About Pat

Archive by Author

Criminal Justice Reform

By on January 29, 2012 in Home

I am a strong supporter of efforts to make Colorado law “smart on crime” by the use of evidence-based strategies to promote public safety and reduce recidivism.  I am a member of the Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice’s Drug Policy Task Force and have been actively working to advance reforms to our drug laws that reduce demand by treating individuals struggling with addiction with compassion and providing them the help they need.  For many drug offenders community-based drug treatment is far more effective than a prison cell.  It costs less and reduces recidivism, saving money and lives.

In 2010 I was one of the sponsors of HB 10-1352, which reduced sentences for possession offenses.  By downgrading possession of small, personal-use amounts of drugs from a felony to a misdemeanor we saved millions of dollars in the prison budget.  And we applied those savings to providing drug treatment.  Numerous studies have proven the wisdom of this strategy, and now Colorado is moving in this reform direction.

This week I will be introducing a bill in the Senate that furthers the goals of HB 1352.  This bill is also the work of the Drug Policy Task Force and has been endorsed by the CCJJ.  It streamlines the flow of drug treatment funds to local communities and consolidates three different funding sources for these services.  The bill will also require better accounting and data collection for these services, which will build the case for continuing to invest more in prevention and treatment.

Also this week, I will introducing a bill that also aims to reduce recidivism by providing relief from “collateral consequences.”  People convicted of crimes often find that their punishment doesn’t end when they are released from prison and parole.  We talk about “paying a debt to society,” but that debt goes beyond doing time.  Criminal convictions haunt a person for the rest of their life, making it hard to find housing and employment.  Various state laws impose additional restrictions on former felons.  The deck is stacked against them as they try to reintegrate into society and become productive, contributing members of the community.

Collateral consequences of criminal convictions include the loss of professional occupational licenses, restrictions on access to public housing and public benefit programs, even the loss of the right to adopt a child, vote or own a gun.  Some of these restrictions exist for good reason, but some were enacted under the banner of being “tough on crime” with little or no evidence that public safety is enhanced.  In fact, a leading cause of recidivism is the inability to secure employment or housing.  Collateral consequences often set someone up for failure.  This means more crime, more victims and the need for more prisons.  I’d like less of all those things, please.

There is a solution to this problem.  It takes an individual approach and allows people to request that a court remove certain barriers from their path.  For persons sentenced to probation or community corrections, the bill I am proposing would allow the sentencing court to enter orders to waive collateral consequences so someone can keep their job or housing.  This increases the likelihood they will succeed and not have their probation revoked.  For those being released on parole, the bill creates a process for petitioning the court for this same type of individualized relief, again with the aim of helping someone succeed and not wind up back in the system.

Recidivism is a problem in Colorado.  The “revolving doors” at the entrance to prison return over half of those released back into the system within two years of their release.  Addiction and mental illness are contributing factors to criminal behavior, but prison is expensive and not always the best solution to someone’s problem.  Our criminal justice system should be designed to promote public safety, but punishment often gets emphasized over prevention.  Whether it’s providing drug treatment for those with addictions or help for people returning to the community so they can reintegrate and find a place to live and work, we’ve got a lot of work to do in Colorado.  I’ve enjoyed working on these issues and hope we can maintain the forward momentum in the 2012 session.

 

HB 1081 – Auraria Higher Education Center

By on January 26, 2012 in Legislative Update

Until the newly reapportioned boundaries of Senate District 31 take effect, the Auraria campus – officially known as the Auraria Higher Education Center or “AHEC” – is located in my district.  Last year I worked with Rep. Crisanta Duran on a bill to help keep Auraria students participating on certain advisory boards for the campus.  AHEC is also located within the boundaries of her House District 5.  This year we’re again carrying legislation to help the campus run smoothly.

HB 1081 corrects certain oversights in a bill from 2010 that granted “flexibility” to public institutions of higher education in Colorado.  This flexibility legislation was specifically intended to allow colleges and universities deal with declining state funding, an unfortunate budgetary circumstance that continues to get worse.  Colorado is now one of the lowest states in the country for funding higher education.  Tuition and fees have gone up while state funding has steadily declined.  “Flexibility” to ease certain mandates and procedures has helped our colleges and universities cope and keeps fee increases from going even higher.

When the 2010 legislation was written, AHEC was inadvertantly left out.  AHEC serves three institutions on one campus: the Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State College of Denver and the University of Colorado at Denver.  Each of these individual institutions was given “flexibility” to help keep costs down, but on the Auraria campus, many of the services where they could avoid state mandates, such as procurement, are handled jointly for all three institutions by AHEC.  But AHEC wasn’t given the same flexibility.  HB 1081 treats AHEC fairly and gives it the ability to manage the campus with the same flexibility each institution was individually granted.  Seems simple, but it takes a lengthy bill to correct the omission.

 

 

HB 1089 – ballot questions

By on January 23, 2012 in Legislative Update

Rep. Lois Court is a huge fan of ballot initiative reforms, and I’m right there with her on this topic.  This year we’re sponsoring HB 1089 to continue to de-mystify the initiative process for Colorado voters.  It’s a simple bill that will help make clear the choices people have when casting their ballot for or against initiatives.

For or against is the key.  HB 1089 will add these words to the ballot to make clear that voting YES is for changing the law and voting NO is against changing the law.  The ballot will be labeled “Yes/For” and “No/Against.”

Seem simple?  You’d be surprised how many people say this confuses them.

To make it even more clear, the ballot question itself will describe the measure as “a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes” or “an amendment to the Colorado Constitution.”  Again, a little more clarity in this area can’t hurt.  A couple of years ago Rep. Court sponsored a bill that changed the terminology we use for ballot initiatives to call statutory measures “propositions” and constitutional changes “amendments.”  This little addition to the ballot question language makes it even easier to understand.

 

SB 2 – Civil Unions

By on January 21, 2012 in Home, Legislative Update

I’m very passionate about a lot of issues, but no bill that I’ve carried has sparked the amount of passion as Civil Unions.  It was heartbreaking to watch the House Judiciary Committee kill this bill in 2011, and immediately afterwards I vowed to bring back the legislation each year until it is finally passed.  I’m cautiously hopeful that 2012 will be the year.

SB 2 was introduced on the first day of the legislative session.  It differs only slightly from the bill I introduced last year, mostly small improvements to the drafting and a correction where one word had been omitted.  It has been referred once again to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which last year approved the bill on a vote of 6 to 3.  The Senate then passed the bill on a vote of 23 to 12.

As authorized by SB 2, Civil Unions would allow any 2 unmarried adults, regardless of gender, to form a legally-recognized, committed relationship subject to most of the provisions in state law that apply to married couples.  The bill recites our current constitutional ban on marriages between persons of the same sex and clearly states that Civil Unions are not marriages.  I readily admit that they are not equal to marriage and confer fewer rights on the couples that choose them.

A legally-recognized relationship matters.  It matters a great deal.  Legal recognition means that Colorado laws will apply, which is especially important at various times in everyone’s life, such as medical emergencies, the birth of a child, the end of a relationship, end-of-life decisions, and death.  Whether an ambulance is on its way to the emergency room, decisions are being made about placement in an Alzheimer’s unit at a nursing home, or plans for burial or cremation are being carried out, a legally-recognized relationship ensures that the person who cares most, who you most want to be there and make decisions, will be first in line to exercise powers controlled by state law.

SB 2 is quite detailed and carefully crafted to spell out all the provisions in state law that will apply to couples in a Civil Union.  I like to point out that SB 2 makes very little new law – it creates forms and procedures for forming a Civil Union – but instead makes applicable the provisions of existing law to a class of persons previously excluded from their protections and benefits.

SB 2 is about inclusion and opportunity.  It empowers personal responsibility.  It creates a bond of commitment between two people that only legal proceedings under the provisions of Colorado law may set aside.  It gives access to important legal protections and basic legal rights that are often taken for granted by those that have them and desperately needed by those without them.  It will strengthen families and protect children across Colorado.

Last year Rep. Mark Ferrandino was the House sponsor of the Civil Unions bill.  This year I’ve introduced the bill without listing a House sponsor in the hopes of finding a Republican member of the House to step up and take the lead.  So far those I’ve asked have declined, but I’m holding out hope.  A new group of Republican leaders has formed to support this type of legislation (Coloradans for Freedom), and I’m hopeful that a brave and willing Republican sponsor can yet be found.  If not, Rep. Ferrandino stands ready to carry the bill again.  If it makes it to the floor of the House of Representatives we know that more than a handful of Republicans will join their Democratic colleagues to pass the bill, but it could once again be bottled-up in committee and die a cruel death.  This will be one of the most closely watched bills of the session, so stay tuned.

To get more involved in the effort to pass Civil Unions in Colorado visit www.One-Colorado.org

 

HB 1076 – initiative petitions

By on January 21, 2012 in Legislative Update

Ever wondered what happened to that petition you signed in front of the grocery store?  Ever had a nagging feeling that the really awful constitutional amendment everyone is opposing might have been one you signed at the Cherry Creek Arts Festival to get the guy with the petition to leave you alone?  Chances are, you’re not alone.

Colorado has a proud tradition of ballot initiatives and direct democracy.  We petition all kinds of things onto the ballot, and as I’m fond of saying, we seem to amend our state constitution every two years whether we need to or not.  People with petitions on clipboards are a sure sign that election season is just around the corner.

I think Colorado has a love-hate relationship with the ballot initiative process.  We love having the power to make laws in the secrecy of the voting booth, but we often hate all the campaigns and controversy the various ballot initiatives generate each election cycle.

Rep. Lois Court is sponsoring a bill this year to add an option to the petition process, and she’s asked me to carry the bill in the Senate.  HB 1076 would allow initiative proponents to include an extra line on their petition for people to voluntarily give their phone number or email address.  These items would not be required to make the signature count as valid, and voters could omit this information.  In fact, the petition would clearly indicate these fields are optional.

It will cost a little more to print petitions with an extra line for this information.  Not everyone will want the guy with the clipboard to have their phone number or email address.  But if you’re signing a petition for something you really care about, giving a little extra contact information might mean you’ll hear about the progress of campaign and whether your issue has qualified for the ballot.

Email and robocalls are inexpensive ways for campaigns to communicate with voters.  Collecting this information would allow the proponents of a petition to easily stay in touch with their supporters, perhaps to ask for volunteers or contributions, or at the very least to let them know their issue will appear on the ballot.

Initiative campaigns today often originate from interest groups with the financial resources to buy a spot on the ballot.  Paid petitioners collect signatures for a price, and paid advertisements convince voters to support a change to our laws.  The more money you have, the more likely you can get your initiative passed.  HB 1076 won’t change that, but it might allow truly grassroots campaigns a better chance to play in this arena.  By making room for email addresses, petitions can become much more of an organizing tool and allow inexpensive communications with those supporting the initiative.

Does this level the playing field?  Perhaps not, but it can’t hurt.  I think this is a bill we should pass this year.