Week of February 15-21, 2026
BAD BILLS KILLED (Proper Outcome)
HB26-1149: Legislative Committee Testimony Required Oath
Sponsors: Rep. Ty Winter (R-Greeley), Rep. Larry Don Suckla (R-Pueblo)
Killed: House State, Civic, Military & Veterans Affairs Committee, Thursday, February 19 (Vote: 7-4)
Despite Republican sponsorship, this bill would have required all witnesses testifying before legislative committees to take an oath affirming truthfulness under penalty of perjury. Current law allows voluntary testimony without oath requirements except in specific investigative contexts.
Legislative committees are not courts. They conduct policy hearings where citizens share perspectives, experiences, and opinions on proposed legislation. The bill would have transformed public testimony from civic participation into a legal proceeding with criminal consequences for misstatements.
The perjury standard requires proving someone knowingly made a false statement of fact. Applied to legislative testimony, this creates significant problems. Citizens testifying about personal experiences, policy preferences, or interpretations of data do not make sworn factual claims in the legal sense. A constituent saying “this bill will hurt small businesses” expresses an opinion, not a verifiable fact subject to perjury prosecution.
The bill would have chilled public participation. Citizens would need to consult attorneys before testifying about complex policy matters. Fear of inadvertent misstatement or challenged interpretation would discourage ordinary Coloradans from participating in the legislative process. Wealthy interests who can afford legal review would dominate committee testimony.
Legislative committees already have authority to request documentation, question witnesses, and consider credibility when evaluating testimony. Lawmakers can discount testimony they find unreliable without imposing criminal penalties. The oath requirement would not improve legislative decision-making but would create barriers to public participation.
The State Affairs Committee’s decision to kill this bill preserves accessible public testimony. Citizens retain the right to address their elected representatives without transforming civic participation into a legal proceeding requiring attorney assistance. Republican sponsors did not explain what problem this bill would solve or provide evidence that false legislative testimony creates issues warranting criminal penalties.
BAD BILLS THAT PASSED COMMITTEE
HB26-1001: Housing Developments on Qualifying Properties
Sponsors: Rep. Andrew Boesenecker (D-Fort Collins), Rep. Javier Mabrey (D-Denver), Sen. Tony Exum (D-Colorado Springs), Sen. Julie Gonzales (D-Denver)
Status: Passed House Third Reading, headed to Senate
House Democrats passed legislation requiring local governments to allow housing development by nonprofits, school districts, state colleges, public housing authorities, and transit districts on property they own, subject only to administrative approval rather than normal land-use review. The bill overrides local zoning, comprehensive plans, and development codes when these entities seek to build housing.
Current law grants local governments land-use authority under police powers reserved by the Colorado Constitution. Counties and municipalities adopt zoning ordinances, comprehensive plans, and development standards through public processes involving community input. This bill creates a separate approval track for favored developers, exempting them from requirements that apply to private property owners.
The “administrative approval process” means local governments cannot deny projects that meet basic criteria even when developments conflict with neighborhood plans, infrastructure capacity, or community character. Local elected officials lose discretion to balance housing needs against other legitimate community interests.
The bill creates special privileges for government-affiliated entities. A nonprofit with “demonstrated history of providing affordable housing”—defined by whom, using what standards?—receives approval that private developers cannot obtain. School districts and universities gain development rights unavailable to taxpaying property owners.
Article XX of the Colorado Constitution reserves police powers, including land-use authority, to local governments. Does this bill’s limitation on local zoning authority exceed the legislature’s constitutional power? The Colorado Supreme Court has recognized broad local authority over land use, particularly for home rule municipalities.
The bill’s sponsors removed faith-based organizations from last year’s version after constitutional concerns about government preference for religious entities. But creating privileges for secular nonprofits and government agencies raises equal protection questions. Why should these entities bypass zoning requirements that apply to all other property owners?
The House passage sends this local control elimination bill to the Senate, where it will test whether Democrats value housing production over constitutional limits on state power.
HB26-1018: Long-term Care Services for Nursing Home Residents
Sponsors: Rep. Jamie Jackson (D-Colorado Springs), Sen. Judy Amabile (D-Boulder), Rep. Junie Joseph (D-Denver)
Passed: House Health & Human Services Committee (Referred Amended to Appropriations)
House Democrats advanced legislation creating presumptive Medicaid eligibility for individuals being discharged from nursing facilities and requiring county human services departments to arrange long-term services before discharge. The bill establishes remedial measures for counties that fail to set up required services and for nursing facilities that delay discharges.
Current law requires individuals to apply for Medicaid and establish eligibility before receiving long-term services and supports. Counties verify income, assets, and medical necessity through established procedures. This bill reverses the sequence—directing the state to presume eligibility and requiring counties to arrange services before completing the eligibility determination.
The “presumptive eligibility” process creates administrative and fiscal risks. Counties must commit resources and arrange services for individuals who may not ultimately qualify for Medicaid. When subsequent review determines someone does not meet eligibility criteria, counties face costs for services already provided. The bill does not specify how counties recover expenses when presumptive eligibility proves incorrect.
The legislation requires county human services departments to arrange long-term services “before an individual’s discharge date.” This mandate transfers responsibility for discharge planning from nursing facilities to county governments. Nursing homes can essentially demand that counties provide alternative placements on the facility’s timeline, regardless of local capacity or resources.
The bill establishes “remedial measures” for county departments that fail to set up required services. What remedial measures? State takeover of county functions? Financial penalties? The bill grants the state Department of Health Care Policy and Financing authority to punish counties that cannot meet mandates the legislature imposes.
Does this bill violate Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, which prohibits unfunded state mandates on local governments? Counties must establish new programs and provide services without corresponding state funding for the administrative costs of presumptive eligibility determinations and accelerated service coordination.
The Health Committee’s approval advances this county mandate expansion to Appropriations, where fiscal analysis may reveal the true cost to local governments.
HB26-1026: Expanding Plan Options for PERA
Sponsors: Rep. Bob Marshall (D-Denver), Rep. Chris Kolker (D-Denver), Sen. Eliza Hamrick (D-Boulder)
Passed: House Finance Committee (Referred Unamended to Appropriations)
House Democrats passed legislation requiring all PERA employers—including counties—to affiliate with PERA’s deferred compensation plan and offer it to employees. The bill expands PERA member options to purchase service credit for certain noncovered time and broadens PERA’s voluntary investment program starting January 1, 2027.
Current law allows counties that are PERA employers to choose whether to affiliate with PERA’s deferred compensation plan. Many counties offer alternative deferred compensation arrangements tailored to their workforce needs. This bill eliminates that choice, mandating that all PERA employers affiliate with the state-run plan.
The legislation requires counties to ensure payroll systems can route deferrals, update HR onboarding materials, revise open enrollment communications, and coordinate with any existing deferred compensation arrangements. Counties already offering deferred comp plans must now offer PERA’s plan “in addition to” existing programs, creating administrative complexity and potential employee confusion.
The bill’s sponsors describe this as “expanding options” for employees. But it contracts options for county governments by removing local flexibility to design compensation programs. Counties lose authority to determine which deferred compensation providers best serve their employees and fit their administrative capacity.
The mandate applies only to PERA employers—counties whose employees participate in PERA—but this covers most Colorado counties. The bill does not explain why state-imposed uniformity in deferred compensation plans serves any compelling government interest. Counties can evaluate retirement benefit options and select appropriate providers without legislative mandates.
The requirement to affiliate with PERA’s deferred compensation plan creates ongoing administrative obligations. Counties must maintain participation, update systems when PERA changes plan features, and ensure compliance with state-imposed plan requirements. This represents ongoing state control over local government employee benefit programs.
The Finance Committee’s approval without amendment sends this county mandate to Appropriations. The fiscal analysis may reveal implementation costs that counties must absorb without state funding.
SB26-042: Revenue Classification Taxpayers Bill of Rights
Sponsors: Sen. Emily Sirota (D-Denver), Sen. Judy Amabile (D-Boulder), Rep. Mike Weissman (D-Louisville), Rep. Yara Zokaie (D-Larimer)
Passed: Senate Finance Committee (Referred Amended to Appropriations)
Senate Democrats passed legislation reclassifying state revenues to avoid TABOR spending limits. The bill explicitly labels aviation fuel excise taxes as “Collections for Another Government” and dramatically expands the definition of “damage awards” to include numerous civil fines and penalties currently subject to TABOR restrictions.
The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution, limits government spending growth and requires voter approval for revenue increases. TABOR exempts two specific categories from spending limits: collections made on behalf of other governments and damage awards. This bill moves existing state revenues into those exempt categories.
The aviation fuel tax reclassification declares that state excise taxes collected on aircraft fuel constitute “collections for another government” because proceeds distribute to local governments operating airports. But the state collects these taxes, administers the program, and distributes funds through state statutory formulas. Calling this a “collection for another government” stretches constitutional language.
The damage awards expansion proves more aggressive. The bill adds numerous penalty categories to the constitutional exemption: air quality violations, radiation control fines, solid waste penalties, public health violations, insurance division penalties, banking division fines, financial services penalties, labor standards violations, limited gaming fines, housing violations, and unemployment insurance penalties.
These are state fines collected by state agencies and deposited in state funds. The bill simply labels them “damage awards” to exempt them from TABOR limits. Does Article X, Section 20’s reference to “damage awards” encompass all civil penalties? Courts generally construe constitutional provisions according to their plain meaning and the voters’ understanding when they approved the measure.
The bill’s title—”Revenue Classification Taxpayers Bill of Rights”—suggests mere clarification. But reclassifying millions in state revenue from TABOR-limited to TABOR-exempt categories changes how Colorado’s constitutional spending limits operate. If state fines and penalties qualify as “damage awards,” the exemption swallows a significant portion of the rule.
The Finance Committee’s approval sends this TABOR circumvention to Appropriations, where legislators will determine how much additional spending authority the reclassification creates.
HB26-1144: Prohibit 3D Printing Firearms & Components
Sponsors: Rep. Javier Gilchrist (D), Rep. Andrew Boesenecker (D-Fort Collins), Sen. Tom Sullivan (D-Centennial), Sen. Katie Wallace (D-Westminster)
Passed: House Judiciary Committee 7-4, Wednesday, February 18 (Referred to Committee of the Whole)
The House Judiciary Committee approved legislation criminalizing possession of computer files containing firearm design information and prohibiting citizens from manufacturing firearms using 3D printers. Democrats voted 7-4 along party lines to advance the bill despite First Amendment and Second Amendment concerns.
The bill prohibits manufacturing firearms or firearm components using 3D printers or CNC milling machines. It criminalizes possessing “digital instructions” for 3D printing firearms “in circumstances that indicate intent to manufacture” and prohibits distributing such files. Violations are Class 1 misdemeanors, with second offenses becoming Class 5 felonies.
The legislation defines “digital instructions” as “computer-aided design files or other code or instructions stored and displayed in electronic format as a digital model.” Federally licensed manufacturers are exempted from manufacturing and possession prohibitions but not from distribution restrictions.
Ben Bessler testified the bill violates the Colorado Constitution and First Amendment. Colorado’s Constitution states “No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech.” Federal courts have repeatedly held that computer code and digital instructions constitute protected speech.
The Ninth Circuit in Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice held digital instructions including source code are protected speech. The Fifth Circuit in Defense Distributed v. State Department held that suppressing online firearm CAD files triggers First Amendment prior restraint analysis. The Supreme Court ruled in Stanley v. Georgia that government may not criminalize mere private possession of information. The Colorado Supreme Court in Tattered Cover v. City of Thornton held that even instructional materials for making methamphetamines are protected.
Laws regulating speech based on subject matter face strict scrutiny. “This is content-based and is a speaker-based impairment of speech,” Bessler said.
Chair Mabrey acknowledged First Amendment concerns, comparing firearm design files to the Anarchist Cookbook and noting such possession “alone is generally protected under the First Amendment.” He expressed desire for “cleanup language” to ensure the bill is “as precise and legally sound as possible” but voted yes.
The bill also raises Second Amendment questions. Federal law permits individuals to manufacture firearms for personal use without licensing. The Supreme Court in Heller (2008) held the Second Amendment protects arms “in common use.” Does the right to keep arms include the right to make arms?
Sponsors cited the Club Q shooter who built 3D printed guns before the shooting and a 2025 Colorado Springs operation recovering hundreds of 3D printed rapid fire devices. They argued 3D firearms lack serial numbers and require no background checks.
The fiscal note projects minimal impact. From FY 2022-23 to FY 2024-25, only one person was convicted under existing law for 3D printing unserialized firearm frames.
The committee voted 7-4 along party lines, with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing. The bill advances to the Committee of the Whole.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent.
