That’s when I learned about a state law that requires Colorado utilities to credit homeowners who send power back to the grid at the same rate they would pay to buy power from the power company. This “net metering” policy made adding solar to my home a good investment. Even though we didn’t add batteries, which would have doubled our costs, our solar panels will offset a significant portion of our utility bills.

I’m a fan of net metering because it forces Xcel Energy, which enjoys a monopoly in my area, to discount our bill for any energy our solar panels produce that I don’t use. They do this even though it cuts into their profits. Net metering made the economics of solar power work in my instance, and I save money when the sun shines brightly and spring days stay cold.

But after watching hurricanes knock out power across large regions of the country, I have a brand-new perspective on net metering. Rather than viewing it as a policy that lets homeowners save on utility bills, I’m thinking of net metering as a way to make where I live more resilient to natural disasters.

My parents live in Asheville, North Carolina, which was devastated by Hurricane Helene in September 2024. They were out of town visiting family when the storm struck, but water and power outages kept them from getting home for weeks.

Until 2023, North Carolina had used net metering requirements to encourage solar installation, contributing to its status as the fourth-largest solar power-producing state in the country. But in recent years, power companies successfully persuaded legislators in North Carolina, as well as California, Nevada and Arizona, to switch from net metering to “net billing.” That change and other policies now pay solar producers at significantly lower rates.

In those states, utilities argued that net metering hurts homeowners who don’t have solar by increasing costs for non-solar power. But analyses, notably those conducted by public power consultant Richard McCann in conjunction with the California Solar & Storage Association, show that increased solar production saves billions for non-solar producers in California.

When states move away from net metering — despite the dubious arguments justifying the shift — the pace of solar installations slows dramatically. In California, new solar installations dropped by 56% from 2022 to 2024.

For those of us with solar panels, I think it’s time to think about adding storage batteries right from the start, using that extra electricity for battery charging. Batteries make any home more independent from the grid, but here’s the catch: The cost can be prohibitive. I’m saving up as solar batteries cost between $12,000 and $20,000 for a typical home, according to solarreviews.com.

The advantages to battery support, however, are significant. If homeowners use their net metering savings to add batteries to disconnect from the grid during outages, they could still pump water out of domestic wells, run refrigerators, or charge their phones until power is restored during natural disasters.

Normally, I wouldn’t advocate for state governments to step in and regulate businesses. But in the case of power companies, I support net metering because there usually isn’t a competitive free market for power.

Customers are at the mercy of electric companies that raised power prices 11% in 2022 and 2.5% in 2023, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s state electricity profiles. As the same companies were raising prices, they were also fighting to reduce the amount rebated to solar-producing homeowners.

Now that I’m aware of net metering and invested in providing solar power back to the grid, I’m keeping tabs on any proposal that would reduce net metering in my state.

It’s such a wonderful concept — thousands of homeowners selling power back to the electric company — while also reducing their vulnerability to natural disasters such as wildfire.

What’s even better: Residential solar power mimics a stand-alone power plant, one that need never be built.

Andrew Carpenter is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He writes in Colorado.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Within 24 hours of arriving at his mother’s house in Washington last Christmas, Avery had connected with a local drug dealer through Snapchat. The transaction at his home in Olympia was as casual as ordering food through Doordash: a quick search revealed a dealer openly selling drugs who delivered them directly to Avery. Within hours, my son was dead.

I later learned that Snapchat had received a subpoena for the dealer’s account records two months before he was allowed to deal drugs to my son. They knew about him and did nothing, allowing a known dealer to keep selling drugs to kids using their platform.

If Snapchat had enforced their own rules, which they claim keep kids on their platform safe, my son would still be alive. Now, a new bill on its way to Governor Jared Polis’ desk could spare other  families from this kind of completely preventable tragedy.

There is just one problem: Gov. Polis is threatening to veto it – siding with billion dollar tech companies instead of parents, kids, law enforcement, and an overwhelming bipartisan consensus.

If signed into law, Senate Bill 86 would require social media platforms to permanently remove users found to be engaging in narrowly defined, egregious criminal activity that disproportionately impacts children: illegal drug sales, firearm sales that violate state or federal law, and child trafficking.

It would also require social media companies to respond to warrants from Colorado law enforcement in a timely manner, which is a tragically necessary measure given these companies’ track record of stonewalling investigations. When I testified in favor of this legislation earlier this year, I sat next to a Colorado mother named Chelsea Congdon.

When she lost her son Miles to fentanyl poisoning after he purchased what he thought was pain medication on Snapchat, the company simply never responded to the ensuing police investigation. No one was ever held accountable for Miles’ death.

This crisis threatening our kids goes beyond drugs. Colorado’s youth violence intervention groups report that firearms are easily purchased by teens through social media in violation of state and federal law, and often find their way into our schools. This illegal gun trade is directly enabled by lax enforcement policies by social media companies (for example, Facebook prohibits gun sales on its platform, but buyers and sellers can violate the rule 10 times before they are kicked off the social network).

America’s most popular social media sites have also become hotbeds for unspeakable
crimes like child sex trafficking.

It must be emphasized that these companies are not just enabling hideous criminal activity, but directly profiting from it. Social media platforms happily accept payment for ads that boost illegal gun and drug dealers into the feeds of children. In one of their many investigations into the top tech platforms, the Tech Transparency Project revealed over 450 paid advertisements openly selling drugs on Instagram and Facebook in just three months of 2024. These weren’t coded messages – they showed explicit photos of pills and powders.

A bill to put an end to this insanity in the state of Colorado has already passed both chambers of the state legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support. Senate Bill 86 also has the support of every district attorney in the state – democrat and republican – and was developed in partnership with Attorney General Phil Weiser.

The only people who seem to have a problem with this bill are lobbyists for social media  companies, and Gov. Jared Polis. The arguments Gov. Polis’ office has offered in opposition to this bill, which cite concerns about “free speech” and “protecting innovation,” are absurd and offensive. Preventing a drug dealer from offering fentanyl to a child is not a “free speech violation.” Enabling
illegal gun sales and child sex trafficking is not “innovation.” These half-baked arguments make a mockery of the heartbroken parents who have been advocating for commonsense reforms for years.

SB 86 will land on Gov. Polis’ desk within the next few days. I urge him to do the right thing, drop his nonsensical opposition, and sign it into law without delay. Parents in every corner of our nation will be watching

Aaron Ping has joined parents across the nation to fight for regulation of social media companies to protect children from illegal activities.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

We are adamant that divesting our public lands from public ownership would be a grievous error. We encourage all Americans to support the public servants who work for you and, most importantly, the public lands that belong to all of us and define us as Americans.

This year started with the catastrophic fires in southern California. It is now only spring, and already we have an active fire season across parts of the southeast. Is this a time to dismiss thousands of trained firefighters? Most U.S. Forest Service employees have collateral firefighting jobs and are called on as fire season escalates.

We believe that the current administration’s abusive description of career federal employees is an unforced and, frankly, unforgettable error. These fired employees, we know from experience, represent the best of America. Many gave up other potentially financially lucrative jobs to serve the public interest, many were military veterans. To see them treated the way they have been over the past few months is incompetence at best and mean-spirited at worst.

There was the random firing of some 3,400 probationary Forest Service employees, some with years of experience as seasonal firefighters, others with jobs ranging from managing prescribed fire and fuel reduction, timber sale layout, fish and wildlife habitat improvement to campground maintenance. This was followed by a court order to reinstate the fired employees, who were only soon to be fired again. Additionally, there was the buyout and retirement incentives of another 3,000 employees.

While the exact numbers are changing daily, the chaotic approach resulted in many of the top leaders, including the Forest Service chief and another dozen top agency leaders to leave or be demoted. Further, major reductions in the workforce are expected. The administration has asked USDA to significantly cut more funding and people.

This is occurring while a recent Executive Order calls for the immediate expansion of timber harvest from the National Forests and other federal public lands.

If the White House continues to dismiss the employees who manage the campgrounds, visitor information centers, trails systems for hiking, biking, horseback riding and motorized uses, facilities will have to be closed. The summer vacation season is just around the corner.

Permit holders for animal grazing, oil and gas leases, logging and mining activities will also be affected. It appears the intent is to create a number of crises for the millions of Americans who use the national forests and grasslands for their livelihoods and for their recreation. Rural economies are intertwined with the uses on these lands, bringing millions of dollars to local economies.

Are these drastic actions the first steps toward crippling the agencies so they cannot carry out their Congressionally mandated mission? If so, they portend a cynical effort to divest and transfer federal public lands to the States and private interests.

The national forests are public lands that are owned collectively by all U.S. Citizens and managed under the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act and a host of other laws. These laws allow for responsibly managed oil and gas development, mining, timber harvest, as well as recreation development, untouched wilderness, and many other uses. Most importantly, they are the backyard of families that camp, hike, bike, cut firewood, ski, float rivers, hunt or fish on their public lands without “no trespassing” signs.

More than 60 million Americans get their drinking water from streams that flow from the 193 million acres of national forests. Truly, we have a federal public land system in the U.S. that serves us daily and is the envy of natural resource professionals around the world for the benefits realized by our citizens daily. Divesture of these precious lands, that belong to all citizens rich and poor, would be an irreparable tragedy.

The first Forest Service Chief Gifford Pinchot famously wrote, “Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question shall always be answered from the standpoint of the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.” We believe the greatest good is keeping the National Forests and all federal public lands in the hands of all citizens for future generations.

The six authors of this column served as U.S. Forest Service chiefs between 1997 and 2025. Mike Dombeck (1997-2001), Dale Bosworth (2001-2007), Gail Kimbell (2007-2009), Tom Tidwell (2009-2017, Vicki Christiansen (2018-2021), Randy Moore (2021-2025).

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

My parents’ childhoods could not have been more different, but their families taught them we have a responsibility to build opportunity for one another and for our country’s future. My wife Susan and I share those values, and they have informed her work as an environmental and land use lawyer and mine as a school superintendent and Colorado’s U.S. Senator. Now I hope to carry on that fight as the next governor of Colorado.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet jumps into governor’s race, saying he wants “to forge a better politics”

I have worked alongside Coloradans to provide more opportunities in this state. Together, we led the fight to expand the Child Tax Credit, which cut taxes for 96% of Colorado families and reduced our nation’s childhood poverty rate by half. We pushed to end surprise hospital bills, limit seniors’ prescription drug costs, and provide high-speed internet to every household. In the last four years, we brought $12 billion in federal funds to every corner of Colorado to upgrade our infrastructure, produce clean energy, and modernize our water systems. Along the way, we protected many of our treasured landscapes, including Camp Hale, Chimney Rock, Brown’s Canyon, and Camp Amache.

Unlike most Coloradans, President Donald Trump does not believe we have a shared responsibility. He has aimed a wrecking ball at our democracy, asking not “What can I do for my country?” but, instead, “What is in it for me?” His economic policies will make our country even less fair and his rhetoric is intended to divide us so he remains in charge. No president’s values have been more at war with what our parents taught us and their hopes for our country.

Meanwhile, it is getting harder to live in Colorado. Housing, groceries, and child care cost too much. Health care and mental health care aren’t available to everyone. Our schools and small businesses are struggling.

Our best solutions to these challenges will not come from the broken politics practiced in Washington. They will come from us – and that’s why I am running for governor.

Colorado already is a model of leadership for our country. We have passed a robust Child Tax Credit; offered free, full-day kindergarten to Colorado’s families; and fought climate change. But too many Coloradans cannot afford a middle-class life. Those of us who are parents worry that our kids will never be able to raise their own families here.

Colorado’s challenges are not unique. They are shared by people living all over America and result from unfair, trickle-down economic decisions our country has pursued since the 1980s. In Colorado and across the country, we need to strengthen our middle class and build an economy that works better for everyone.

The answers to our economic challenges will not come from Washington’s chaos. Firing federal workers will never bring down the price of eggs. Endless fighting over government shutdowns will not help us build more housing. Cutting taxes for the wealthy will never fix our education system.

Colorado can provide the vision our country needs. We can build a future focused on the well-being of all of us, not just the few. That starts with building more reasonably priced housing so Coloradans of every income level can live near their work, and making health care, mental health care, and child care more affordable and accessible for every Coloradan. We must bring our education system into the 21st century so Coloradans can thrive in our economy, whether they graduate from high school or college. We should make it easier for small businesses, our engines of innovation, to start, grow, and stay in Colorado. We must protect our public lands and build on Colorado’s leadership in the fight against climate change and for energy independence.

As I work to earn your vote for governor, I will keep fighting every day for Colorado in the Senate. I will continue challenging President Trump’s dangerous, unqualified nominees, as I did Robert Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard. I will stand up for our democratic values here and abroad, as I have for Ukraine. I will fight Trump’s disastrous plan to take away your health care to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. I will lead those battles throughout this campaign, in the Senate, and as the next governor of Colorado.

Colorado, I am asking for your help to build a brighter future for our kids and grandkids and reclaim the idea that America stands for freedom and opportunity for all. I hope you will join us in this fight.

Michael Bennet announced Friday he will run for governor in the 2026 Democratic Party primary. Bennet has served in the U.S. Senate since he was appointed in 2009.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Now, she’s helping Durango, population 19,000, and others in the county to prepare for the inevitable approach of wildfire. During the week of April 20, more than 40 neighborhoods will participate in mock evacuations, responding to an alert as if cataclysmic fire were the real thing. Under Legarza’s leadership, it’s become an annual community event that people look forward to, a time when residents can make sure they’re ready if (or perhaps, when) the real thing happens.

Many locals can tell you that Legarza knows her stuff. She spent 20 years as one of the elite firefighters know as Hotshots, muscling a 45-pound pack deep into wilderness, digging fire lines and sleeping in the dirt.

Legarza finished her career with the Forest Service overseeing broad swaths of the nation’s firefighting apparatus. But before Legarza could become a Hotshot, she had to break into a man’s world.

“It was 1990 and I had this scrap of paper with two job openings,” she recalled, “so I called the first Hotshot superintendent who said flat out: “We don’t hire women.” Legarza, who would go on to start the San Juan Hotshots crew 12 years later, didn’t give up.

“I called the next guy on my list and said, ‘Hey, my name is Shawna Legarza and I want to be a Hotshot.'” This time she got the job. “I was super fit and I knew it was my job for life.”

Still athletic at 55, she ran 13 ultramarathons last year. A co-worker, Emily Spencer, the county’s planning section chief, calls LeGarza “tough as nails.”

By 2013, Legarza had moved up fast in the Forest Service and was overseeing all federal firefighting in California, Hawaii and the Pacific Islands. “I was year-round firefighting,” she said. What it taught her was that if you’ve planned and you’re ready to act before a wildfire erupts, you can help save people’s lives and their homes.

The consequences of not being prepared were the most heartbreaking part of firefighting, she said. “Throughout my career I had to dwell on the bad fires, the ones where people panicked. I’ve watched structures built in the trees become torches. I’ve felt the chaos when there were no appropriate roads to escape on or to bring in help.”

One local wildfire she helped fight was the 2002 Missionary Ridge fire, which burned 76,000 acres near Durango. Buildings were destroyed and mountain ranges once considered fire breaks turned into wildfire bridges.

Invited to give a talk to the Durango Rotary Club a few years ago about her career, she said the first question from the audience was: “‘You’ve had a million jobs! Are you 90 years old?’”

“I’ve worn a lot of hats,” she admitted. As a rural kid growing up in Nevada, she started out as a ranch hand, building fence and collecting manure. A slaughterhouse job earned her $1.50 a day.

Now, as spring begins with a climate growing drier and warmer, it’s no secret that forests are primed for wildfire. To get residents prepared if wildfires ignite at the edges of Durango, Legarza for the last three years has sponsored a widely popular “evacuation scenario.” There’s even a waiting list to participate.

Legarza said emergency management is about imagining the future. “Ask yourself, are you prepared? Here’s a start: remove fire fuels around your property, check your insurance, pack your go-kits, know how to evacuate.”

Specifically, that means scanning your important documents and storing them in the cloud, or for Luddites, storing them in a bag next to your door. “You could have only five minutes. Learn the safe routes out of your neighborhood and where to go when you are evacuated.”

In two weeks, Legarza’s event in La Plata County kicks off at the county fairgrounds with a wildfire preparedness workshop that includes booths offering resources for the public. It ends with an evacuation drill after make-believe fire alerts are broadcast on the county’s emergency system. Residents involved will get an IPAUSE alert, much like an Amber alert. Then it’s time for people to move quickly, gathering belongings, children and pets and going to a designated evacuation center.

“We’re not going to live forever,” said Legarza, “and every day becomes more precious than the day before. Let’s all be ready for the worst.”

Dave Marston is the publisher of Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He lives in Durango, Colorado.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Endless barriers exist preventing the start of construction and there’s a $3.2 billion price tag to build a high-speed railway along the I-25 corridor. But even with the steep timeframe and cost, the benefits will far outweigh the miles of red tape and over two decades that this commuter rail project has navigated.

Constructing fast, efficient public transportation should be more than a bottomless pit our tax money falls into. With estimated rapid increases in the state’s population and global temperatures, we need high-speed railways now more than ever.

The United States is woefully behind on public transportation. Last semester, I studied abroad in Scotland, where there were multiple bus routes to campus, trains across the country, and plane tickets to most of Europe for under 100 pounds.

Coming back to Colorado was a rough transition, to say the least.

I drive from Colorado Springs to Denver and back at least once a week. Few terms besides “insane” describe how the one-hour-and-fifteen-minute commute makes me feel.

On one of my loathsome drives to Denver, I put on the Ezra Klein podcast, where he was serendipitously talking about high-speed railways. Delays in constructing railways occur across the country, not just in Colorado, I learned. Klein outlined the problems of building a train in California and how “it took the High-Speed Rail Authority four requests for possession and two and a half years of legal wrangling to get… (a) little spit of land.”

In 2004 (the year I was born), the state passed the FasTracks ballot initiative, which was intended to build a light rail or commuter rail from Denver to Longmont. In a press release last year, Gov. Jared Polis’ administration admitted that “for 20 years voters have been paying for rail service that they have not received” and “the project has stalled due to a lack of adequate funding.”

State leaders decided they wanted to get the train project back on track.

The Denver-Longmont segment could be completed by 2029, and the entire train is estimated to be completed by 2035. Even though it’s ten years away, with federal and funding hold-ups, I question whether I will see this train before I’m middle-aged.

In 2021, Colorado passed Senate Bill 238, which established the Front Range Passenger Rail District. This new transportation district has the ability to put ballot measures before voters to ask for money. A ballot measure may even come on the 2026 ballot asking Colorado voters for funding.

Former President Joe Biden passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which gives funding to projects like high-speed rail. The Infrastructure Act money could be critical to provide funding for building the train, but these grants come with stipulations that local funding has to match 10% to 20% of what the infrastructure bill gives, according to Nancy Burke, spokesperson for the Front-Range Passenger Rail District.

After that, it can take two to six years for train cars to go into operation because they need to be refurbished and meet safety standards set by the Federal Railroad Administration, Burke explained. The district will need to acquire the land needed to build stations, figure out scheduling, and do all of this while working with different local organizations and municipalities.

When it comes to actually building the train, the district is using existing freight rail tracks, which helps speed up the process, but the state will still have to build sidings — places where the train can pull over if there are multiple trains on the track at once.

Gov. Polis rode a test train from Denver to Longmont in March of 2024, a public relations stunt, promising to fulfill the 2004 promise of a train through the Front Range Passenger Rail district. It’s scheduled to be completed four years after the press and politicians crammed into a car and declared they “broke that barrier.”

The year 2029 is also the year the Colorado legislature mandates that the Service Development Plan be completed for the entire project. However, construction cannot even begin until the plan is finished, and the state must still navigate through muddy federal waters.

The district will enter the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) stage where, with public involvement, the district figures out how to minimize harm to the environment. Once that gets approved, they can enter the final planning and development stages.

By 2035, the Front-Range Passenger Railway is estimated to be completed, according to Burke. “Things are moving fast for a project of this size. We have to keep our eyes on the prize for future generations,” Burke said.

But Trump is cutting NEPA and firing a lot of the employees that would be helping approve these plans and could interfere with federal funding. This may cause the process to take even longer.

Between the current administration, government bureaucracy (that DOGE is not fixing), and America’s adoration of driving cars, a train serving the Front Range is an uphill battle.

I wish I could say I was writing this piece altruistically — that my passion about climate change, my empathy for commuters, and my love of smart growth and affordable transportation supersedes my absolute hatred for driving down I-25. It doesn’t, and I want to be able to take a train across the state.

Sofia Joucovsky studies international political economy with a minor in journalism at Colorado College.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The system currently available to assist veterans in accessing the benefits they earned through their service suffers from a number of inherent flaws. This stems from chronic underfunding of the Veterans Administration, a confusing benefits program, and a consequent backlog in the processing of claims. Of the roughly 922,000 pending VA claims for disability compensation and benefits, more than 245,000 are considered to be backlogged, defined as being older than 125 days – more than four months.

Several factors contribute to, and serve to exacerbate, this backlog: the last two decades have produced the most veterans since the Vietnam era; veterans from all eras are aging; there is expected to be a further increase in claims associated with exposure to Agent Orange and toxic burn pits; and the underfunding problem is not expected to be alleviated anytime soon. All of this means that the benefit processing backlog will continue to grow, and that veterans will need additional options for navigating the system and accessing what they have earned.

There are currently four avenues available for veterans in handling claims: 1) they can elect to go it alone and try to navigate the labyrinthian system themselves and hope for the best; 2) Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs) staffed mainly by volunteers; 3) lawyers and other VA-accredited actors who work on a fee-for service model, to assist with legal appeals or denied claims; and 4) private consulting agents, who work on a contingency basis, i.e. they only get paid if the veteran receives a benefit increase.

Each option has its benefits and drawbacks. VSOs are fantastic organizations but are often overstretched and not always available in every part of the country. Lawyers only get involved once a claim has been denied or another sort of appeal is needed and have the option of charging substantially more if a claims appeal last longer than 15 months, meaning legal fees can add up significantly. Private consulting agents are not lawyers – meaning they cannot represent veterans in front of the VA on appeals – but assist veterans in handling the process from the start, and can be incredibly useful in filling gaps where other options are unavailable, inappropriate, or too expensive.

While private actors fill an important role, and do so currently, they also operate in a completely unregulated space. Most who provide this service are decent, honest individuals who work hard to get the veterans who come to them every cent they are owed; but sadly there are dishonest and unscrupulous individuals who try and take advantage of struggling veterans by charging outrageous fees, failing to provide the services paid for, or otherwise defrauding them. HB 1233 sought to establish safeguards such as compensation caps, written disclosures and terms, and ethical and certification standards that would ensure veterans would still have the option of using their services without fear of financial victimization.

Some lawmakers have suggested the solution is to simply ban private consulting agents, but this approach would be both unrealistic and misguided. These individuals have already helped hundreds of thousands of veterans successfully secure VA disability benefits and the extreme backlog, complexity, and growing uncertainty of the current system creates a demand for this service that will likely exist one way or another.

The best approach is for state governments to recognize such realities and to provide the requisite oversight and legal guardrails to ensure all operate honestly and legally. Our veterans willingly offered all they had in the service of their country. At the very least, the society they protected should be able to offer them the greatest choice of options for accessing the benefits they earned.

State Sen. Nick Hinrichsen represents Senate District 3 in Pueblo, and is a U.S. Army combat veteran. State Rep. Rebecca Keltie represents House District 16 and is a 21-year U.S. Navy veteran.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The same is true for vacancy committees. Vacancy committees are small groups of party insiders who select replacements for legislators who voluntarily (e.g., resign) or involuntarily (e.g., die) vacate office.

These groups can be composed of more than 100 individuals. But recent committees consisted of fewer than 20, including one committee where 19 people determined who represented 165,000 people in the Colorado Senate and another where nine decided who would represent 88,000 people in the House.

And these vacancy committees are not composed of randomly selected voters from the electorate. Committee members must belong to the party controlling the vacated seat, eliminating more than half a district’s voters in the first instance. Invariably, these committees are composed of the most politically active party members; the most conservative Republican apparatchiks and most progressive Democrats, creating committees composed of unrepresentative slices of an unrepresentative slice of the electorate.

Colorado has used this process since 1951.

If only a half-dozen legislators obtained seats by this method, few would notice. But over the past 20 years, obtaining seats through vacancy appointments increased to where in the last session 30% of Colorado’s legislators obtained seats at some point through vacancy appointments.

Colorado has the highest number of lawmakers in the nation who did not enter the legislature through normal elections. And it has become self-perpetuating: two senators who had been appointed by vacancy committees resigned in January with their successors chosen by . . . vacancy committees.

This undemocratic system is an unintended consequence of Colorado imposing term limits in the 1990s. With hard dates by which legislators must leave office, it dramatically increases the incentive and ability for insiders to manipulate the system to choose representatives for the people, rather than voters making that choice.

Status quo supporters claim voters still choose because the appointee must run for election to retain the seat. But the power of incumbency provides anointed legislators powerful inside tracks asking voters to ratify the vacancy committee’s selection rather than allowing voters to choose a replacement in normal democratic processes.

Any “reform” leaving this self-perpetuating incumbent selection system in place is cosmetic: slapping lipstick on a pig.

Two methods could address these issues with real reform: special elections or by appointing interim officials who finish the term but cannot run in the next general election for that office.

Special elections, used by half the states, are the best reform … in theory. In practice, special elections would not serve Colorado well. Any fair special election process requires 60-120 days. With Colorado’s 120-day legislative session, there would be cases where vacant seats overlap the session, depriving districts of representation during critical law-making periods. Additionally, “off-year” elections will produce “off” results with low turnout not representative of the district; while costs to run one-off special elections would be fiscally burdensome to many districts.

Therefore, I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 1002 with 14 cosponsors (seven Republicans/seven Democrats) to provide voters a choice to limit vacancy appointees to the term of office of their appointment. Appointees could run for a different office or run for the same appointed office in the next cycle. However, they would be ineligible to run for the appointed office in the subsequent election.

This preserves voters’ and candidates’ expectations that elected representatives obtain seats through normal democratic processes without pre-selected insiders chosen for the people. And the best part? It would be voters deciding the issue, not politicians and special interests conspiring behind closed doors against Colorado’s citizens to preserve the status quo.

That final issue is an acute concern given that the same day we introduced HCR-1002, a competing leadership-directed bill came forward which undercuts real reform. This bill proposes financial disclosures, live-streaming vacancy committees and ensuring appointees would stand for election within a year.

These elections would potentially include voters from the party controlling the vacant seat and unaffiliated voters (but exclude voters from other parties). None of these reforms were concerns of average citizens; they simply do not want a third of Colorado’s legislators appointed by political insiders.

Additionally, excluding voters of an opposing party from otherwise open elections has serious constitutional concerns. But it also violates simple fairness. I’m a conservative Democrat representing a district with more registered Republican than Democratic voters. Under this bill, if I died tomorrow, my most progressive constituents would choose my replacement, excluding conservative constituents and yielding a representative unlikely reflective of Highlands Ranch’s median voter.

Sponsors admit their bill is “complicated.” But one thing it ensures: unrepresentative party insiders will continue choosing vacancy appointees for voters to later ratify, rather than allowing voters to choose their representatives in the open electoral process they expect.

State Rep. Bob Marshall represents Colorado House District 43. He’s a Democrat from Highlands Ranch.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Our party had turned to labeling anyone who does not meet the standards as RINO’s or Republican In Name Only. While we believe in the First Amendment and cannot control the actions of every Republican in Colorado, the state party will no longer be facilitating and promoting such behavior. As a party through our social media platforms, we will turn our efforts toward what the party is supposed to be doing: supporting Republicans. We plan to abide by Reagan’s 11th Commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

Our party turned to ugly so-called purity and litmus tests and has driven away many voters over these tactics. As the late Republican President Ronald Reagan once stated, “The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and ally, not a 20% traitor.” It is time the Colorado Republican Party fully embraces that spirit once again. As I told this very paper, “We’re just opening up the tent, bringing out the welcome wagon, rolling out the mat and saying ‘You’re all welcome.’”

Our party has also strayed from many long-standing norms, including our tradition of pre-primary neutrality. The endorsement of candidates, from president down to county commissioner, alienated voters who rejected the notion of being told whom they should support. The results spoke for themselves — 14 of the 18 endorsed candidates lost. This practice never should have been implemented, and under my leadership, we will return to our traditional approach of letting Republican voters decide their nominees without interference from the state party.

Open, competitive primaries produce stronger candidates who can win in general elections. Our role is not to anoint winners — it is to help all Republicans succeed against Democrats in November.

Our welcome mat is not just for disenfranchised former Republicans — it is also for those who have never affiliated with us before. Our doors are open to Democrats, unaffiliated voters, and those affiliated with minor parties who share our values. In fact, the current Republican President of the United States, Donald Trump, himself along with Vice President J.D. Vance and many of the leaders within their administration, were once members of the opposite party.

We recognize that many unaffiliated voters in Colorado lean conservative, even if they do not formally register as Republicans. If we want to win in 2026 and beyond, we need to actively engage these voters and show them that they have a home in the Republican Party. That means articulating a clear vision for Colorado — one that prioritizes economic prosperity, public safety, and parental rights in education.

During my campaign for chair, this message resonated with many non-traditional Republicans. I was proud to receive endorsements from leaders within conservative youth organizations, Log Cabin Republicans, and the Hispanic community. These groups have long been ignored, downplayed, or forgotten by the Republican Party. That must change. The Republican Party must represent all Coloradans who believe in individual liberty, economic opportunity, and limited government.

There are countless voters across Colorado who share our conservative values, but if we do not engage with them, they will only hear one side of the political debate. We welcome them into our big tent and are committed to ensuring that the Republican Party reaches out to these communities. We cannot sit idly by, waiting for these voters to realize they align with our party. It is our responsibility to actively spread conservative values and show them why the Republican Party is their home.

If you have ever felt like politics has left you behind or that no party truly represents you, I invite you to join us. Whether you are a lifelong Republican, a former member, or someone who has never considered our party before, there is a place for you under this big tent. Together, we can build a stronger, more united Republican Party — one that listens, includes, and wins. The future starts now.

Brita Horn is the Chair of the Republican Party of Colorado.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

This week, lawmakers began the process of remedying that oversight. A bill to restrict pornographic websites to only those over the age of 18 passed by a bipartisan 8 to 1 vote in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.

Senate Bill 201 would require such websites to verify each potential user’s age by employing commercially available, independently certified technology highly effective in establishing that an individual is not a child.

The law is necessary because too many children and teens are viewing online pornography. One survey conducted in 2022 by CommonSense Media found 73% of teens had been exposed to pornography on purpose or accidentally. The average age of first online exposure was 12 years of age and over half of respondents reported having watched pornography showing rape, choking, or pain.

Pornography isn’t good for anyone, but for children and teens it risks significant psychological harm. When exposed to porn, young people face “increased rates of depression, anxiety, acting out and violent behavior, younger age of sexual debut, sexual promiscuity, increased risk of teen pregnancy, and a distorted view of relationships between men and women,”  according to the American College of Pediatricians. Teens who use porn are also more likely to use drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, suffer low body image, and have a hard time interacting socially.

Those who have been exposed to porn at a young age are also more likely to pose a risk to others. Elizabeth Newman, the public policy director for the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, shared with lawmakers that “There is a direct and significant link between early exposure to pornography and that individual causing sexual harm to others. Given these risks, it is reasonable to require websites that host pornographic material to take steps to prevent children from accessing it.”

Given these risks, age verification for porn website access is common in European countries. In the U.S., more than 20 states also have laws. One such law out of Texas went before the Supreme Court in January in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton. The law requires users be 18 years old or older and show ID if content is one-third or more “harmful to minors.”

The Free Speech Coalition, a trade group for the porn industry — yes, there is such a thing — contends the definition is too broad and could characterize non-porn adult content such as R-rated movies and artistic nudes. The high court is expected to rule in spring.

In the meantime, there is no reason the General Assembly shouldn’t pass Senate Bill 201. Afterall, gambling websites require age verification and porn has a more pernicious impact on the growing mind than gambling. The law would not stop adults from accessing pornography, but given its negative impact, perhaps it should give adults pause.

Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.