Archive | Legislative Update RSS feed for this section

SB 105 – Collateral Consequences

By on February 3, 2012 in Home, Legislative Update

Collateral Consequences may be doing more harm than good.  It’s hard to say.  Our laws are littered with them, but we never step back to evaluate whether they serve a purpose, and the legislature seems determined to create new ones each year.

Collateral Consequences are sanctions or disqualifications against people with criminal records that arise from the operation of laws and regulations, but they were not part of the sentence handed down at the time of conviction.  We normally think crime is punished by incarceration, fines, restitution, probation or parole.  But in addition to what the criminal code assigns to various convictions, a multitude of civil laws pile on more punishment.  Examples of collateral consequences include loss of professional and occupational licenses, restrictions on public housing, ineligibility for public benefit programs, loss of voting rights, restrictions as to firearms, the inability to adopt children or become a foster parent, and more.  Colorado law is replete with these additional consequences for people with criminal records.

Add to the extensive list of collateral consequences the fact that many employers and landlords won’t consider people with criminal records, and you can easily see how the deck is stacked against someone coming out of the criminal justice system.  Studies have shown that the biggest indicators of success after prison are stable employment and housing.  Without these supports, people released from prison are likely to be part of our unfortunately high recidivism rate.  We know that employment and housing contribute to success on parole, yet Colorado law places collateral consequences in the path of former offenders as they seek jobs and places to live.  It doesn’t make sense.

SB 105 is a response to this contradiction in Colorado law.  The bill is similar to one I introduced last year (SB 11-044), but it is more clearly written and includes additional new features.  The bill I introduced last year was based upon a model act written by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.  This model act was recommended because states across the country are looking for ways to provide  relief from collateral consequences.

SB 105 has several distinct features, all designed to help people who have been in trouble with the law put their life back together and successfully reintegrate into society.  First, the bill requires people to be notified about the existence of collateral consequences at several key stages of the criminal justice process.  Before someone accepts a plea bargain they should know that their guilty plea may cost them their license to practice their profession or other important benefits.  I think due process and effective assistance of counsel require such notice, but I’ve written this into SB 105.

SB 105 next creates the opportunity for a judge to grant relief from collateral consequences for people being sentenced to probation or direct sentenced to community corrections.  In these cases, the offender will remain in the community, so they’ll need employment and housing.  Giving the sentencing court the power to waive collateral consequences will increase the likelihood of success on probation, or stated differently, make it less likely that probation will be revoked and the person will be sent to prison.

Next, SB 105 creates a process for similar relief from collateral consequences for people released from prison after a certain amount of time has passed.  If they’ve completed their time in prison and on parole and they’ve stayed out of trouble, they can petition a court for a certificate of rehabilitation that grants relief from specified collateral consequences.  Again, this allows someone to gain back their license to practice their profession or take other steps to move forward with their life.  And again, the goal is success after incarceration.

Finally, SB 105 creates processes for removing certain things from your record, such as old arrests that never resulted in the filing of charges or old convictions for petty offenses and municipal ordinance violations.  These things turn up in criminal background checks, but after the passage of time have little relevance to whether someone should get a job interview or be rented an apartment.  Old records like these shouldn’t haunt people for the rest of their lives, and SB 105 makes it possible to put these things in the past behind you.

I believe this approach to people with criminal records makes sense and will improve people’s lives and their ability to support their families.  Each collateral consequence will be individually considered by a judge, and only those cases where someone can show they deserve a second chance will win relief.  SB 105 is limited in its scope and doesn’t apply to sex offenders or other violent crimes, and it probably won’t work for everyone.  But it’s a step in a progressive direction and it offers hope and relief to those who often find little of these things in today’s society.  It should reduce recidivism and the costs to taxpayers and victims that come from criminal offenses.

SB 105 is sponsored in the House by Rep. Claire Levy, my colleague from the Joint Budget Committee.  Working on the budget committee gives us an unique perspective on the importance of reducing recidivism and helping people successfully reintegrate after prison.  Instead of being a drain on the state budget we’d prefer to see former offenders become productive members of society.  It’s time for our laws to create pathways to success rather than impose burdens that lead to failure.  SB 105 will help get us there.

To learn more about Collateral Consequences and how people can get along despite them, visit the website for the Institute for People with Criminal Records.  You can also follow developments in this area of law through The Sentencing Project.  Finally, an article published in the New York University Law Review provides a good explanation of the problems caused by Collateral Consequences and recommendations for reforms.

 

HB 1125 – Animal Impound Costs & Procedures

By on January 31, 2012 in Home, Legislative Update

Last year I worked with the Denver Dumb Friends League and other animal shelters to pass SB 11-009.  The bill was unanimously approved in the Senate but died an unfortunate death in a House committee (sound familiar?).  We’re back this year with a new strategy and different House sponsors, and hopefully we’ll succeed in passing the bill in 2012.

HB 1125 is sponsored in the House by Rep. Robert Ramirez, and the chair of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, is a co-sponsor.  There are a few improvements over last year’s bill, but it is essentially the same as SB 9.  The issue is not without controversy, but it has the strong support of animal welfare groups.

HB 1125 seeks to clarify court procedures when a pet animal has been impounded due to cruelty or neglect.  While the owner is awaiting trial for animal cruelty the animal is placed in the care of a shelter.  Under current law, the procedures for owners to pay for the cost of care are not clear and tend to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, especially if the owner wants to contest whether there was probable cause to impound the animal or challenge the proposed costs of care.  Timelines for these procedures don’t favor speedy resolutions of disputes.

HB 1125 sets out the procedure for when and how an owner may challenge the impound and its costs.  This is important because in cases where the owner does not pay the costs, the animal shelter may dispose of the animal through adoption after a certain point in time.  If the owner wants their animal back if they are found not guilty of a crime, they need to take certain steps to make sure this happens.  If they are found guilty the court may order forfeiture of the animal so it is not returned to an abusive owner.

While HB 1125 is essentially a bill that clarifies procedures, it touches on some very interesting legal issues.  Giving the accused owner an opportunity for due process is important.  Making sure the cost of caring for animals are paid during a trial is also important and will help shelters take in animals that have been vicitims of cruelty or neglect.  Returning animals to the innocent and protecting them from abusers is the goal of HB 1125, and I’m hopeful we can get it passed this year.

 

 

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