Constitutional Principles Trump Party Politics
Two bills moving through the Colorado Senate highlight how the High Country Advocate evaluates legislation: SB26-070 and SB26-071 earned “GOOD” classifications despite opposition from law enforcement and support from Democrats seeking to obstruct federal immigration enforcement.
Both bills require warrants for government surveillance.
SB26-070 mandates warrants for license plate reader data older than 72 hours. SB26-071 requires warrants for facial recognition technology. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. Tracking citizens’ movements for weeks or months without a warrant is a search. The Supreme Court established this in Carpenter v. United States.
Law enforcement testified against both bills during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Police representatives argued the warrant requirement would slow investigations and hamper their ability to solve crimes. The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police called the measures burdensome. Aurora Police detailed cases solved using Flock camera data accessed without warrants.
Democrats sponsored and supported both bills. Senator Judy Amabile, a Boulder Democrat, co-sponsored SB26-070 explicitly to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement from accessing license plate data. Representative Yasmin Zokaie testified the bill would protect communities from federal immigration enforcement. Senator Amabile stated people participating in protests “don’t want the federal government to come in and take this data.”
The Fourth Amendment doesn’t include exceptions for law enforcement convenience. It doesn’t permit warrantless searches because police want faster investigations. The Constitution requires warrants based on probable cause.
If law enforcement believes the Fourth Amendment is outdated or problematic, they can pursue constitutional amendments. At the federal level, Article V addresses changing the U.S. Constitution. At the state level, Colorado’s Constitution can be amended through ballot initiatives or legislative referral. If the Constitution prevents the government from passing a law, change the Constitution. Until that happens, government agents need warrants to search historical location data. That’s what these bills require. That’s why they’re good.
The same standard applies to the Second Amendment. Legislation restricting barrel lengths, magazine capacity, 3D-printed firearms, or any other arms regulations violates “shall not be infringed.” Legislators who want those controls need to amend the Second Amendment first. The Constitution doesn’t include exceptions for public safety concerns or particular weapon types.
HCA evaluates every bill against constitutional principles. Parental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Second Amendment protections. First Amendment freedoms. TABOR requirements. Local control versus state mandates. These constitutional standards apply regardless of which party sponsors the bill or what political motivations drive support.
A bad bill expands government power, restricts individual liberty, or violates constitutional limits. HB26-1014 extends business tax credits through 2034. Republicans and Democrats co-sponsored it. The House Finance Committee passed it 9-2. It’s still bad. Tax credits remain government intervention in the market regardless of bipartisan support.
SB26-005 allows state court lawsuits against federal immigration agents. Every Democrat voted for it. Every Republican voted against it. It’s bad because it attempts to obstruct federal law enforcement authority. The fact that it passed party-line doesn’t make it good or bad. The constitutional violation makes it bad.
HB26-1008 expands Colorado Parks & Wildlife by $444,000 for recreation coordination. Republican and Democratic legislators co-sponsored it. It passed committee with bipartisan support after amendments. It’s bad because it grows state bureaucracy and creates new government planning authority. Bipartisan agreement on expanding government doesn’t make expansion constitutional.
The standard is consistent. Does the bill support constitutional principles or violate them? Does it expand individual liberty or government power?
The only question that matters: does the bill align with constitutional limits on government power?
SB26-070 passed Senate Judiciary 5-2. One Republican and one Democrat voted no. SB26-071 is sponsored by a Republican. Both bills will likely pass with bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition. That’s exactly what should happen when legislation addresses fundamental constitutional rights rather than partisan preferences.
The Constitution isn’t a Republican document or a Democratic document. It’s the supreme law. Bills that support it are good. Bills that violate it are bad.
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.
