couple of other nifty things were done with the savings – it’s great to carry a bill that reduces general fund spending!).

I’m proud of the work the General Assembly did this year on criminal justice reform issues.  We owe much of the success to the Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice, for it is functioning exactly as intended and providing a reasoned, evidence-based approach to policy change.  Thanks to the hard work of the CCJJ these reform proposals have enjoyed wide, bipartisan support and have all become law rather than fodder for political attack ads.  This summer the CCJJ has voted to take up issues related to sex offenses and I’m very hopeful they continue to make progress on the difficult issues and make them easier for legislator to tackle.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.