Seed Newsvine
The House gave final approval Thursday to a bill that would make it a crime to threaten a judge.
HB 1115 provides that a person who threatens bodily harm or death to a judge, or to a member of a judge's family or a person who lives in the same house as a judge, can be guilty of a class 4 felony if the threat is made knowingly or intentionally.
Criminal liability would attach even if the threat is not communicated directly to the judge. A violation would occur if "the individual intended that the communication would be relayed to the judge [or] if the other person is required by statute or ethical rule to report the communication to the judge."
The bill passed 59-6 after Rep. Wes McKinley, D-Walsh, warned that it might, in some circumstances, result in infringement of a person's constitutional right of free speech.
Sponsored by legislators of both parties, the bill now heads to the Senate.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
House Kills Proposal to Elect PUC Members
The House defeated a proposal to require members of the Public Utilities Commission to be elected Wednesday, rejecting an amendment by Rep. Paul Weissman, D-Louisville, that would have expanded that body's membership from three members to seven and placing those positions on the ballot for the fall 2008 election.
House Committee Postpones Vote on Medical Malpractice Bill
The House Judiciary Committee postponed Wednesday a vote on a controversial bill that would increase the maximum of amount of money a malpractice plaintiff can recover and authorize damages for disfigurement.
The hearing on SB 164 drew a large crowd to the Old Supreme Court Chambers at the Capitol. Dozens of people in support of the bill wore yellow shirts, while several dozen physicians in opposition wore white lab coats.
The committee's decision to postpone consideration of the bill came after two Democrats indicated they were not inclined to support the bill. Given that the commitee's four Republicans were likely to vote "no," those two additional possible "no" votes would have been enough to kill the bill.
SB 164 is sponsored by Rep. Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, and Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver.
The hearing on SB 164 drew a large crowd to the Old Supreme Court Chambers at the Capitol. Dozens of people in support of the bill wore yellow shirts, while several dozen physicians in opposition wore white lab coats.
The committee's decision to postpone consideration of the bill came after two Democrats indicated they were not inclined to support the bill. Given that the commitee's four Republicans were likely to vote "no," those two additional possible "no" votes would have been enough to kill the bill.
SB 164 is sponsored by Rep. Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, and Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Bill Expanding Ban on Discrimination Against Gays Introduced
A bill that would expand the state's ban on discrimination on the basis of sexual preference has been introduced in the Senate.
SB 200, by Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, would mandate equal treatment in housing, public accommodations, credit decisions and many other areas, including:
* Membership in labor organizations;
* Inclusion in public works projects;
* Issuance of a license to practice law;
* Sales of cemetery plots
* Determination of whether expenses paid at or to a club that
has a policy to restrict membership are tax deductible;
* The provision of funeral services;
* Enrollment or classification of students at private
occupational schools;
* Eligibility for jury service;
* Enrollment in a charter school, institute charter school,
public school, or pilot school for expelled students;
* Written local school boards of education policies regarding
employment, promotion, and dismissal;
* The assignment or transfer of a public school teacher;
* Leasing portions of the grounds of or improvements on the
grounds of the Colorado state university - Pueblo and the
Colorado school of mines;
* Employment in state personnel system;
* The provision of adequate hospital facilities;
* Availability of family planning services;
* Employment practices of county departments of social
services involving selection, retention, and promotion of
employees;
* Participation in the managed care program under the
children’s basic health plan;
* Making or committing to make a housing facility loan by
the Colorado housing and finance authority; and
* Imposition of a discriminatory occupancy requirement on
charitable property for which the owner is claiming an
exemption from property taxes based on the charitable use
of the property.
The bill would apply to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-gendered individuals. It also extends the provisions summarized above to other categories, including sex,
marital status, disability, age, national origin, ancestry, and religion.
Last year the General Assembly approved, and Gov. Bill Ritter signed, a bill that prohibits discrimination against people in those categories in employment decisions.
SB 200, by Sen. Jennifer Veiga, D-Denver, would mandate equal treatment in housing, public accommodations, credit decisions and many other areas, including:
* Membership in labor organizations;
* Inclusion in public works projects;
* Issuance of a license to practice law;
* Sales of cemetery plots
* Determination of whether expenses paid at or to a club that
has a policy to restrict membership are tax deductible;
* The provision of funeral services;
* Enrollment or classification of students at private
occupational schools;
* Eligibility for jury service;
* Enrollment in a charter school, institute charter school,
public school, or pilot school for expelled students;
* Written local school boards of education policies regarding
employment, promotion, and dismissal;
* The assignment or transfer of a public school teacher;
* Leasing portions of the grounds of or improvements on the
grounds of the Colorado state university - Pueblo and the
Colorado school of mines;
* Employment in state personnel system;
* The provision of adequate hospital facilities;
* Availability of family planning services;
* Employment practices of county departments of social
services involving selection, retention, and promotion of
employees;
* Participation in the managed care program under the
children’s basic health plan;
* Making or committing to make a housing facility loan by
the Colorado housing and finance authority; and
* Imposition of a discriminatory occupancy requirement on
charitable property for which the owner is claiming an
exemption from property taxes based on the charitable use
of the property.
The bill would apply to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-gendered individuals. It also extends the provisions summarized above to other categories, including sex,
marital status, disability, age, national origin, ancestry, and religion.
Last year the General Assembly approved, and Gov. Bill Ritter signed, a bill that prohibits discrimination against people in those categories in employment decisions.
Limit on Prosecutors' Power to File Adult Charges Against Kids Heads to Senate
After a second lengthy and sometimes emotional debate, the House gave final approval Tuesday to a controversial bill that would force prosecutors to obtain a judge's permission before charging 14- and 15-year old children with crimes in adult court.
HB 1208 would not impose a similar limit with regard to 16- and 17-year old children charged with crimes. However, the bill establishes a "reverse transfer" process by which a judge could order a case filed directly in adult court back to the juvenile justice system.
Opponents of the measure argued, as they had Friday, that the bill creates the possibility that children charged with serious crimes would not serve enough time to be rehabilitated or properly punished. They also forcefully asserted that taking away district attorneys' authority to "direct file" a criminal charge against young teenagers in adult courts would disrespect victims and encourage more juvenile crime.
"I want to remind you that the law is what it is in Colorado today is in response, a reasoned response, to a summer of violence in 1993. The idea of directg filing on juveniles for serious crimes was an effort to end gang violence. It did so," Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, said. "The juveniles who are particularly violent do receive the rehabilitation treatment they need."
But the bill's backers, including Rep. Liane "Buffie" McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, said opponents were overreacting.
"I believe all of us care about victims," McFadyen said. "But this bill doesn't necessarily change an outcome. It doesn't change sentencing."
McFadyen said the issue addressed by the bill is whether it should be easy for a prosecutor to sentence to life in prison a 14- or 15-year old children.
"That should not be an easy process," McFadyen said.
But Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, argued that the creation of direct-file authority for district attorneys in 1993 was essential to reducing crime.
"When we are tough on crime, we reduce the numbers of crime," Gardner said. "Prior to direct file, gangs would often have a 14- or 15-year old member perform drive-by shootings or killings as part of initiation knowing that sentences for a juvenile would be minimal. We should not be encouraging any age group or part of our society to be part of a crime."
Rep. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, responded that the issue is not whether violence is tolerated. "With or without this bill, as long as things can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, these folks will be punished," she said. "The question we have to ask ourselves is, 'is there a reason to treat juveniles different from adults?' If not, let's just get away from the pretense of having a juvenile justice system and treat them all as adults."
Carroll argued that the real issue before the House was how to decide whether to try a juvenile as an adult.
"The real process question is, 'How do we decide if a juvenile should be tried as an adult?'", she said. "You can either have one of the parties in an adversarial system have unilateral, unchecked ability, unappealable decision, to put juveniles in an adult system or you can actually put the same question to an impartial factfinder, a judge, and give due process to juveniles on the question as to wehther they should be tried as a juvenile or as an adult. The question is who should be making the decision."
Rep. Anne McGihon, D-Denver, disputed a statement by Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, that taking away direct-file authority is a mistake that will embolden gangs.
"Taking away direct file is not a mistake," McGihon said. "Forty-six other states seem to function very well without direct file against juvenile defendants."
Rep. Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, disputed in turn McGihon's argument that the the U.S. Constitution requires a hearing before a juvenile can be charged in adult court.
"It's important to understand that nobody has a right to have a hearing before charges are filed against them," Bruce said.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in a 1966 case called Kent v. United States that the due process clause of the 14th amendment does require a hearing, at which a juvenile is represented by counsel, before a criminal case against that juvenile is transferred to adult court.
The bill, which cleared the House on a 34-30 vote, now moves to the Senate.
If approved there, prospects for approval by Gov. Bill Ritter are uncertain.
"I think there's a serious question whether, if this bill makes it to the governor's desk, it will be signed," Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, said.
According to sponsor Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, Ritter told her during a conversation last year that he was not in favor of a bill that would entirely eliminate district attorneys' ability to direct-file against a juvenile in adult court.
But Levy says she does not believe Ritter has ruled out signing a bill that limits that authority to 16- and 17-year olds.
"I've talked to him since then about this more modest change to the direct-file statute," Levy said. "He's still not comfortable with it. I did not take his comments that he would close the door on signing a bill that deals with direct filing."
Spokespersons for Denver district attorney Mitch Morrissey and 18th judicial district attorney Carole Chambers declined to comment on final House passage of HB 1208.
HB 1208 would not impose a similar limit with regard to 16- and 17-year old children charged with crimes. However, the bill establishes a "reverse transfer" process by which a judge could order a case filed directly in adult court back to the juvenile justice system.
Opponents of the measure argued, as they had Friday, that the bill creates the possibility that children charged with serious crimes would not serve enough time to be rehabilitated or properly punished. They also forcefully asserted that taking away district attorneys' authority to "direct file" a criminal charge against young teenagers in adult courts would disrespect victims and encourage more juvenile crime.
"I want to remind you that the law is what it is in Colorado today is in response, a reasoned response, to a summer of violence in 1993. The idea of directg filing on juveniles for serious crimes was an effort to end gang violence. It did so," Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, said. "The juveniles who are particularly violent do receive the rehabilitation treatment they need."
But the bill's backers, including Rep. Liane "Buffie" McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, said opponents were overreacting.
"I believe all of us care about victims," McFadyen said. "But this bill doesn't necessarily change an outcome. It doesn't change sentencing."
McFadyen said the issue addressed by the bill is whether it should be easy for a prosecutor to sentence to life in prison a 14- or 15-year old children.
"That should not be an easy process," McFadyen said.
But Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, argued that the creation of direct-file authority for district attorneys in 1993 was essential to reducing crime.
"When we are tough on crime, we reduce the numbers of crime," Gardner said. "Prior to direct file, gangs would often have a 14- or 15-year old member perform drive-by shootings or killings as part of initiation knowing that sentences for a juvenile would be minimal. We should not be encouraging any age group or part of our society to be part of a crime."
Rep. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, responded that the issue is not whether violence is tolerated. "With or without this bill, as long as things can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, these folks will be punished," she said. "The question we have to ask ourselves is, 'is there a reason to treat juveniles different from adults?' If not, let's just get away from the pretense of having a juvenile justice system and treat them all as adults."
Carroll argued that the real issue before the House was how to decide whether to try a juvenile as an adult.
"The real process question is, 'How do we decide if a juvenile should be tried as an adult?'", she said. "You can either have one of the parties in an adversarial system have unilateral, unchecked ability, unappealable decision, to put juveniles in an adult system or you can actually put the same question to an impartial factfinder, a judge, and give due process to juveniles on the question as to wehther they should be tried as a juvenile or as an adult. The question is who should be making the decision."
Rep. Anne McGihon, D-Denver, disputed a statement by Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction, that taking away direct-file authority is a mistake that will embolden gangs.
"Taking away direct file is not a mistake," McGihon said. "Forty-six other states seem to function very well without direct file against juvenile defendants."
Rep. Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, disputed in turn McGihon's argument that the the U.S. Constitution requires a hearing before a juvenile can be charged in adult court.
"It's important to understand that nobody has a right to have a hearing before charges are filed against them," Bruce said.
The U.S. Supreme Court held in a 1966 case called Kent v. United States that the due process clause of the 14th amendment does require a hearing, at which a juvenile is represented by counsel, before a criminal case against that juvenile is transferred to adult court.
The bill, which cleared the House on a 34-30 vote, now moves to the Senate.
If approved there, prospects for approval by Gov. Bill Ritter are uncertain.
"I think there's a serious question whether, if this bill makes it to the governor's desk, it will be signed," Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, said.
According to sponsor Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, Ritter told her during a conversation last year that he was not in favor of a bill that would entirely eliminate district attorneys' ability to direct-file against a juvenile in adult court.
But Levy says she does not believe Ritter has ruled out signing a bill that limits that authority to 16- and 17-year olds.
"I've talked to him since then about this more modest change to the direct-file statute," Levy said. "He's still not comfortable with it. I did not take his comments that he would close the door on signing a bill that deals with direct filing."
Spokespersons for Denver district attorney Mitch Morrissey and 18th judicial district attorney Carole Chambers declined to comment on final House passage of HB 1208.
Juvenile Justice Bill Advances
The House, after a lengthy and often emotional debate, gave preliminary approval Friday to a bill that would take away the power of district attorneys to charge 14- and 15-year olds with crimes as adults.
Sponsor Claire Levy, D-Boulder, opened the debate by pointing out that a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case, Kent v. United State, held that the U.S. constitution requires that a hearing be provided to a child before he or she is subjected to the possibility of adult punishment.
"The current law in Colorado is even more egregious than what the Supreme Court struck down in 1966," Levy said.
Rep. Liane "Buffie" McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, argued that HB 1208 is necessary to allow a child offender a realistic chance to be rehabilitated. "All we're asking in this very modest piece of legislation is give a child a chance to make it," McFadyen said. "This bill does nothing to change the outcome of court cases."
Rep. Anne McGihon, D-Denver, broke down in tears as she pleaded with her colleagues to pass the bill.
The bill passed on a voice vote, but Republican opponents then mounted an effort to reverse that approval. An amendment to the Committee of the Whole report aimed at blocking the bill failed on a 34-29 vote. Six Democrats voted with all but one Republican to kill the bill. They included Speaker Andrew Romanoff of Denver, Appropriations Committee chair Bernie Buescher of Grand Junction, Jerry Frangas of Denver, Sara Gagliardi of Arvada, Christine Scanlan of Dillon, and John Soper of Thornton. Rep. Marsha Looper, R-Calhan, was the only Republican to vote against the effort to overturn the voice-vote approval of the bill.
Sponsor Claire Levy, D-Boulder, opened the debate by pointing out that a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court case, Kent v. United State, held that the U.S. constitution requires that a hearing be provided to a child before he or she is subjected to the possibility of adult punishment.
"The current law in Colorado is even more egregious than what the Supreme Court struck down in 1966," Levy said.
Rep. Liane "Buffie" McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, argued that HB 1208 is necessary to allow a child offender a realistic chance to be rehabilitated. "All we're asking in this very modest piece of legislation is give a child a chance to make it," McFadyen said. "This bill does nothing to change the outcome of court cases."
Rep. Anne McGihon, D-Denver, broke down in tears as she pleaded with her colleagues to pass the bill.
The bill passed on a voice vote, but Republican opponents then mounted an effort to reverse that approval. An amendment to the Committee of the Whole report aimed at blocking the bill failed on a 34-29 vote. Six Democrats voted with all but one Republican to kill the bill. They included Speaker Andrew Romanoff of Denver, Appropriations Committee chair Bernie Buescher of Grand Junction, Jerry Frangas of Denver, Sara Gagliardi of Arvada, Christine Scanlan of Dillon, and John Soper of Thornton. Rep. Marsha Looper, R-Calhan, was the only Republican to vote against the effort to overturn the voice-vote approval of the bill.
Monday, March 3, 2008
House Sends ORV Bill to Ritter
The House approved amendments Friday to a bill that would prohibit off-road vehicle use on federal lands in the state unless those lands are designated by the federal management agency for that purpose and sent the measure to Gov. Bill Ritter.
HB 1069 makes violation of federal rules governing ORV access on BLM, USDA Forest Service, National Park Service and National Wildlife Refuge lands a misdemeanor and grants Colorado law enforcement officers authority to enforce those rules.
Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, the chair of the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee, sponsored the bill. The Senate sponsor was Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton.
HB 1069 makes violation of federal rules governing ORV access on BLM, USDA Forest Service, National Park Service and National Wildlife Refuge lands a misdemeanor and grants Colorado law enforcement officers authority to enforce those rules.
Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, the chair of the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee, sponsored the bill. The Senate sponsor was Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)