The party’s chairwoman, Hannah Goodman, sent the slurs Friday after a commenter privately messaged the party’s Facebook account to criticize what he saw as its “asinine” postings. After an initial exchange that included the commenter sarcastically highlighting the party’s lack of electoral success, Goodman — replying through the party’s official account — defended her party’s achievements and repeatedly referred to the commenter using an anti-gay slur.

She also repeatedly referred to him using a slur for people with intellectual disabilities.

Goodman continued using the slurs after the commenter said he planned to take the messages to the media. The party confirmed in a statement Saturday that Goodman, a congressional candidate last year, sent the messages. In a subsequent email exchange in which the commenter asked party leadership for an apology, Goodman told the commenter that she had authored the messages through the party’s Facebook account.

“There is no such thing as bad press,” Goodman wrote in the Facebook exchange, according to copies of the messages provided to The Post by the party. “Also, I’m the chair of the party. So … no (expletive) given.”

The commenter, who is gay and requested anonymity to share the exchange out of a fear of harassment, said he had never spoken with Goodman or the party previously.

He said Goodman’s initial responses were fine, given the “sassy” nature of his initial message to the party. But he said he was taken aback by how “grossly homophobic” her subsequent responses were since he was just “some rando who tried to get smart with them.”

Goodman did not return a message seeking comment Friday. On Saturday, the party’s executive director, James Wiley, sent The Post a seven-page statement that defended the party’s political relevance, touted the success of a recent social media posting on the party’s Facebook page, and further criticized the commenter.

Wiley referred to a meme produced by Goodman as an “artistic work product” that, Wiley wrote, had prompted the initial criticism from the commenter.

“These judgements were rendered entirely at (the commenter’s) own suggestion without any prompting on the part of the party or its representatives,” Wiley wrote.

Wiley confirmed that Goodman wrote the messages and said he stood by them. He concluded the statement by calling the commenter another slur and quoting a character from the animated show “South Park.”

The party, which was founded in Colorado more than 50 years ago, has long been a minor player in the state’s elections. It has the third-most party affiliations among Colorado voters. Both Goodman and Wiley have run unsuccessfully for Congress.

But the party played a more substantive role in last year’s contests — by not participating in them.

In 2023, the party’s leadership reached an agreement with the Colorado Republican Party to keep Libertarian candidates out of some races, so long as the Republican candidates in those contests signed a pledge to align with Libertarian values. That was thought to improve the Republican candidates’ chances of winning, including in the tight 8th Congressional District race later won by now-U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

In a video announcement, Lopez spoke about putting “people over politics” while hitting on Republican red-meat issues like “government overreach,” cutting taxes and regulations, and referencing conservative concerns about public education.

“People over politics means cutting through the government red tape, making life more affordable and putting families first,” he said in the video. “This movement is about listening, not dividing.”

Lopez is the highest-profile Republican to join the 2026 gubernatorial field seeking to succeed term-limited Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat who has served since 2019. Lopez is set to compete in the GOP primary next year against at least two state lawmakers, Rep. Scott Bottoms and Sen. Mark Baisley, as well as Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell.

Last week, Democratic U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet unveiled his long-anticipated campaign for governor, catapulting himself to the front of small Democratic field previously dominated by Attorney General Phil Weiser.

In June, Lopez won a special election to represent the Eastern Plains’ 4th Congressional District for roughly six months after former U.S. Rep. Ken Buck stepped down early. Lopez didn’t pursue a full term, and the seat was later won by U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, who switched from the 3rd Congressional District.

Lopez’s stint in Congress was the second shortest of any Coloradan, behind William E. Burney’s two-month stretch in the early 1940s. Lopez previously told The Denver Post that it was an “honor and a pleasure” to have worked in Congress, even if he felt like an exchange student.

Earlier, Lopez served as the mayor of Parker. He ran for governor in 2018 and 2022, losing in the primary race each time. In 2016, he briefly ran for a U.S. Senate seat. A former director for the Small Business Administration, Lopez reached a settlement with the Trump administration’s Department of Justice in 2020 to resolve allegations that he’d violated conflict-of-interest policies.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

That means a continuous flurry of floor votes in both chambers as sine die approaches in early May. In the House this week, representatives will debate House Bill 1321, which would dedicate $4 million to the governor’s office to defend against “adverse” action from the Trump administration, including possible criminal investigations, as we reported last week. That will likely be a tense debate: The House’s top Republican, Minority Leader Rose Pugliese, foreshadowed her concerns with the bill in brief comments on other legislation last week.

The House will also debate bills seeking to implement policies around book bans in schools; to allow small cars common in Japan — called “kei vehicles” — onto (most) Colorado roads; and to institute an easier licensing system for food trucks. House Bill 1174, which would cap certain hospital reimbursements, is also up for a first House vote this week.

Also calendared for a first full vote in the House: Senate Bill 5, the pro-union bill backed by Democrats and opposed by businesses and Gov. Jared Polis. The measure has been floating while lawmakers and labor leaders seek to find a deal that would see the bill signed into law while advocates pull down a union-backed ballot measure proposal that, if it wins voter approval, would represent a more significant win for workers and a bigger threat to the state’s businesses.

Across the Capitol, the full Senate is still waiting to debate House Bill 1169, the so-called YIGBY — or “Yes in God’s Backyard” — bill allowing housing to be built on religious and educational properties. The measure’s been rolled over repeatedly in recent weeks, apparently at the request of its sponsors, according to the Senate’s majority leader.

The Senate is set to give final approval to a bipartisan bill that seeks to prevent landlords from charging fees to the families of tenants who’ve died. The Senate was initially set to vote this week on Senate Bill 201, which would require people to verify their ages before looking at pornographic websites. But the chamber’s leaders then summarily moved to table the bill late Monday morning, killing it entirely.

Senate Bill 276, which would expand existing state law to further limit federal immigration authorities’ ability to work in the state, is also scheduled for a floor vote this week.

Here is what else is scheduled this week:

Reproductive health bills

On Monday, the Senate’s Judiciary Committee will discuss Senate Bill 130, which generally would require hospital departments — including labor and delivery caregivers — to provide emergency treatment to patients who need it. It effectively places existing federal protections into state law, with an emphasis on abortion care. The bill has undergone some changes, and supporters are holding a news conference Monday afternoon to rally support for it.

Then, on Tuesday, the House’s Appropriations Committee will vote on House Bill 1259. The bill is partially focused on enhancing protections for in vitro fertilization in state law. But it would also roll back and alter some regulations related to sperm and egg donors that were passed nearly three years ago. That’s made it controversial, and it’s been held up amid negotiations and opposition.

More committee votes

Elsewhere Monday afternoon, the House’s State, Civic, Military and Veteran Affairs Committee will debate two election bills. One — the Colorado Voting Rights Act — would enshrine federal voting protections in state law amid fears of federal intervention. Right after that, the committee is set to vote on House Bill 1327, which would make some changes to the ballot measure process, including a requirement that voters be told how much revenue would be generated by tax increases.

The Senate’s Judiciary Committee on Monday will debate House Bill 1282, which would eliminate credit card “swipe fees” charged to businesses on taxes or tips paid by customers. It’s a bipartisan bill, but it’s vehemently opposed by credit card companies, some business groups and airlines.

The Senate’s Appropriations Committee will vote on a Regional Transportation District reform bill on Tuesday morning — a late start for a toned-down version of last year’s contentious reform attempt, which prompted a fight.

A legislative HR department?

Legislative leadership will discuss the establishment of a human resources department in the Capitol on Tuesday afternoon. That’s long been a desire of legislative aides, and it would likely involve the expansion of the legislature’s existing — and small — Office of Workplace Expectation.

Legislative leaders previously signaled support for establishing a larger HR office, though they also said last month that they wanted to do so slowly to keep costs down.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Senate Bill 33, which passed the legislature with sizable bipartisan support, blocks the state from issuing any more liquor licenses to drugstores, which typically means grocery stores that also have pharmacies. Supporters had argued that the law would help support independent liquor stores as grocery stores — which can now sell wine and beer — move increasingly into alcohol sales.

The new law, signed by Polis on Thursday, means more grocery stores can’t expand into selling hard liquor.

“Independent liquor stores are important small businesses in communities across the state, especially in small towns, and they are the lifeline for Colorado’s craft breweries and distilleries,” Sen. Dylan Roberts, a Frisco Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said in a statement Friday. “Without this law, we’d see more local job layoffs and more closures of these stories across the state because they’d be turfed out by big box stores.”

The bill was also backed by Sen. Judy Amabile and Reps. Naquetta Ricks and Ron Weinberg.

Colorado has 36 active drugstore liquor licenses, according to a nonpartisan legislative analysis. The law is expected to prevent about two dozen more licenses from being issued in the next two years.

The law does not impact grocery or drugstores that already have those licenses; they’ll still be able to renew them. Lawmakers had pursued similar limitations in previous years, and Roberts said SB-33 was a compromise compared to those attempts, which would’ve removed existing licenses.

In signing the bill, Polis bucked retail and grocery store industry groups that had asked him to veto it. In a signing statement, Polis wrote that he was concerned the bill would move the state’s “liquor laws backward, not forward.”

But the legislative support for the bill was so overwhelming, he continued, that it forced his hand away from the veto pen. Eighty-four of the legislature’s 100 lawmakers voted in support of the bill.

Opponents criticized the bills’ passage into law and floated the possibility of a ballot measure to reverse the new policy, which goes into effect immediately.

“On behalf of hundreds of businesses and thousands of employees in Colorado, we are disappointed that the governor has signed this protectionist measure into law when the current system balances consumer choice, business sustainability, and safety,” Ray Rivera, the executive director of Coloradans for Consumer Choice, said in a statement. “Senate Bill 33 disrupts this balance, contradicts the will of voters, and does nothing to improve public safety.”

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Proposed funding cuts for community health workers led to amendments and pleas from lawmakers looking to boost a workforce that one senator called a “lynchpin” for his rural district. Meanwhile, the proposed delay of tens of millions of dollars in highway funding has outside organizations worried about road conditions in coming years.

In both cases, critics warned that the proposed cuts and delays would cause more harm than savings. But the fiscal math doesn’t lie, budget writers counter — no matter how painful it makes the decisions.

Members of the Joint Budget Committee, which wrote the state’s spending document for the 2025-26 fiscal year, faced the deep budget hole this year because of the constitutional spending limit set by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. The cap resulted in cuts big and small across the government as lawmakers sought — successfully — to protect funding for education and Medicaid.

“It is heartbreaking,” said Rep. Shannon Bird, a Westminster Democrat on the budget committee. “When you’re cutting $1.2 billion out of the budget, it’s impossible to fund all the things we would like to fund as a Joint Budget Committee. … This breaks our heart as well. It’s not a decision we would make in a different fiscal situation.”

The House passed the budget 44-21 on Thursday. It would authorize about $44 billion in total spending and $16.7 billion in general fund spending for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1. The Senate passed the budget in early April.

Now, the Joint Budget Committee will need to reconcile the two versions before the budget goes to Gov. Jared Polis for approval.

The budget isn’t all cuts, however. Budget writers also tout another $150 million for education and a 1.6% boost to how much most medical providers would be reimbursed under Medicaid — both areas of early worry when lawmakers faced such a massive shortfall.

And not all proposed cuts have gotten as much heat, including a $1 million cut to bullying prevention in the Education Department, caused by sagging marijuana revenue; a $4.2 million reduction for peer services in the Health Care Policy and Financing Department; and $4 million in total cuts to the Behavioral Health Administration. A troubled Medicaid transportation program was slashed by more than $13 million, and jail-based competency programs took a $2.3 million hit.

In one of the several dozen budget orbital bills, so called because of their close relation to the budget bill itself, lawmakers also formally killed an eating disorder prevention program launched amid an increase in diagnoses and concern about treatment centers. That program had been pared back even before it was passed two years ago — also for budget reasons — and lawmakers this week swept away what remained.

“They have a really difficult, almost impossible, job to do,” said Zach Zaslow, the vice president of community health and advocacy for Children’s Hospital Colorado. “There are a lot of worthy causes out there.”

Fight over community health workers

But he’s among those concerned by a proposal to cut Medicaid reimbursement for community health workers, which has drawn particular consternation.

The measure, an orbital bill, would kill a program established by a 2023 law, though it hasn’t taken full effect yet. The program would cost an estimated $2.8 million, though its elimination would also lead to the loss of more than $8 million in federal matching funds.

Community health workers help people connect with and navigate complicated health care systems. Advocates said the use of the workers leads to immediate and long-term savings by helping patients get care before they wind up in costly emergency rooms.

This program would have bolstered existing networks throughout the state. But, budget writers argued, it wasn’t going to launch until July 1. They saw it as a place to save money without harming existing services, even as they lauded its intent.

“This cut was not one that was easy to make,” Bird said.

Earlier in the budget process, the Senate amended the bill that would defund the program to halve the cut, to $1.4 million. That change did not make it into the House version.

The chambers still need to reconcile the two versions of the bill — one with some funding, one without any — before the budget goes to Polis. It’s an open question whether the funding survives and, if it does, where the money might come from.

Patti Valverde, the director of the Colorado School of Public Health’s programs at the University of Northern Colorado, said community health workers are a “bridge” between their communities and health care, with decades of research backing up their efficacy.

They proved vital during the COVID-19 pandemic to helping people who didn’t trust the public health departments or speak English as their first language, she said. She also warned that cuts would disproportionately affect rural areas.

“It really would be a huge loss and we would be going backwards” without the program, Valverde said. “And we would lose (community health care workers) because without reimbursements, we’ll lose grant funds … we just won’t see return on investment with the ways this workforce can really reduce costs.”

Valverde said she’s been working to implement the Medicaid reimbursement program for two years. Hundreds of workers have been trained already under the expectation that Medicaid will soon start helping to pay their wages, she said.

Zaslow, from Children’s Hospital Colorado, said it’s one of the rare programs where not only does it pay off down the road, but it would pay off in health care savings the year it’s implemented.

In the Senate, a bipartisan group of lawmakers pushed the funding through, over the objections from the budget committee members. Sen. Kyle Mullica, a Thornton Democrat who pushed to soften the cut, said the state sees more than $2 in return for every $1 spent on the program. Sen. Marc Catlin, a Montrose Republican, called community health workers a “lynchpin” in his community.

But the state needs to find cuts somewhere when it’s facing a $1 billion hole this year and projecting similar cuts next year, Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican on the budget committee, said.

“While I appreciate this, and understand the need, this program has not started,” Kirkmeyer said. “It doesn’t start until July 1. And starting on July 1, next (fiscal) year — probably even before next year — we’ll have to start deciding what cuts we’re going to make.”

Slow-rolling transportation funding

A separate budget move has been roiling other elected leaders, though it doesn’t seem to be gaining traction among lawmakers: slow-rolling some transportation funding to save $70 million this upcoming budget year and $56.5 million next year. The proposed changes would boost planned funding in the early 2030s, however.

While budget writers finalized the spending proposal last month, a coalition of rural county commissioners and business groups signed a public letter asking to keep transportation funding in place. The state already has a massive backlog of roadwork that needs to be done, they said, and delays in funding will only slow the state’s response to the need for highway maintenance, construction and safety improvements.

A lack of funding is “jeopardizing the safety of our citizens and impeding our state’s economic progress and competitiveness,” they warned.

During debate, the budget-writing lawmakers countered that the proposal wasn’t a cut, just a delay. Transportation projects don’t materialize based on yearly budgets, but based on long-term funding windows, said Kirkmeyer, who spent two decades on a transportation advisory committee.

She said the committee worked with the Colorado Department of Transportation to ensure there would be no “hiccup in funding transportation projects.”

“This is one of those items that I think all of us would prefer not to have to do to balance the budget,” said state Rep. Rick Taggart, a Grand Junction Republican on the budget committee. “There’s no question about it.”

Bad road conditions, whether due to snow or the potholes it causes, are a consistent concern throughout the state. A recent study by the Common Sense Institute, a think tank focused on the economy and free enterprise, found that new transportation fees passed in recent years have largely gone to multimodal projects, such as mass transit, and environmental mitigation, while money for base infrastructure hasn’t kept up.

“CDOT resources do not meet demand,” the study found. “Over the long term, the resources available simply are insufficient to operate, maintain, and expand the state’s highway system to maintain appropriate service levels.”

Ben Stein, a former chief financial officer for CDOT and author of the CSI study, warned that delaying repairs can result in more urgent, costlier repairs down the road. Today’s postponed repaving project can easily become tomorrow’s road reconstruction problem, for example.

“The legislature says it’s in a bind today … so they’re going to put it on a back end in 2032 or 2033,” Stein said. “Who’s to say the legislature in 2032 or 2033 won’t say they’re also in a bind, so they’re going to push that money off another 10 years?”

But he, like everyone else wary of the cuts who spoke for this story, also struck a conciliatory tone. The size of the budget gap backed lawmakers into a corner, giving them the unenviable task of cutting their way out.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Starting next summer, Coloradans will have to pass a background check and a training course before they can purchase a swath of semiautomatic firearms that include most of the guns known colloquially as assault weapons. Senate Bill 3 also prohibits the sale of bump stocks and rapid-fire trigger activators, which are firearm components that can increase a gun’s rate of fire.

The bill’s sponsors said it was intended to prevent future mass shootings and enforce the state’s existing prohibition on high-capacity magazines.

“We have been able to add to the safety of each and every Coloradan, especially when it comes to gun violence,” said Sen. Tom Sullivan, a Centennial Democrat who co-sponsored the bill with Sen. Julie Gonzales and Reps. Meg Froelich and Andy Boesenecker.

SB-3, which passed the legislature late last month, becomes the most sweeping gun-control measure passed by legislative Democrats in Colorado, and its passage into law was cheered Thursday by national gun-control groups Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety.

Though the law doesn’t impose a complete ban on assault weapons or any type of firearm, it follows in the footsteps of previous attempts in the Capitol to fully prohibit the sale or purchase of those guns. A group of activists, including local students who’d repeatedly come to the state Capitol calling for tighter regulations, attended the bill signing in the governor’s office Thursday.

Before the bill was signed, Froelich referred to those students as the “lockdown generation” that has lived their “whole school lives in the shadow of gun violence.”

“Today’s victory is because of the countless students that showed up day after day to testify in support of this life-saving bill,” Grant Cramer, a gun violence survivor and the co-president of Denver East High School’s Students Demand Action chapter, said in a statement. “We refused to take no for an answer and now we’ve strengthened our gun safety laws in Colorado. This is proof that our voices hold power to create change, no matter how big or small.”

Ian Escalante, the executive director of the group Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, called the bill’s passage into law “one of the most disgraceful things that’s ever been done in the state.” After the bill had drawn national attention from gun-rights advocates in recent weeks, the National Rifle Association quickly put out a blistering statement criticizing Polis’ decision to sign it.

Escalante said his group was considering legal options to challenge the bill — though they likely won’t be able to pursue litigation until the bill goes into effect next year. He also said he planned to pursue “electoral accountability” in 2026, referring to challenging Democrats in competitive districts.

“We’re not going to let this law stand,” he said outside the governor’s office, “whether it’s through litigation or whether we kick these bastards out and we replace them with people who will repeal it.”

Law doesn’t apply to common handguns

The new law goes into effect Aug. 1, 2026. It applies primarily to gas-operated semiautomatic firearms that accept detachable magazines, a definition that includes the AR-15 rifle and many guns like it. It would require people pass background checks from their county sheriff. Should they clear that, they would need to take either a four- or 12-hour training course, depending on whether they’ve passed a hunter safety class.

Polis said Thursday that he wanted to keep the cost of background checks and training to below $200 per person and that he wanted additional carveouts for people who’d previously been trained with the weapons.

The law does not prohibit the possession of the weapons. It does not apply to most common handguns or shotguns, and lawmakers included a list of other firearms that are exempt from the limitations. The law also would not require anyone to turn in their firearms.

Gun shops can also continue selling firearms covered under the law, even to people who haven’t passed background checks, so long as the weapons have been altered to have a fixed magazine — meaning that they cannot be reloaded as rapidly.

All of the legislature’s 34 Republican lawmakers — along with several Democrats — voted against the bill. Conservatives labeled it an infringement on the Second Amendment and argued it would do little to stop gun violence.

Opponents delivered thousands of petitions to Democrats and to Polis’ office requesting that the proposal be rejected, and some also left flyers at the homes of Democratic lawmakers.

A skeptic of previous proposals to ban firearms at the state level, Sullivan embraced SB-3 as a means to enforce the 2013 magazine ban passed after the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, in which Sullivan’s son, Alex, was killed. Other advocates and supporters said the bill seeks to prevent the mass shootings that have become a common feature of American life.

The new law’s limitations would apply to the guns used in the Aurora attack as well as to the weapons used at Columbine High School in 1999, at the Boulder King Soopers in 2021, and in a shooting spree in Lakewood and Denver in late 2021.

Polis sought changes to bill

As initially drafted, the bill would’ve broadly banned the sale or purchase of any gas-operated gun that accepted detachable magazines — which simultaneously would’ve escalated the magazine ban and enacted a de facto ban on most existing assault weapons.

But Polis balked, and his staff sought to insert a loophole into the measure allowing for sales to continue under certain circumstances.

In a late-night deal, Sullivan and Gonzales eventually acquiesced to the governor’s request. They added in the training and background check requirements after a needed supporter — embattled then-Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis — was absent ahead of a key vote.

In a statement accompanying the bill signing, Polis focused largely on the changes inserted into the bill to allow the firearms to still be sold to people who complete SB-3’s training and background check requirements.

“This bill ensures that our Second Amendment rights are protected and that Coloradans can continue to purchase the gun of their choice for sport, hunting, self defense, or home defense,” he wrote.

With SB-3, Colorado joins a growing list of states that have either instituted a permitting scheme — meaning requirements that people receive some sort of approval before they can purchase certain weapons — or an outright ban on semiautomatic rifles.

The law will almost certainly be challenged in court, though legal scholars and supporters have argued it stands on solid constitutional footing.

Legislative Democrats have enacted a growing list of firearms regulations, largely in the past few years as the party’s legislative majorities have grown. Sullivan said 40 gun-violence prevention bills have been introduced in recent years, nearly half of which have passed.

Those new laws include a mandatory waiting period and age limit for purchasing firearms, new gun-storage rules and additional gun shop licensing requirements. Lawmakers have also further limited where firearms can be carried and have expanded the legal avenues for a court to temporarily confiscate a person’s weapons.

After signing SB-3 on Thursday, Polis then signed another Sullivan-backed bill intended to help bring federal funding to the state to respond to mass shootings.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

House Bill 1147 would limit city courts from administering sentences that go beyond state limits for the same crimes. Legislative reforms in 2021 significantly reduced maximum penalties for a host of low-level, nonviolent crimes in Colorado’s state courts. But municipal courts, which operate individually and are not part of the state judicial system, were not included in the statute.

As a result, defendants in Colorado’s municipal courts can face much longer sentences than those in state court for the same petty offenses, The Denver Post previously found.

The bill, sponsored by Reps. Javier Mabrey and Elizabeth Velasco and Sens. Judy Amabile and Mike Weissman, all Democrats, passed both chambers.

The sponsors say the governor never weighed in on the bill or asked for changes as it traveled through the House or the Senate. But they learned in recent days that Polis might veto their legislation.

“It’s been disheartening to learn the governor might be succumbing to pressure from some Colorado municipalities and might be at risk of vetoing the bill,” Weissman told The Post. “That would be the wrong outcome from Colorado.”

Ally Sullivan, a Polis spokesperson, would not confirm the veto threat, but said the governor is “skeptical of actions that may limit local governments’ ability to improve public safety in our communities and neighborhoods.”

“The governor will carefully review any bill that reaches his desk,” she said in a statement.

Mabrey said he wasn’t sure about next steps and that lawmakers are trying to decide whether to change the bill — and determine what could be changed — to ensure its passage into law.

“We have two (expletive) systems of law that are totally dependent on what box a police officer checks,” Mabrey said. “What people who are against this bill are saying is they’re OK with some criminal defendants getting less due process and are not OK with the sentencing guidelines passed by the (state).”

Amabile said she disagreed that the bill would harm public safety.

“There is this other public safety thing, where the cities feel like, ‘Well, if we just put people in jail who are committing crimes that are crimes homeless people make … then we will clean up our streets,’ ” she said. “But what that does is it destabilizes the person. It’s like we’re creating poorhouses, and it imposes a burden on the counties because they’re the ones who have to pay to keep somebody in jail.”

City representatives, during committee hearings on the bill, opposed the bill in strong language, saying the changes would encroach on their ability to deal with crimes specific to their jurisdictions. The Colorado Constitution also explicitly allows for home rule, they said, meaning cities have the freedom to legislate on matters of local concern.

The mayors of Colorado’s three largest cities — Denver, Aurora and Colorado Springs — asked Polis in a letter to veto the legislation.

“HB25-1147 is a significant overstep of our home rule authority and negatively impacts our ability to address crime in a manner that is relevant to our communities as outlined in the Colorado Constitution,” Mayors Mike Johnston, Mike Coffman and Yemi Mobolade wrote in the letter Wednesday. “This legislation, which would prevent municipal leaders from addressing specific local issues faced by their constituents, would have a negative impact on our residents who expect their elected leaders to address local issues head-on.”

Police officers often have wide latitude in deciding whether to send offenders to municipal or state court. That decision, The Post found, carries enormous consequences.

Colorado law allows cities to punish people who commit city ordinance violations with up to 364 days in jail. Those facing similar, low-level charges, such as trespassing or petty theft, would only see a maximum of 10 days in jail if convicted in state court.

The Colorado Supreme Court is considering the legality of these sentence disparities, and a ruling could have wide-ranging impacts on municipal codes throughout the state. Oral arguments are set for May 13.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Using state money set aside to match federal dollars, House Bill 1321 would establish a fund to hire staff or contractors to defend against threats to federal funding that’s due to the state. The money could also be spent on reimbursing the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, should its attorneys have to defend state leaders and employees against legal and criminal proceedings filed against them. That would include potential inquiries from Congress.

Should the $4 million prove insufficient, the bill would also allow Polis’ office to accept gifts, grants and donations to add to the fund — meaning that the state could essentially use crowdfunding to defend itself and its funding streams from the Trump administration.

The measure comes as hundreds of millions of dollars set to flow to Colorado have been abruptly frozen — and, in most cases, unfrozen — by the federal government in the weeks since President Donald Trump returned to office.

Attorney General Phil Weiser has filed or joined more than a dozen lawsuits against the Trump administration, related both to funding concerns and to other actions undertaken by the president.

“Clearly, with this very expansive approach to funding freezes and alterations or cancellations of multiple grant programs, the state is in need of additional capacity to adequately defend the interests of Colorado citizens,” House Speaker Julie McCluskie, the Democratic leader who’s sponsoring the bill, told a legislative committee Tuesday morning.

While the federal government has largely reversed its initial January widespread funding freeze, other program dollars destined for Colorado are in limbo or have been lost.

More than $230 million in health grants have been rescinded — sparking another lawsuit — and Weiser’s office is part of more litigation challenging the freezing of Federal Emergency Management Agency money. A federal judge found the latter was a covert effort by the Trump administration to withhold money from Democrat-led states.

The bill was introduced in the state House on Friday night and cleared an initial committee vote Tuesday morning. It’s also being sponsored by Rep. Shannon Bird, the vice chair of the powerful Joint Budget Committee.

In a statement in response to an interview request, Weiser said the state was experiencing “an unprecedented number of illegal actions that threaten our state and the rights of Coloradans” under the Trump administration. He said he’d also asked the legislature to provide money for three more lawyers in his office, in addition to the $4 million proposed in HB-1321.

Polis’ office said in a statement Tuesday: “We believe that to properly defend the free state of Colorado from unlawful and adverse actions taken against the state, protect Coloradans and state employees, and generally prepare for the uncertain federal environment ahead, it’s critical to ensure we have adequate resources to meet the moment.”

Thus far, the governor has taken an even-handed approach with Trump — encouraging some increased immigration actions, offering praise of top Trump health official Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and speaking favorably about some of billionaire Elon Musk’s efforts to cut government spending.

But Polis has been more critical of Trump’s economic policies, including his recent tariff announcements, and of actions that threaten or freeze state funding.

“Making sure that we’re ready to go”

Bird and McCluskie said the bill wasn’t proposed in response to any imminent or expected criminal or congressional investigations. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against some Democrat-run cities and states over their immigration policies, though the agency has not yet pursued any similar action against Colorado.

Bird said the state would use part of the money to build up capacity in its agencies for responses to documentation or investigative requests from federal authorities.

“We are anticipating more (funding freezes), so we’re making sure that we’re ready to go and defend what we legitimately have expectations to receive,” she said. “Coloradans ought to understand that.”

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston was called before Congress to discuss his city’s immigration policies, but the funding from HB-1321 likely could not be used to defend individual cities, municipal leaders or their employees, Bird said.

Before the mayor’s trip to testify to a congressional committee last month, the city approved a $2 million contract with a Washington, D.C., lawyer to help Johnston navigate the hearing. The contract also covers help for Denver officials during the ongoing congressional investigation of several cities.

The fear of additional cuts — or other adverse actions by the federal government — has been a prominent undertone during the first three months of the legislative session. House Democrats formed four working groups late last year to prepare for impacts from Trump’s return to the White House, and lawmakers recently introduced a bill aimed at better protecting immigrants without proper legal status from federal authorities.

Republicans have seized on threats

Polis’ staff has told lawmakers that the governor doesn’t want to pass legislation that would make the state a target for the Trump administration. The president has already taken special notice of the Colorado Capitol: He criticized a portrait of him hanging in the building last month, prompting a rapid response from Polis and legislative leaders to remove the painting.

In the House, Republican lawmakers have used the risk of federal funding cuts to try to amend controversial bills. On a prominent gun-control measure, for instance, Republican legislators tried to insert an amendment that would invalidate the new law unless federal officials confirmed they wouldn’t strike federal funding because of the law’s passage.

On Tuesday, all four Republican members of the House Appropriations Committee voted against the bill, though it still passed and is now bound for the House floor.

Rep. Stephanie Luck, a Penrose Republican, asked McCluskie about any expected criminal investigations and if the state would defend local authorities — like mayors or law enforcement agencies — if the “federal administration were to follow through with threats of bringing charges” against them.

“I think it would be premature for me to forecast again what might be coming forward,” the speaker replied. “But I do believe the state has an obligation to defend both programs and contracts that are currently established, and (to make) sure any commitments the state has made — that we meet our obligation and that we fully respond to any specific attacks on those programs.”

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

The two favored bills, which cleared an initial House committee, are essentially a package aimed at changing the vacancy-filling process: House Bill 1315 would allow lawmakers appointed via a vacancy committee to serve no more than a full session in the Capitol before standing for an election, while House Bill 1319 would enact similar election parameters for vacancy-appointed commissioners in large counties.

Both bills are bipartisan, and they passed the House’s State, Civic, Military and Veteran Affairs Committee in succession.

The often-criticized vacancy committee process is used when an elected official leaves office early. That official’s party then convenes a committee of party officials and volunteers to elect a new representative.

The process is fast — ensuring that voters don’t go without representation for long — but they’re also insular and can be composed of anywhere from dozens down to a handful of people. They’ve drawn scrutiny over candidates’ ability to lobby and stack committees with supporters.

Nearly a quarter of Colorado’s 100 state lawmakers were at one time appointed through a vacancy committee, and five lawmakers won appointments in just the last three months. As a result, more than 10% of the entire state Senate entered the Capitol through a vacancy appointment since the New Year.

“It’s important to have a process by which someone can get appointed quickly and fill that vacancy to provide that representation,” said Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat co-sponsoring the bill that applies to lawmakers, on Monday. “But there’s also an expressed desire to make sure someone is going before the voters to get into office.”

The bill’s impact would depend on when the vacancy occurs, with the committee-appointed replacement lawmaker either standing later in a special election or just running for a full term the next time the seat is on the ballot. The bill is also sponsored by Minority Leader Rose Pugliese, the House’s top Republican.

After passing those two bills, the committee rejected a different and competing reform proposal: a constitutional amendment that would require anyone who wins a vacancy vote to sit out the next election, making that person a short-term legislator. The measure, which would have needed voter approval, also had bipartisan support. It was pitched as an attempt to blunt any boost given to vacancy-appointed incumbents when they face a fuller vote.

“There’s a problem. There’s an antidemocratic element going through our state legislature where, last year, 29 out of 100 legislators got their seats originally by a vacancy committee appointment,” Rep. Bob Marshall, the sponsor, told the committee, citing slightly different figures. The Highlands Ranch Democrat backed a similar idea last year.

The committee also rejected a more modest reform proposal by Republican Rep. Stephanie Luck.

How vacancy process would change

The vacancy process has long come under criticism for its insider nature. But that criticism has been accompanied by renewed zeal amid concerns about backroom dealing and the rush of recent appointments.

The high rate of turnover in the Capitol is partially driven by term limits, which prompt short-timer lawmakers to have one eye on the next job. It’s also spurred by the combination of the modest pay and long hours of legislative life, Sirota said.

Sirota and Pugliese’s bill would essentially require any lawmaker appointed through a vacancy committee to stand for election after serving during a maximum of one legislative session.

It would work like this: If a legislator were to resign before July 31 in an odd-numbered year (like this year), the replacement selected by a committee would be up in a special election in November. If a legislator resigned before July 31 in an even-numbered year, the replacement would run for election in the regularly scheduled November contest.

It gets a bit tricky during the windows in between: If a state senator resigns partway through a four-year term on Aug. 1, 2026, and wasn’t supposed to be up for reelection until 2028, the replacement would run in a special election in November 2027. But if it’s a state representative resigning a seat, which is up for election every two years, the appointed replacement for the resigning representative would be required to run in November 2026 — right after their vacancy appointment.

However, if the replacement was appointed in December 2026, they’d be up for a special election the following November.

There are typically far fewer November races on the ballot in odd-numbered years — including zero legislative seats — but Pugliese said that there are typically ballot measures and local elections. That would ensure more participation than the few dozen people — and sometimes far fewer — who sit on vacancy committees.

Not all voters could participate

The new odd-year special elections, when called, would also be restricted to participation only by voters from the resigned legislator’s party and unaffiliated voters. So if a Democratic senator resigned, only Democratic and unaffiliated voters could participate in the subsequent election to confirm — or reject — the appointed replacement.

The bill would also fill in a campaign finance loophole by requiring vacancy candidates to follow the same reporting requirements as candidates in general and primary elections, and it would require that vacancy committees’ proceedings be livestreamed.

Vacancy reforms had been backed by the Colorado Democratic Party after the rush of resignations and reshuffling earlier this year. The party’s executive director, Karin Asensio, testified in favor of Sirota and Pugliese’s bill Monday.

But it was opposed by the committee’s two Republicans and by two officials from the League of Women Voters, who said prohibiting some voters from participating in the new elections may violate the U.S. Constitution.

The bill was also opposed by Marshall, the Democrat who sponsored the competing constitutional amendment that the committee rejected. For Marshall, a core problem with the vacancy committee appointments is the benefit given to appointees when they do stand for their next election.

He’d referred to Pugliese and Sirota’s bill as “lipstick on a pig” — including in an opinion piece in The Denver Post last week — because, he argues, even special elections would still be slanted toward an incumbent previously appointed via a vacancy committee.

Despite Marshall’s criticism, the bill now moves to another vote in House Appropriations. Should it survive that committee, it will move to the full House.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

The proposed budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year, which starts in July, cleared the state Senate in perfunctory fashion last week. Now it begins what will likely be a more tense journey through the House. That means there will be few committee meetings on this side of the Capitol as House members spend most of the week debating the budget — known as the “long bill” — and its cluster of 60-some related measures, known as “orbitals.”

The long bill is, well, long, and the orbitals revolve around it. The legislature is a clever place.

If all goes to plan, the budget will be on the House floor Wednesday, Thursday and — if need be — Friday for a parade of amendment proposals from Democrats and Republicans alike. It’ll then likely go to a conference committee of House and Senate legislators to resolve amendments made in each chamber before going to Gov. Jared Polis for passage into law.

The reason the budget’s visit to the House may be more tense is because there are rumors, just as happens every year now, that House Republicans may request that the long bill be read aloud. It’s a constitutionally protected procedural move that would essentially halt all other business while the budget — all of its many, many pages of mumbo-jumbo numbers and line items — is read out in monotone by a computer.

Doing so would take the better part of an entire calendar day.

House Republicans spokeswoman Laurel Boyle said Monday morning that the caucus was still sorting out its budget plans but added that its members would generally advance amendments challenging what Republican lawmakers consider “waste, fraud and abuse” in the budget.

The budget debate comes after a tense few days in the House. On Friday and Sunday, House Democrats limited and, for some measures, completely ended debate on four bills related to abortion and transgender rights. Limiting or ending debate are tools rarely deployed against filibusters or — in this case — heated debates.

We’ll see if that has consequences for the budget in a few days. Speaking of the budget: The school funding bill is also moving this week. After negotiations with nervous school districts, House Speaker Julie McCluskie unveiled her proposal last week, and it will be in the House’s Education Committee on Monday.

Here’s what else is happening in the Capitol this week, with votes subject to change:

Labor bill inches closer to finish line

Senate Bill 5 — Democrats’ and labor unions’ marquee bill of the year — passed a final committee vote last week and is now scheduled for House floor work this week. That might happen Tuesday or Friday.

We say “might” for two reasons: One, the budget is a floor-work blackhole from which no other bills can escape. And two — and more critically — is that negotiations around the bill are ongoing. The bill would eliminate a provision of labor law that requires a second union election before organized workers can fully negotiate a part of their contracts dealing with dues and fees. It’s backed by legislative Democrats and opposed by businesses and Polis, who has gestured at vetoing the bill should it pass without successful negotiations with businesses.

Such a deal hasn’t happened yet, though McCluskie is pushing. But time is running out: The bill now needs two votes in the House before moving to Polis, and there’s just one month left in the session.

Vacancy committee bonanza

Before the budget crunch begins, the House’s State, Civic, Military & Veteran Affairs Committee will hear five — F-I-V-E — bills Monday afternoon dealing with vacancies in elected offices. Typically that means vacancy committees — the process by which a small group of party officials and volunteers select a replacement when an elected official leaves office early.

The process has drawn intense scrutiny in recent years — roughly a third of the legislature earned a vacancy appointment at one point or another, and rumblings about backroom deals marred a recent process late last year and prompted renewed calls for reform.

Two of the bills focus on replacing county commissioners, and three deal broadly with vacancy committees. There’s an intraparty kerfuffle there, too, over competing bills on the latter topic. We’ll have more on that later today.

Housing vote — and a porn bill — in the Senate

Fresh from Budget Crunch: Part I, the Senate will have little time to catch its breath. Of many votes scheduled in that chamber this week, several are for housing bills. That includes House Bill 1169 — the so-called YIGBY bill, for “Yes in God’s Backyard” — which would make it easier for houses of worship and educational institutions to build housing on their land. That’s up for a first floor vote.

House Bill 1240 is also up for a floor vote, possibly as early as Monday. The bill would, among other things, give tenants more time to pay back-rent before their landlords can try to evict them.

House Bill 1108 will get a committee vote Thursday. That bill would block landlords from charging fees when one of their tenants dies in the middle of a lease.

Outside of the housing world, Senate Bill 201 is up for a first floor vote this week, too. That bill, which has bipartisan support, would require pornographic websites to check users’ ages before they’re allowed to access the material within. Similar policies have been adopted in other states.

Brace for more bill signings

On a final note: The tail end of the legislative session means Polis begins signing bills into law in earnest. That’s been happening for a few weeks now, of course, but as heaps of legislation crosses the line, expect to see more stories from us and others about proposals moving into state statute.

On Monday morning, Polis signed a bill eliminating anti-same sex marriage language from state law. Voters eliminated the defunct constitutional ban on same-sex marriages in November, and this bill conforms state law to the constitution — and to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated our marriage bans.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.