Mark Hillman

For the first time I can recall, this year’s session of the Colorado General Assembly concluded with frenzy and confusion more typical of what we see in Washington, D.C., than what’s expected of our citizen legislature.

It’s not unusual for a few complicated bills to linger until the waning hours.  However, this year’s 120-day session ended on Monday, May 8, with these ignominious developments:

• On Day 117, still 156 bills – one-quarter of the 617 introduced since Jan. 9 – remained unresolved. With just two weeks to go, 335 bills were still in limbo.
• A bill affecting all Colorado taxpayers was unveiled barely 2½ days before the session ended and heard in committee that same day – before it was available to the public. Committee hearings are intended to allow public comment, but only two people, a consultant who helped write the bill and a veteran lobbyist, testified in committee on Sunday.
• Yes, the House and Senate were in session on Sunday – the first time the Senate conducted the public’s business on a Sunday since 1939.

This is not a partisan critique to suggest that Democrats cannot conduct business in an orderly fashion.  To the contrary for four years (2005-2008), Democrats managed the calendar well enough to adjourn early.  Those Democrats could certainly offer pointers to current leaders. (more…)

For the past two weeks, Democrats and Republicans have engaged in a test of wills in the Colorado House of Representatives.  Democrats are using their 46-19 majority to pass bills which they consider essential to address shootings in public places and to establish Colorado as a regional refuge for “reproductive health care.”

Republicans know they cannot stop these bills, but because they view them as a threat to citizens’ constitutional freedoms, they have chosen to inconvenience the majority by filibustering these controversial bills.

Filibustering – making prolonged speeches to delay legislative action – is not easy.  If you don’t believe me, try talking non-stop in front of a crowd for an hour.  It’s even harder under legislative rules which require comments to pertain to the bill; reading weather forecasts is not allowed. (more…)

State Rep. David Ortiz (D-Littleton) makes a compelling advocate for the rights and struggles of disabled Coloradans.

“I lived 30 years as an able-bodied leg-walker, a five-minute-mile running, hard-charging combat aviator – until a crash in Afghanistan left me paralyzed from the waist down,” he told the House Judiciary Committee.

He understandably views himself as the unofficial representative of the disabled community and fashions his legislative agenda with that constituency in mind.  So, it follows that he would sponsor legislation intended to overcome barriers to accessibility.

His House Bill 1032 would change Colorado law to specifically allow lawsuits regarding disability access violations to seek “emotional distress” damages of up to $642,180 and to require defendants to pay attorney fees and costs for prevailing plaintiffs.

“Any time I encounter a staircase, a way that the world is inaccessible, those are (emotional) damages I should be entitled to when it is blatant, when it is obvious,” Ortiz said.

That’s where Coloradans who have defended against disability lawsuits cry foul.  HB 1032 doesn’t increase damages only in cases in which violations are “blatant” or “obvious.”  It creates a six-figure incentive to litigate accessibility problems rather than resolve them.  Even the bill’s supporters acknowledge that lawsuits typically take two years to resolve. (more…)

Last year, the Colorado General Assembly demonstrated the good sense to pass Senate Bill 115, recogning that property owners are not liable for actions committed on their property by criminals.  It didn’t matter, legislators agreed, if the property owner operated a controversial business.  Ultimate responsibility for harm rests with the person who pulled the trigger.

This bipartisan legislation, which passed the Senate 34-0 and the House 64-1, came in response to a lawsuit arising from the 2015 shooting at a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs.  A 2021 shooting at a Boulder King Soopers provided further context, re-assuring legislators that it is unreasonable to hold any business responsible for, in the words of Justice Melissa Hart, “the irrational actions of a mass murderer.”

Lawmakers wisely concluded responsibility for criminal violence rests with the perpetrator and shouldn’t fall on property owners just because they may have “deep pockets.”

Less than a year later, some legislators now propose that Colorado turn this logic on its head in order to make another controversial industry – firearms manufacturers and retailers – liable for others’ irrational actions.  This is akin to holding car manufacturers responsible for drunk drivers or, worse, for a deranged individual who uses a vehicle to run down pedestrians. (more…)

“Democracy,” wrote H.L. Mencken, “is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”  A majority of Colorado voters have made it clear that they want to be governed by Democrats.

With Democrats presiding over a struggling economy, widespread crime and social disorder, this result is dumbfounding.  Surely, Coloradans were ready to restore some measure of political balance?

Instead, voters soundly rejected Republican candidates across the board.  Democrats won every race in which both parties devoted resources.  They even won some seats they expected to lose.  Lauren Boebert’s tentative win in the 3rd Congressional District could be considered the exception, but the fact that this “safe Republican” district will be decided by less than 0.5% is more evidence of Colorado’s blue avalanche.

This was a back-breaking election for Republicans in Colorado.  Too many voters won’t even consider a candidate with our party’s label. (more…)

Here’s my plain-and-simple explanation of and recommendation for statewide issues on the Colorado ballot for 2022:

Amendment D, New 23rd Judicial District Judges.  In 2020, the legislature created the new 23rd Judicial District by removing Douglas, Elbert and Lincoln counties from the 18th Judicial District.  This amendment makes it easier to assign some judges from the 18th to the 23rd Judicial District.  I will vote YES.

Amendment E, Property Tax Exemption for Gold-Star Spouses.  The existing property tax exemption for seniors and disabled veterans would be extended to include surviving spouses of U.S. service members who died in the line of duty or from service-related causes.  I will vote YES.

Amendment F, Charitable Gaming.  Currently, nonprofits that have existed for at least five years can receive a license to conduct bingo and raffles for charity.  This measure would reduce the licensing requirement from five years to three and allow the legislature to further reduce that requirement.  It would also allow charity workers to be paid.  I don’t see the problem in existing law, so I will vote NO.

Proposition FF, Free Public School Meals.  The “tax your neighbor” lobby is again trying to undermine Colorado’s flat-rate income tax by increasing taxes on any Coloradan with income over $300,000 to create a program to make public school meals “free” to all students and to increase pay to food-service workers.  FF is absolutely a scheme to figure out what it will take to get Coloradans to raise taxes on “the rich,” like California does.  Today, 37% of students, mostly from low-income families, are eligible for free or reduced-cost meals at school.  So why increase taxes by $100 million to provide free lunches to middle- and upper-income families who already pay their own way?  Our flat tax is fundamentally fair, and this program is unnecessary.  I will vote NO.

Proposition GG, Tax Information in Blue Book.  Special interests want to be sure that anytime a tax cut comes to a vote, the ballot information booklet (aka “Blue Book”) includes a chart showing the average savings to taxpayers at different income levels.  They think voters won’t vote for a small tax cut if it will save each taxpayer only a few bucks.  However, those small amounts add up to big bucks to pay for bigger government.  This year’s Blue Book provides the exact chart that Prop GG would require so we obviously don’t need a new law.  I will vote NO.

Proposition 121, Income Tax Rate Reduction.  Amends Colorado statutes to reduce the state income tax rate from 4.55% to 4.40%.  Certain state lawmakers don’t like it when Colorado citizens put the brakes on government to make even a modest reduction in taxation.  Those same lawmakers shamelessly pass numerous “fee” increases to avoid asking voter permission.  Prop 121 would reduce state government revenue by an estimated $382 million, a small amount compared to the new fees imposed without our consent.  I will vote YES.

Proposition 122, Legalize Psychedelic Drugs.  Much of Colorado’s current decline traces back to legalizing so-called “medical marijuana” in 2000 and recreational marijuana in 2012 which led to more drug use by adults and easier access by kids.  Some “doctors” signed medical marijuana cards for anybody who could say, “Ouch!”  Proponents of 122 are using the same strategy, calling this initiative “access to natural medicine,” a euphemism for psychedelic mushrooms.  The last thing Colorado needs is more legalized drugs.  I will vote NO.

Proposition 123, Income Tax for Affordable Housing.  Dedicates 0.1% of state income tax receipts to fund “affordable housing programs.”  Most problems related to housing affordability are the direct result of short-sighted laws passed by local and state governments.  Giving those same governments more money to “fix” the problems they created is “like giving liquor and car keys to teenage boys.”  I will vote NO.

Proposition 124, Liquor Licenses. Prior to 2017, a person could own just one liquor store; the limit increased to three this year.  Prop 124 would immediately allow ownership of eight liquor stores and later eliminate any limit whatsoever. Competition usually drives down prices, right?  Well, it’s hard to argue that Colorado lacks competition with nearly 1,600 liquor stores across the state.  Even my small hometown has three times more liquor stores than grocery stores.  Plus, some liquor distributors prefer to supply only big box stores but not mom-and-pop shops.  I will vote NO.

Proposition 125, Wine in Grocery and Convenience Stores.  When I’ve shopped at grocery stores that sell wine, it seems their prices are higher than the neighborhood liquor store.  If convenience is your primary consideration, vote yes.  If you prefer to buy from the neighborhood liquor store, vote no.

Proposition 126, Delivery of Alcohol.  Allows anyone who can legally sell alcohol to also contract with delivery services to deliver alcohol to customers.  I really don’t care.

Equality of all citizens is a uniquely American concept.

Historian G.K. Chesterton said, “America is the only nation in the world that was founded on a creed.”  That creed comes from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This declaration came at a point when slavery was nearly universal.  Native Americans made slaves of conquered tribes and of blacks.  In Africa, blacks and Muslims sold slaves to other continents.

Yet, influential Americans some 250 years ago recognized that making slaves of their fellow human beings was immoral.  They also knew that they were being ruled unjustly by England.  The founders knew that their 13 free and independent states needed an alliance to ensure their survival. (more…)

Sometimes it seems Democrat strategists know the minds of Republicans better than Republicans know themselves.

Consider the current scheme by Democrats to spend millions to influence the Republican primary.

Organizations funded by Democrats are running ads to promote U.S. Senate candidate Ron Hanks and governor candidate Greg Lopez.  One of their favorite messages is that Hanks or Lopez is “too conservative for Colorado.”

Remember, they are intentionally sending this message to Republican voters.

I’ve heard or read Republicans respond:

• “They may have intended these ads to be negative, but these ads gave me the information I needed to know that they ARE who I want to vote FOR!”
• “I hear Republican positions that I agree with followed by ‘too conservative for Colorado.’ That makes me more likely to vote FOR them.”

That’s no surprise to Democrats.  In fact, it’s precisely what they want Republicans to do. (more…)