Colorado Attorney General John Suthers – citing a lack of funding – has not been enforcing one of the legislature’s centerpiece laws to get tough on illegal immigration.
The new statute orders the attorney general to pursue civil fines of at least $50,000 from people who forge documents to help illegal immigrants get jobs. Local authorities are responsible for pursuing criminal convictions, and forgery remains a crime.
But Suthers’ office has not hired the employee approved by the law, has not pursued civil cases of alleged forgery and has not collected any fines.
“We are eager to begin enforcing this statute,” said Kristen Holtzman, a spokeswoman for Suthers. “However, without the resources to do so, it’s not possible. We are looking for ways to fund it.”
The attorney general’s office, however, did not contact local law enforcement officials about forgery cases to pursue until Tuesday – after a reporter called with questions about the law.
“We have made an inquiry of the district attorneys to see what civil cases might be out there that we could begin taking a look at so we might be about to recoup the costs,” Holtzman said.
Suthers’ failure to pursue cases sooner troubles top statehouse Democrats.
“I’m very surprised that the attorney general, of all people, is not following the law,” said Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, D-Jefferson County. “I am disappointed that he would not get on the issue of people who are making fraudulent documents.”
House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, D- Denver, who co-sponsored the bill, said: “I think forgery is a big problem, and this law provides a tool to fight it. If the attorney general’s office believes we are short on resources, it should say so and we can address this problem. But doing nothing is not a solution.”
Passed this year, the fine was touted as cracking down on illegal immigration.
Lawmakers can’t say they weren’t warned that the law had problems. A staff report found that the financial impact of the penalty – which is meant to fund enforcement – would be minimal.
“Although the number of persons who will be subject to these charges is unknown, the bill is not expected to significantly increase state revenues, mainly because the people most likely to be charged are not expected to have sufficient resources to pay both the full penalty and attorney costs,” the report said.
Still, the attorney general’s office did not testify during legislative hearings about the potential funding problems.
Initial funding – $68,879 – was supposed to come from the state’s Judicial Stabilization Fund.
In September, the state court administrator said there was no money in that fund to pay for enforcing the law.
The money in that fund comes from court-filing fees and is used to cover operating costs of the courts.
“Therefore, until such time as the Attorney General’s office deposits money into the fund through this new civil penalty, the fund is unable to cover the $68,879 associated with (this law) without cutting current court staff,” wrote David Kribs, budget officer for the Colorado judicial branch.
The attorney general’s annual budget request seeks $91,208 next year to add a lawyer to his 14-person consumer-fraud unit. State budget officials said some laws are not being enforced.
At the same time, the attorney general’s office touts its support of legal battles in other states defending gay- marriage bans and voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. The attorney general’s office says the cost is minimal, but it doesn’t know how much the office spends on such matters.
Staff writer Mark P. Couch can be reached at 303-954-1794 or mcouch@denverpost.com.
