Last week I heard an interesting statistic. With three weeks left in this session of the Colorado General Assembly 150 bills have yet to move from their chamber of origin to the other deliberative body for consideration. From a procedural standpoint it takes just three days to pass a bill through our state legislative process, but I suspect many of these measures deserve more deliberation than that time frame would allow. Additionally, bills are still being introduced. Lengthy pieces of legislation focused on important issues that deserve both thoughtful and thorough review and debate. If history proves to be a guide, these proposals will not receive the in-depth vetting they require, nor the time they deserve, and that is part of the proponents' strategy.

It is worth noting that the General Assembly has guidelines around bill introductions, and timelines. That said, they don't follow them - regardless of which political party is in control. "Late bill status" has become the norm, not the exception. What also has become accepted behavior is waiting until the last weeks of the session to introduce measures that are political hot potatoes, and moving them through the process as quickly as possible - noting the end of the session is near and action must occur.

This year the process seems more direct than in recent sessions. Three pieces of legislation Colorado Concern opposes come to mind: SB13-252 (Increasing Renewable Energy Standards for Colorado's Electric Cooperatives), HB13-1304 (Unemployment Benefits Due to a Lockout) and HB13-1303 (Colorado Voter Access and Modernized Elections Act). Each was introduced as a late bill, often on a Friday, and calendared for action early the following week, allowing little time to review and gather the appropriate feedback. In recent weeks we have talked about two of the three bills mentioned. The last one, HB13-1303, introduced with 27 calendar days left in the session, is focused on making sizeable changes to Colorado's current elections and voter registration system. I am not suggesting that modernization is a bad idea, or unworthy of consideration. My point is that a 128-page bill that was crafted without the chief elections officer of the state and half of the state legislature being at the table - or at least allowed the opportunity to review and comment prior to introduction, and a measure that without adequate General Fund appropriations could require an increase in business fees to cover the cost of the proposed changes, does not meet the standard of good government. Simply said, any idea worthy of consideration deserves the light of day and the appropriate scrutiny. This measure does not meet that standard, and we oppose it.

Sixteen days to go this session. Expect battles until the final gavel drops, and know we will continue to fight for business on your behalf.

Should you have questions about the legislation noted above, or any other issue, please do not hesitate to contact me tamra@coloradoconcern.com