Bender, speaking Thursday before the Joint Budget Committee, cited House Bill 1180, sponsored last spring by Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, and Sen. Lucia Guzman, D-Denver, as an example.

The bill looks at ways to reduce recidivism by requiring the judge, when considering an appropriate sentence—incarceration, probation, or other corrective measures–to look at factors in the defendant’s background or circumstances that may influence a risk of re-offending. The approach is called evidence-based sentencing.

Bender said the new way of considering appropriate sentencing makes sense, but judges and probation officers need training to learn its nuances.

“This (evidence-based sentencing) represents the largest single change in how the criminal justice system operates,” said Bender. “Every year, the legislature passes about 400 laws, and every year, the appellate courts pass about 3,800 applications, and so it places an enormous amount of stress and strain to keep up with things for a trial judge.”

The budget committee’s chair, Rep. Cheri Gerou, R-Evergreen, noted that the House showed restraint by passing fewer bills last year than over the last several decades.

“A lot of us agree that less is more,” Gerou said. “The dynamics of what we do when you become a part of the most dysfunctional family you’ve ever been a part of—ideas are never in short supply.”

Still, Bender readily concedes that HB 1180 imposed a needed change in sentencing practices.

“I think we’re doing so much more with evidence-based sentencing  than we ever did before,” said Bender.

Levy, while encouraged that the bill she sponsored was appreciated by the judiciary, said there is still more to be done.

“I was told that they (probation) don’t have information about community correction programs, and they really couldn’t assess all the options and present that to the court,” said Levy. “It’s an area where, if we could break down even more barriers and get more information about all the programs and the effectiveness of the programs, House bill 1180 could be even more effective.”

In all, the department is requesting authorization of an additional $585,500 to expand on existing training programs.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

The governor’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade says its objective is to “create jobs and boost Colorado’s economy through regulatory reform, business recruitment and retention, workforce development, tourism, capital formation and communication technologies.” Yet, legislative Joint Budget Committee members quizzed their staffers about how the office measures progress toward those objectives.

JBC staffer Kevin Neimond said the governor measures the effort by comparing Colorado job growth to the national average, regional average and a competitive state average.

Sen. Kent Lambert, R, Colorado Springs, said the comparisons do little to persuade the committee to augment by $6 million the $13.8 million now in the office’s fund, which is derived from limited gaming tax revenue.

“If we put $13 million in there and it hasn’t created jobs, are we going to put another $6 million in to try and create more jobs?” said Lambert “There’s just no data here to track that.”

Newcomer to the committee, Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, echoed Lambert’s concerns saying the nexus between national and regional trends and dollars spent on economic development for the state isn’t evident in the data provided by Hickenlooper.

“The unemployment rate can rise and fall completely independently of what that office may do,” said Levy. “The unemployment rate going down—that doesn’t tell me whether the office is an effective office.”

The Governor’s Office will be presenting its responses to the budget committee Dec. 8.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

That trend now has the department  mulling how to wean Colorado off of a tax on gasoline altogether and steer the state instead toward a tax based on miles driven.

Department spokeswoman Stacey Stegman says talks right now are strictly preliminary and are geared toward possible legislation to create   the framework of a revenue-collection system—the blanks would be filled in later—and putting together a legislative task force to study the concept.

“We keep tabs on this issue and watch what other states are doing, but there is no plan at the moment—it’s just something to explore and consider,” said Stegman. ”

The advent of alternative-fuel vehicles like electric cars is just the latest development adding impetus to the department’s concerns; more efficient gasoline-burning cars have been the cause of a years-long, steady drop in gas-tax revenue.

Boulder’s Democratic Rep. Claire Levy, who drives a hybrid gas-electric car, says she is keen on the concept.  Times are ripe for the conversation to begin, says Levy. Pointing to a three-year downward trend in revenue collected at the pump, Levy contends that the department won’t be able to keep up with road maintenance.

“It’s definitely time to start looking at alternative ways to pay for our roads,” said Levy. “We can’t keep going with business as usual.”

House Transportation Committee Chair Glenn Vaad, R-Mead, also says the time may be ripe to look at alternative ways, based on miles traveled rather than gallons purchased, to fund roads—but taxpayers would need to warm up to the idea.

“It would take an evolutionary period,” said Vaad. “But in the meantime  these vehicles are not paying their fair share.”

Fair share is important, say both Vaad and Levy, since all vehicles contribute to the wear and tear of roadways regardless of what makes them run.  Vaad says traditional pay-at-the-pump revenue collection has evolved into inequalities.

Levy notes that owners of electric cars and hybrids, who generally pay more for their vehicles in exchange for zero-to-greatly-reduced gas costs and consumption,  need to realize the effect that paradigm shifts in gas consumption have had on the state’s ability to fund transportation needs.

“They must understand that their vehicles cause wear and tear on the roads too,” said Levy. “Gas consumption doesn’t mirror road usage anymore.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

House Bill 11-1032, sponsored by Rep. Pete Lee, D-Colorado Springs, and Sen. Linda Newell, D-Littleton, brings victims, defendants and community members together to talk about an offense in an effort to repair the harm done. Such restorative justice, says Lee, has been shown to “significantly reduce the number of repeat offenses in a community.”

“Right now, one third of our kids don’t graduate from high school, and more than 50 percent of inmates return to prison,” said Lee.  “Restorative justice is the change we need.  Where it is appropriate, when victims and offenders meet face to face, offenders learn about the impact of their crime from the victims, and they begin to feel empathy, often for the first time. Empathy is the beginning of transformation.”

Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, says he supports the concept as long as the victim doesn’t object.

“Restorative justice can and does work for some situations,” said Gardner. “As long as the victim is OK with it, it can be a great tool.”

While HB1032 looks at ways to reduce recidivism by therapeutic methods, House Bill 11-1180, sponsored by Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder and Sen. Lucia Guzman, D-Denver, looks at ways to reduce recidivism by requiring the judge, when considering an appropriate sentence—incarceration, probation, or other corrective measures–to look at factors in the defendant’s background or circumstances that may influence a risk of re-offending.

“It’s about getting the right information about the individual to the judge before sentencing. It tells the judge to keep their eye on the goal of reducing the risk of re-offending,” said Levy.  “Sometimes, if you over supervise too much, it can backfire, such as if someone cannot take time off work to fulfill a requirement. It can be a setback.”

When 90 percent of those who are sent to prison inevitably leave prison, Levy says any available tool, however small, such as evaluating an individual’s circumstances at sentencing, is well worth our while.

“At some point they’ll be living among us,” said Levy. “This is a beginning, baby-steps really. There’s still a lot to do towards reducing recidivism.”

Gardner, who signed on as a co-sponsor of Levy’s bill, agrees that it is a difficult task to take on, but it’s a step in the right direction.

“It’s difficult to reduce recidivism, and sometimes the system makes it difficult.  There’s not a magic bullet but there are some things that we can do,” said Gardner.  “When these people are reintegrated into society, it’s in our best interest to have done whatever we could to prevent them from committing another crime.”

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

House Bill 1003, by Rep. Libby Szabo, R-Arvada, and Rep. Ken Summers, R-Lakewood, says that voters who show up at the polls for an election must produce a photo ID such as a drivers license or student ID that corresponds to voter-registration rolls.

Szabo noted to the  committee how, in conducting other personal business, people must produce a photo ID, including when applying for aid from the state, flying on an airplane, writing a check or buying alcohol.

“In everyday life you need a photo ID,” said Szabo. “Pieces of paper that show residency such as a utility bill (allowed under current law) do not identify who the person is holding the piece of paper.”

“Everyone wants their vote to count and this bill ensures that,” said Szabo. “Voters should have the security of knowing that people who show up at the polls are indeed who they say they are.”

Summers said he believes that the voters have an expectation of integrity at the polls and the requirement of a photo ID may offer an added measure assuring that integrity.

“People become cynical when there aren’t enough safeguards in place,” said Summers.

Addressing concerns about obstacles some may face in acquiring an ID, Szabo mentioned that there are now programs in place that mitigate the costs of getting an ID as well as organizations that help people get the ID’s.

Opponents of the measure pointed to a variety of situations in which people may not have forms of ID other than a utility bill, particularly among students and people of limited means.

Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder questioned the need for a photo ID if the information it provides doesn’t verify eligibility to vote at the polling place where their name appears on the rolls.

“I understand the issue of integrity in the voting process,” said Levy. “However, the ID process says it’s the person but it doesn’t tell you where they actually live.  I don’t know what we’re solving here.”

Legislation proposing to secure the elections process has become an annual staple of the General Assembly in recent years, often drawing a bright line between the two parties. While Szabo’s and Summers’ bill passed committee in the Republican-controlled House, a bill requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote died in committee last week in the Democratically dominated Senate.

You may use part or all of this article in Web or print publications, as well as in radio and TV broadcasts, at no charge and without further permission. Please credit the Colorado News Agency.

Sponsored by Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, House Bill 1347 is designed to tackle the problem of repeat offenders by placing the punitive phase up front, followed by a mandatory probationary phase afterward that zeroes in on preventative measures.

“It (the bill) is intended to impose the kinds of conditions that will stop people from going out and repeat-offending,” said Levy.

After a second DUI or DUWI offense, there will be a minimum sentence of 10 days and up to one year of confinement.  After a third offense the minimum increases to 60 days of confinement.

A key provision of the measure, said Levy, is in the mandatory, two-year probation, during which time the court may require an ignition interlock device, which is attached to the vehicle to detect alcohol use and prevents the vehicle from being driven.  Other available options include periodic court appearances and monitoring of alcohol and drug use.

The tools at the disposal of the judge are, “basically whatever it takes to separate an alcoholic or a drug abuser from their vehicle,” said Levy.

Earlier this year, House Bill 1184 was sponsored by Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, from Yuma, to make a third DUI offense a felony, but that measure was rejected by the House Judiciary Committee, citing budget constraints.

Levy’s bill must first garner a majority roll-call vote before it moves over to the Senate for consideration.  The final House vote may occur as early as Monday.

The measure, House Bill 1094, would have allowed the use of deadly force without fear of prosecution on the part of a business owner, manager, or employee under certain conditions.   Current law already gives immunity to homeowners who are defending themselves against intruders under the state’s Make My Day statute.

House Judiciary Chair Claire Levy, D-Boulder, said that the measure is too simplistic and may offer businesses too much wiggle room, essentially becoming a license to kill someone unjustifiably.

‘The language of this bill is very simple. If you’re concerned that there might be the use of force, no matter how slight, you get to shoot to kill,” said Levy. “It would be a shield against prosecution.”

Yuma Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, sponsor of the measure, said his bill would act as a deterrent to would-be criminals by letting them know that business owners, like homeowners, have the right to protect themselves.

“People have the right to protect themselves and … we ought to give law-abiding citizens the tools they need to do so,” said Gardner, noting crime rates have declined since 1985, when the original Make My Day law went into effect for homeowners.

“The last thing that ought to be going through a person’s mind as they are trying to defend their life is, ‘Gee, am I going to get prosecuted for protecting my life?’  This bill says don’t worry about that as long as you are within the law,” Gardner said.

Dan Brennan, representing the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, told the committee there are too many variables, such as what would constitute unlawful entry into a business.

“Homes are not open to the public.  Businesses want people to walk through their front doors,” said Brennan.  “Unlawful entry may mean different things to different people.”

A representative of the Colorado District Attorneys Council also testified against the measure.

“Our concern is losing the discretion of the DA in not being able to make the determination of whether or not it is appropriate to prosecute,” the organization’s Mark Randall told committee members.

Larimer County Sheriff Jim Alderden, who came to speak for the County Sheriffs of Colorado, disagreed with both the police chiefs and district attorneys. For Alderden, the measure is simply a victims’ rights bill that empowers the victim.

“I’m probably one of the few people here who has looked down the wrong end of a handgun,” said Alderden. “I will tell you that in that circumstance time stops– it slows down and in those moments I shouldn’t have to stop and think about whether or not I’m going to be prosecuted.”

Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo, the lone committee Democrat who voted in favor of the bill along with committee Republicans, said the proposal made sense to him.

“There are sufficient protections around the bill,” said Pace. “Everyone should have a right to defend themselves.”

House Bill 1248 would have banned the manufacture of personal-care products in Colorado that contain, in any amount, any ingredient that has been shown to cause cancer or harm to an unborn child.  The European Cosmetics Directive under the E.U. maintains a list of banned substances in Europe that are believed to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Under the measure, Colorado would have relied to a large degree on that list in determining which products could be banned;  1,100 chemicals are on the list according to Primavera.

At least one Colorado business owner and personal-care products supplier took umbrage at the thought of passing a law that relies on decisions made for Europeans about the relative safety of personal care products.

“I find it highly offensive that we have to look to the EU for direction,” said Jerell Klaver, who sells Salus bath and body care products that contain cocoa butter, a potentially banned substance due to trace amounts of cancer-causing agents inherent in cocoa butter.

Science and politics crossed paths as lawmakers struggled to understand what was at stake.

“I don’t feel qualified to determine which ingredients are safe or not.  Why is this a political decision and not a Public Health Department decision?” asked Rep. Sal Pace, D-Pueblo.

Whether or not the products are potentially harmful should be a decision that at a minimum is made here in the United States, said Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs.

“This EU thing is interesting to me. (This bill) would give the EU the ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ on what is a permissible product in Colorado,” said Gardner. “We don’t have representation on the EU and they would have veto power over what’s sold.”

Committee chair Claire Levy, D-Boulder, disagreed with Gardner.

“I don’t think it’s a bad thing to do what the EU is doing,” Levy said. “We can look to other countries for ideas.”

Dr. Richard Adamson, a cancer causation expert and a cancer survivor himself, said that he and his family members use personal care products that under the measure may be banned.  Adamson said he just doesn’t see the risk involved.

“I know of no study that has shown that a personal care product has shown any type of cancer,” said Adamson.

Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction queried Adamson on the validity of the European findings.

“Is the EU directive the ‘gold standard’ for this sort of thing?” asked King.

“No,” Adamson responded.

Representing the Women’s Lobby of Colorado, Susan Roll spoke to the panel in favor of the bill and spoke highly of the European approach.

“I’ve been involved in this David vs Goliath fight for a long time.  When the EU came up with the directive we thought it would be beneficial to us, with American products conforming to the standards, but it was not the case,” said Roll.

Roll acknowledged science has not evolved to the point where definitive claims can be made pointing to cause and effect, but she urged lawmakers to err on the side of caution following the European lead.

“We don’t have the smoking gun, but in Europe they are moving forward anyway,” said Roll.

Sarah Johnson, who started her own line of organic personal-care products after experiencing harmful side effects from products that she had been using, implored the panel to pass the bill in a show of proactive, forward-thinking action.

“The EU is doing it, California is doing it. We ought to be doing this,” said Johnson.

Primavera said she’ll try again next year.

Yet, science was the defining factor for Rep. Lois Court, D-Denver, who voted against the bill.

“My father was a scientist, and I just didn’t hear enough science to support this bill,” said Court.

Primavera said the $50 billion-a-year personal-care products industry is not likely to self-regulate enough to satisfy her concerns.

“It’s really the fox guarding the hen house when it comes to personal-care products,” she said.

“It’s a rare day when the Public Defender’s Office and the attorney general appear together to support a bill,” Republican Attorney General John Suthers said at a news conference showcasing the legislation.

The bill creates a distinction between possession of drugs and distribution of drugs by reducing sentences for possession, and it focuses on treatment rather than incarceration for those drug offenders who are primarily addicts.

The primary sponsors of the bill, Rep. Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs, and Sens. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, and Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield, based the bill upon recommendations from the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, whose members hail from different quarters of the criminal justice system.  The premise of the bill that emerged out of the recommendations is that jailing non-violent drug offenders is not the best use of public-safety dollars.

“It’s time to switch our focus from being tough on crime to being smart on crime,” said Waller.  “This bill is about how we can get the best bang for our public-safety dollars.”

Steadman said the state could save money and lives by being smarter.

“Incarceration is really not the right answer.  The real problem with most prisoners is addiction,” said Steadman. “We need to be smarter with public resources by not simply warehousing drug addicts.”

Christie Donner, Executive Director of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, said the measure will have far-reaching benefts for children whose parents are incarcerated.

“This change in approach will interrupt the cycle of addiction and involvement in the criminal justice system,” said Donner.  “Families, especially the children, of those caught up in addiction and the criminal justice system, will benefit the most when the cycle is interrupted.”

The sponsors of the bill and its supporters in the criminal justice community say that using state resources for treatment leading to recovery will cut down on recidivism and save the state money in the long run. They say that could help prevent many crimes from being committed in the first place, such as burglary when a criminal is motivated by drug use.

Mesa Count District Attorney Pete Hautzinger implemented a treatment program for methamphetamine addicts in Mesa County, and he said there was a dramatic decline in felonies after the program was put in place.

“If we can get the drug addict ‘unaddicted’ we can prevent all sorts of other crimes,” said Hautzinger.

Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, who is another of the bill’s sponsors and chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where the bill will be vetted first, said she hopes the proposal will be a real turning point in how crime and criminal sentencing are approached.

“I hope this is a beginning of a whole new attitude,” said Levy.

Rivers that flow through private property belong to the public and cannot be privately owned, yet neighboring property owners frequently assert the right to bar rafters access to the riverbanks. Citing court precedent, some advocates for property owners even contend there is no right to float through private property at all without the permission of landowners. Problems have arisen at times when certain portions of a river become impossible to navigate, and rafters are forced to carry the raft over the neighboring private land.

“The rafting industry is an established industry. Landowners have established rights,” said the proposal’s sponsor, Rep. Kathleen Curry, of Gunnison. “We have to find a way to coexist.”

Curry said she introduced the bill on behalf of constituents who are commercial rafters and are at odds with some local landowners who want to prevent float trips through their property on the Taylor River. The waterway is a tributary of the Gunnison River and is popular with rafters and home to a number of outfitters.

Curry’s House Bill 1188 in part seeks to protect landowners from liability concerns while protecting outfitters from civil liability for trespassing when their vessels cross private property or come into contact with, or have to cross, dry land. Some lawmakers were concerned that if the rafters were granted access to private property, and something happened where the landowner was sued, the liability protection in the bill just wouldn’t be enough.

“We do happen to live in a very litigious society. I do not have at this time have enough confidence in this bill that a landowner won’t be sued by an outfitter,” said Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Cortez. Tipton noted that barbed wire often is used along rivers by ranchers to keep their cows from wandering, posing a hazard to rafters and a magnet for a lawsuit.

Fellow Republican Rep. Jerry Sonnnenberg, a rancher from Sterling, said in most cases the outfitters have already worked out agreements with the landowners without the need for a measure like HB 1188.

“All we’re saying is, ‘Get permission,’ ” Sonnenberg said. “Have that conversation with the landowner.”

However, Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, said the bill is needed to outline the rights and responsibilities of outfitters and landowners and that without such clarification, rafters could be barred from  rivers at the whim of landowners.

“(It) would effectively shut down rivers and give landowners control over the river.  Colorado recognizes the right to float down these rivers … they cannot put a tollbooth up,” said Levy.

While ruling Democrats by and large supported Curry–the legislature’s only unaffiliated member–most minority Republicans said the rafting industry has been doing well under the status quo and that the bill upended basic property rights, curtailing property owners’ ability to seek protection from the courts if needed.

“I think were getting into pretty dangerous territory with this bill when we attempt to define when, and under what circumstances, someone can trespass on private property,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Grand Junction.

The GOP’s Rep. Bob Gardner, of Colorado Springs, said the bill was opening the state up to massive liability under the law. Gardner said the state  would have to compensate landowners who sue, claiming a “takings,” after losing control of their property to rafters.

“What this bill does is appropriate property to the state,” said Gardner, a practicing attorney.

Rep. Christine Scanlon, D-Dillon, herself a river rafter, downplayed the consequences of the measure, stating that no one wants to lift a raft out of the water and cross private property with it if it isn’t absolutely necessary. Scanlon also said new developments that move in shouldn’t dictate how a river is used.

“This is about the ability of a development to shut down a river and effectively put river rafting businesses out of business,” said Scanlon.

Curry said she understands that her bill puts competing notions at stake.

“That’s why you just have to give an up or down vote depending on where your heart is,” said Curry.