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 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.

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 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.

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 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

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.

Senate Democratic Caucus, 68th General Assembly

The 2012 Legislative Session officially began this morning.  After the opening day procedural motions and speeches the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus posed for a group photo on the grand staircase in the rotunda of the State Capitol.  From front left to right: (front row) Betty Boyd, Joyce Foster, Suzanne Williams, Gail Schwartz, Linda Newell, (second row) Evie Hudak, Bob Bacon, Mary Hodge, Morgan Carroll, (third row) Pat Steadman, Irene Aguilar, Lucia Guzman, Lois Tochtrop, (fourth row) Cheri Jahn, Jeanne Nicholson, Rollie Heath, Angela Giron, (back row) Michael Johnston, Brandon Shaffer, John Morse.

The Senate Democratic Caucus will be focused on job creation and economic recovery.  Getting Colorado back to work and getting our economy back on track will be a top priority for 2012.  Look for a package of economic development and job creation bills to be introduced in the Senate early in the session.

Civil Unions will again be one of my main bills for 2012.  Public opinion polls show increasing majorities of Coloradans support this common sense solution to strengthen families and provide access to important legal protections.  The momentum behind this legislation continues to build, and new coalitions will be stepping up to advocate for passage of Civil Unions in Colorado.  I have vowed to introduce this legislation every year until it is passed, and 2012 could very well be the year!  To get involved with the effort to pass Civil Unions, contact One Colorado.

School finance will take on increased prominence in policy and budget debates due to a recent ruling from the Denver District Court declaring unconstitutional the current school finance formula.  Holding the inadequate levels of funding provided by the act to violate students’ constitutional right to a “thorough and uniform” public education, the Court has directed the General Assembly to remedy deficiencies the Court found “unconscionable.”  That directive has been stayed pending appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, but the District Court’s forceful ruling will inform much of the debate this year on school finance and education reforms.  To learn more about the Lobato case, click here.

2012 is an election year and election-year politics are likely to return to the Capitol, heightened by the newly reapportioned boundaries of legislative districts.  The new maps mean some incumbent legislators are finding themselves in a primary election contests or are squaring off for an open seat in the Senate.  Recent controversies surrounding election law are also hot topics for legislation, with Secretary of State Gessler pushing certain issues into the legislative arena.

To track the bills and calendars for the 2012, visist the Colorado General Assembly website at www.leg.state.co.us

If you need a high resolution head shot of the Senator you can download it here.