Re: “Let’s bring data centers to state on our terms,” May 8 commentary

Since Bill Owens favors the building of data centers in Colorado, be sure to place one near his home. Any portion of the increase in my monthly bills assessed on the electric or water side may be charged to him as well.

Jobs? Ha! Not once they’re built. Also, instead of listening to crickets on warm summer nights and chirping birds in the morning, residents with properties nearby can hear the hum from the data center. Sounds lovely, doesn’t it?

I won’t take up more newsprint at this time to discuss the dangers of AI. Needless to say, there’s no room or resources for data centers in my Colorado.

— Mariann Storck, Wheat Ridge

Congress needs to pass a ‘moral budget’ that ‘promotes the general Welfare’

Re: “House advances $390B farm bill,” May 1 news story

As Congress develops a budget for the next fiscal year, I am very concerned about lawmakers’ priorities.

In a country as rich as ours, we should not have people needing assistance in buying food, many millions needing access to health insurance, and a housing assistance program that only reaches of those who are qualified.

At the same time, the “” passed by Congress last July provides for millions in tax cuts to billionaires.

This is not a moral budget. Congress needs to make reducing poverty a high priority. The preamble to the Constitution says that one of the purposes of our government is to “promote the general Welfare.” We must demand a more moral and responsible federal budget from our representatives in Congress.

Congress dismantled the nation’s most effective protection against hunger while providing tax cuts to wealthy Americans and corporations. Congress must repeal these devastating cuts to SNAP or delay them for all states, not just a few. We must urge Congress to repeal or delay the state cost-sharing policy from H.R. 1 in any farm-related bill this year. We can start by asking Sen. Michael Bennet and Sen. John Hickenlooper to delay cuts to SNAP benefits in the 2026 Farm Bill.

— Martha J. Karnopp, Aurora

Extending child care credit is good for business

Running a small business and raising children is all the more complicated when navigating a broken child care system. My productivity and budget have been hampered by strict cutoffs and lengthy waitlists. As a small business owner, I can’t grow my business and provide for my family without affordable care options.

That¶¶Òőap why I support to extend the Child Care Continuation Tax Credit for 10 years and generate $60 million annually for child care providers across the state. Without this tax credit, it would be even more difficult for child care providers to serve their communities.

Child care is an absolute necessity for working parents and a key player in Colorado’s small business landscape. I urge Colorado policymakers to extend the tax credits that make child care accessible and affordable for small business owners like myself.

— Samantha Allbritton, Centennial

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

As someone who has had the privilege of leading the state of Colorado, I take our economic competitiveness and leadership very seriously. I fought to ensure our state was open for business — a place where entrepreneurs would want to locate, bringing jobs and investment with them. We are also a state with a long tradition of balancing growth with stewardship.

Over the decades, Colorado has experienced extraordinary growth and faced transitions that reshaped its economy and infrastructure. We are a hub for countless major industries from aerospace and energy to health care and manufacturing, driven by a talented workforce, smart policies, and our own pioneering spirit. Oil and natural gas development and the growth of clean power each brought opportunity alongside challenges.

The question is not whether change will come, but whether Colorado would help shape it on its own terms or react to decisions made elsewhere. Experience taught us that the best outcomes and lasting opportunities come neither from rushing ahead without proper protections in place nor from standing still, but through thoughtful and collaborative planning. This is the opportunity I believe we have with — the chance to lead again.

In order to remain in our position at the forefront of innovation, we should take steps toward powering our future by bringing data center investment and jobs to the Centennial State. House Bill 1030 will do that by providing a targeted state (not local) sales tax exemption to attract data center development to communities hoping to benefit, but ensures that we bring them here on our terms.

Data centers operate behind the scenes as the digital engines that power our daily lives and support the key industries that fuel Colorado’s economy. Many states raced to attract data centers, hoping to benefit from the thousands of jobs, critical infrastructure, and economic growth they bring with them. However, some states did fail to put guardrails in place.

But in Colorado we can learn from these early mistakes and protect consumers and our environment. We can then leverage data center development to create thousands of jobs, strengthen our grid and infrastructure, boost our renewable energy industry, support the state’s thriving tech sector, and provide needed economic investment and tax revenue for communities devastated by the loss of power generation, mines, plants and oil and gas.

Data centers support employment throughout their entire lifecycle, from initial construction to daily operations and ongoing community involvement. Developing these facilities relies on a wide range of skilled workers — including electricians, engineers, technicians, and other trades. Just six new data centers could bring 1,500 construction jobs over a period of up to three years, with average annual wages exceeding $140,000 per worker. Each center also typically supports up to 100, high-paying, permanent roles. These are good jobs and real money, especially in our rural communities that are full of skilled workers just looking for an opportunity.

Data centers also make major investments to our infrastructure by funding improvements to roads, utilities, broadband networks, and water systems that benefit entire regions. They play a key role in strengthening the power grid by financing new transmission upgrades and advanced energy technologies that increase reliability and capacity for everyone.

It¶¶Òőap no secret that data centers use a lot of energy, but House Bill 1030 provides strong, enforceable ratepayer protections that ensure rates don’t go up and data centers pay their own way. This includes making large and critical infrastructure upgrades to our aging power grid. Data centers can also power our clean energy economy. Colorado is a national leader in clean energy and is uniquely positioned to create data-center policies that help us reach our ambitious energy goals.

Finally, while data centers are the digital backbone for Colorado’s thriving tech industry on the Front Range, they can also offer a lifeline for communities on the Western Slope and Eastern Plains that have suffered from the loss of power generation and other industries. They bring stable jobs, modern infrastructure, community investments, and long-term tax revenue that funds schools, public safety, and other essential services.

There is a reason other states are working aggressively to attract data centers – and it¶¶Òőap to the tune of billions. Far from “corporate welfare,” the incentives provided to bring data centers to Colorado will be dwarfed by what they bring in in real wages, property taxes, infrastructure investments, and economic growth. Nationally, data centers generated $162.7 billion in revenue for communities. Colorado currently captures only 2% of that investment and has actually lost data center jobs.

Other states moved too quickly, and Colorado can and should learn from their experiences. However, we have a history of crafting the strategic, forward-thinking policies that prove that economic strength and environmental responsibility can advance together and that other states will follow.

That same approach is needed now. The policy choices we make around data centers today will influence Colorado’s economy, workforce, and infrastructure for years to come, and we don’t want to be left behind. Our state has never shied away from hard conversations about growth, resources, and responsibility. Colorado can shape the digital future – if we choose to lead with House Bill 1030.

Bill Owens is a former governor of Colorado.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Those experiences stay with you. They also teach a simple lesson: when it comes to wildfire, denial, delay and ideology come at a very high cost.

That is why wildfire awareness matters. May is not just a marker on the calendar. It is the beginning of wildfire season. It is a warning. In Colorado, this is the moment to prepare for the dangerous months ahead and to be honest about what real prevention requires — proactive forest treatment prevents the worst.

Wildfire is not only a forest issue. It is a public safety issue. It is a health issue. It is an economic issue. Lives are put at risk. Homes, businesses and ranches are destroyed. Watersheds are damaged. Entire communities are left to recover for years. Even far from the flames, smoke can turn the air hazardous, especially for children, seniors and those with respiratory conditions.

Colorado has learned these lessons the hard way. We know wildfire cannot be eliminated. But we also know the severity of these disasters is not simply something we are powerless to address. There are practical, science-based steps we can take to reduce risk. The problem is that for too long, too many people have treated active forest management as too invasive rather than absolutely necessary.

That needs to change.

We should say clearly what too often goes unsaid: healthy forests do not maintain themselves, and neglected forests do not become safer with wishful thinking. In many high-risk areas, doing nothing is not conservation. It is complacency and it is dangerous.

For years, there have been loud voices opposing the very tools that can help reduce catastrophic wildfire risk — strategic thinning, fuel reduction, forest clearing where appropriate, and prescribed burns when conditions allow. Too often, these arguments are dressed up as environmental virtue. In reality, blocking responsible management can leave forests less healthy, communities more vulnerable and firefighters facing even greater danger.

Colorado needs a more mature conversation, especially as we deal with prolonged drought, warming temperatures, pine and Ponderosa beetles, and other threats to forest health. Stewardship is not abuse. Forest management is not the enemy of healthy ecosystems. If anything, refusing to use proven tools in fire-prone landscapes is its own kind of recklessness.

We should be working closely with the United States Forest Service and the Colorado State Forest Service and local governments to accelerate projects in areas already designated as high wildfire threat. We should prioritize the places where fire risk, community exposure and forest conditions demand action most urgently. We should support mechanical thinning, hazardous-fuel removal, and controlled burns when science and on-the-ground expertise indicate they make sense.

And yes, when and where appropriate, responsible access and carefully managed resource activity can be part of healthier forests and stronger rural economies. That should not be controversial. It should be common sense.

None of this means every acre should be treated the same way. It means decisions should be driven by science, local knowledge and public safety — not by rigid ideology or pressure from groups more interested in stopping management than solving problems.

Colorado’s forests protect water supplies, support wildlife, provide recreation, sustain local economies and define the character of our state. If we want those public benefits to endure for generations to come, we have to be willing to manage these lands responsibly.

The costs of inaction are simply too high. Every year we delay needed work, we increase the odds that the next fire will burn hotter, spread faster and do more damage. Every year we refuse to confront reality, we make future losses more likely and more expensive.

Coloradans deserve better than another season of hand-wringing followed by disaster. They deserve leaders willing to act before the emergency, not just speak solemnly after it.

We have both seen wildfire from the seat of state leadership. We know the fear, the destruction and the heartbreak it leaves behind. We also know Colorado has the expertise and the tools to do better.

Learn to Live Wildfire Friendly with less ideology, more science; less obstruction, more stewardship; less talk, more action.

Because when wildfire threatens Colorado, doing what works is not optional. It is our responsibility.

Gov. Bill Owens is a Republican who served from 1999 to 2007. Gov. Bill Ritter is a Democrat who served from 2007 to 2011.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Much of that won’t be directed by the campaigns, either.

More than $4 million has been raised by outside committees already in the Democratic primary for governor between U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet and Attorney General Phil Weiser, offering a preview of what’s to come.

Independent expenditure committees, colloquially known as state super PACs, can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money so long as they don’t coordinate with the campaigns they’re supporting. While the committees often report the names of contributors, the donors are sometimes cloaked in anonymity, either through obscure business entities or separate nonprofits that don’t need to disclose their donors.

That’s true of some of the money flooding into the independent committees in the Bennet-Weiser race. While some large checks have been cut by big names like New York City billionaire Michael Bloomberg and figures well known in the local or national business worlds, others have come from deep pockets that are harder to identify.

The vast majority of the super PAC money in the primary, $3.6 million, has gone to Rocky Mountain Way, the committee supporting Bennet¶¶Òőap bid. About $563,000 has gone to Fighting for Colorado, the committee supporting Weiser’s candidacy.Ìę

Bennet and Weiser have largely cleared the field on the Democratic side of the race, which also has several declared lesser-known candidates. On the crowded Republican side, where there are 20-odd contenders, there’s been little fundraising by independent expenditure committees so far. The GOP field also lags significantly behind the Democratic side in direct campaign fundraising. Coloradans have elected only one Republican as governor — Bill Owens, who won in 1998 and 2002 — since the 1970s.

The outside cash backing them likely represents the tip of the iceberg this year, observers said — especially in the first competitive Democratic governor’s race in over a decade where one candidate doesn’t promise to steamroll the competition’s spending with self-funding.

In 2018, Democrat Jared Polis spent more than $22 million of his own money on his way to winning the governor’s office. Polis is now term-limited from running again.Ìę

Differing rules for direct, outside donations

Statewide races can cost tens of millions of dollars to organize and get a campaign message across. But Colorado candidates can raise only $725 from an individual donor for each leg of the race, or $1,450 combined for the primary and general elections.

That, in effect, caps wealthier donors at a fraction of what they might want to give directly to candidates.Ìę

In the Democratic primary alone, 34 individuals and organizations have cut checks of $10,000 or more to the independent committees. The single largest donor, Bloomberg, has contributed $1.25 million to the committee backing Bennet¶¶Òőap bid — a sum more than 860 times greater than what he’d be able to give to Bennet¶¶Òőap campaign directly.

The lack of limits on donations or spending by outside groups that operate independently of campaigns , which found such spending was protected as free speech.

 “Because direct campaign contributions in Colorado are capped at $725 per individual, these independent expenditure groups are really key for building cash at scale,” said Aly Belknap, executive director of Colorado Common Cause, a government watchdog group.

Add in the ability for other nonprofits to donate to the committees, she said, and “this effectively washes the money and obscures the original donors, and creates a lack of transparency for the public and the voters about what kinds of special interests are contributing to the campaigns.”

(Common Cause is also a nonprofit that is not required to disclose its donors. Belknap said the organization has a policy of disclosing who give more than $2,500 automatically, and of making the smaller donor list available for inspection at its Denver office.)

Ian Silverii, a Democratic political strategist, said the independent expenditure committee arm’s race is an “ironic” side effect of state campaign finance reforms. Silverii worked on the Weiser campaign when it was first starting up last year but has since stepped back from the race.Ìę

The caps on campaign contributions didn’t stop big money from pouring into races. They merely shift where the big checks go and how they get spent, Silverii said.

The separate pot of money also comes with its own drawback.

Candidate campaigns get favorable ad rates from TV stations and other outlets compared to independent expenditure committees, meaning direct donations go further.

When it comes to candidate fundraising, Bennet’s campaign has directly raised about $3.5 million and started the year with about $1.6 million in the bank, according to the most recent campaign finance reports that cover activity through the end of December. The Weiser campaign has directly raised about $4.6 million and started the year with about $3.5 million in the bank.Ìę

Lack of control over message

Since candidates legally can’t coordinate with the independent committees, they thus lose the ability to control the story they want to tell when the money goes to outside groups. That can result in candidates sustaining collateral damage if they end up tied to messages or messengers that repel voters.Ìę

Silverii used ultrabillionaire Elon Musk’s on last year’s Wisconsin state Supreme Court election as an example. Voters associated the Republican candidate with Musk as overall views of the billionaire  amid his involvement in Trump administration initiatives, and his preferred candidate lost by .

“It is probably always better to have more resources to tell your story than it is to have fewer resources, but there is also a risk of your support being a liability,” Silverii said.

Case in point: Each of the gubernatorial campaigns, asked to comment generally on the outside money sure to flood the race, attacked the other’s third-party support while highlighting its candidate’s own direct donor base.

“The momentum behind Phil’s campaign is surging, so it¶¶Òőap no surprise that out-of-state billionaires and special interests are dumping millions into this race to try to stop him,” Anna Huck, Weiser’s campaign manager, said in a statement. “Phil isn’t beholden to special interests, corporations or out-of-state-billionaires — he’s powered by the people of Colorado, with more in-state donors, more local endorsements and more than double the cash on hand than Michael Bennet.”

Jordan Fuja, a campaign spokesperson for Bennet¶¶Òőap campaign, highlighted contributions to third-party committees that supported Weiser’s prior campaigns. She claimed Weiser had “a clear conflict of interest” because of donations from attorneys and people with ties to the oil and gas industry that may have business before the attorney general’s office.

She also singled out support for the Weiser-backing independent expenditure committee from Blair Richardson, a private equity CEO who donated to President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign, though he has also contributed to Democratic causes.

 “Michael is honored to have the grassroots support in this race with more supporters, more contributions, and a lower average donation than any other candidate in this primary,” Fuja said in a statement. “Phil Weiser, on the other hand, publicly condemns billionaire money while quietly taking it himself — including millions in donations from billionaires in past races.”

In a statement, the director of Rocky Mountain Way, Sarah Andrews, said the committee exists to bolster Bennet’s story and “is focused on ensuring voters understand Michael Bennet’s long history of steady leadership and real results for Colorado.”

“This effort is about making sure Coloradans hear clearly about the proven leadership that delivers for hardworking people and provides more opportunity for Colorado families,” Andrews said.

Attempts to reach representatives from the committee supporting Weiser and some of the largest donors to both committees — including Bloomberg and Paramount President Jeff Shell on the pro-Bennet side and Richardson and investor Tom Ray on the pro-Weiser side — were unsuccessful.

But the gathering was enough to underscore the wide-open nature of the race for an office the GOP hasn’t won in 23 years. That’s a contrast to the Democratic side, which has quickly shaped up as a race between two heavyweight candidates.

Over the next nine months, each Republican will look to carve out a lane apart from the many others looking to do the same, with 19 declared GOP candidates as of Friday. Some of those at the Denver Press Club’s forum on Thursday night explicitly acknowledged the prevailing agreement in the room when it came to cutting taxes and shrinking government, and all sought to help themselves stand out.

Among the nine participating candidates, state Sen. Mark Baisley laid out a vision of a government that does “very little … but what we do do, we should do well.” Political newcomer and U.S. Army veteran Joshua Griffin pitched “running the state like a business.”

And state Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer called for a governor, such as herself, “who believes the state’s best days are ahead of us — not behind us.”

Greg Lopez, a three-time candidate for governor who briefly served in Congress last year, warned that “Colorado has been turned into the ugly twin sister of California by single-party rule.” Lawyer Will McBride decried “government tyranny disguised as public service” and declared “a movement to reclaim what is ours.”

In an aside, McBride alluded to a challenge Republicans likely face, whoever’s the nominee: “No Republican has raised more than (Democrats) have spent” on the race so far, he said. “So I think it¶¶Òőap a big problem that no one really believes a Republican can win.”

Another 10 candidates, including state Rep. Scott Bottoms, Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell and Colorado Springs pastor Victor Marx — who’s newly declared — weren’t at the forum. How far any of the campaigns end up going — dependent on money, willpower and support — will play out over the next eight months, through the Colorado Republican Party’s state assembly in the spring and then the primary election in June.

The eventual winner likely will face either U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet or Attorney General Phil Weiser, the two Democrats leading that nominating race.

“It’s going to be competitive, the Republican primary,” Republican analyst Dick Wadhams said. “There’s no juggernaut.”

But Wadhams, who ran a campaign for the state’s last Republican governor, Bill Owens, added that several of the candidates at the top of the field seemed locked in the right wing of the party. He said that conspiracy theories asserting the 2020 presidential election was stolen; calls for the pardon of former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters, who was convicted of breaching voting machines in search of fraud; and a push to end Republican participation in the state’s semi-open primary elections will make for a “minefield” when trying to court the most fervent Republicans without alienating the general electorate.

Polls show the Democrats now in control of the state — with the governor’s office (where Jared Polis is term limited) and near-2-to-1 majorities in each legislative chamber — as vulnerable as they’ve been in a decade, Wadhams said.

If the eventual Republican nominee can navigate the party base’s potentially alienating issues and appeal to the mainstream, he said, the person will have a shot. He said he thinks Kirkmeyer best fits that bill.

“While Republicans still face a drag from the anti-Trump attitudes in Colorado by unaffiliated voters,” Wadhams said, “for the first time — I think since probably 2018 or before — voters might seriously consider a Republican candidate for governor who talks to them about the issues they’re concerned about. They’re not going to be blinded by this opposition to (President) Trump.”

Most back Peters’ release

Nearly all of the candidates at the Thursday forum expressed some level of support for releasing Peters, who is in prison serving a nine-year sentence for her felony convictions. Trump has highlighted her case repeatedly, including with a recent threat of “harsh measures” if the state officials don’t release her.

Most supported an unconditional pardon without additional comment. Griffin said he’d consider commuting her sentence. Bob Brinkerhoff, a former state trooper, said “absolutely,” but he’d want to see if “she got the same kind of trial that Donald Trump did in New York,” referring to the president¶¶Òőap felony convictions.

Kirkmeyer didn’t say no to a pardon, but she answered with a considerable hedge: “If faced with new facts, I’d consider.”

Against a backdrop of unified Democratic control of state government for the past near-decade, moderators asked which laws the Republicans would wipe away if they could. Nearly every candidate said something different.

Brinkerhoff and Griffin targeted gun laws, with Brinkerhoff singling out this year’s Senate Bill 3, which adds requirements to buy certain semiautomatic firearms, and Griffin targeting “anything that infringes on our 2A rights.”

Lopez specified a piece of the legislative process, known as the safety clause, in wihch lawmakers can determine a bill “is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety,” and enact it immediately upon the governor’s signature — versus giving the public time to petition against its enactment.

Baisley, in the only mention of abortion during the forum, said he’d erase the , which codified a right to abortion in state law. Voters have since adopted similar protections in the state constitution.

“It puts government in the position of the creator,” Baisley said.

Kirkmeyer, later echoed by Brinkerhoff, named a law that was passed in the spring, . That law explicitly protects transgender people from being “deadnamed,” or misgendered, in certain places, including schools and workplaces. It also makes it easier for people to change their gender identity and name on government documents.

Kirkmeyer called the bill part of “the war on parents.”

Concern about Trump’s call for troops in cities

On Tuesday, before a rare and rapidly assembled gathering of the nation’s top military leaders, Trump claimed the country was “under invasion from within” and suggested using “some of these dangerous cities as .”

Trump has already unilaterally sent National Guard units and active-duty U.S. Marines to help with . On the same day as Trump’s speech, one Republican governor, Louisiana’s Jeff Landry, bolstered that effort by to some of his state’s cities.

The GOP field on Thursday, however, said they wouldn’t invite the Pentagon to send troops to Colorado cities — though some had some caveats.

Jason Clark, a West Point graduate and financial professional who dons a red hat emblazoned with “Make Colorado Great Again” in many of his campaign videos, offered a blunt “F-bomb no” — a bit of self-censorship at a moderator’s request — to the idea.

Griffin, who served 16 combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, said he “would never put one of our people in the city, because we are trained to kill, not to police.” But he was open to deputizing National Guard members to help police, if necessary.

Several of the Republicans echoed Griffin. They’d call up the National Guard if necessary, but in a support role and only in emergency circumstances, or if local law enforcement was failing to keep residents safe.

“I’m very nervous about the idea of using our military domestically. However, I support our folks in blue a lot,” Baisley said, noting he’s run several failed bills recently to lift the state’s restrictions on local law enforcement working with immigration officials.Ìę

He said he’d invite military help, but only to augment local law enforcement. Allowing independent military operations in Colorado would be “a little bit dangerous,” he said.

Declared Republican candidates for governor

• State Sen. Mark Baisley
• State Rep. Scott Bottoms
• Bob Brinkerhoff
• John Brooks
• Jason Clark
• Brycen Garrison
• Stevan Gess
• Jon Gray-Ginsberg
• Joshua Griffin
• State Sen. Barb Kirkmeyer
• Former U.S. Rep. Greg Lopez
• Victor Marx
• Will McBride
• Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell
• Robert Moore
• Alexander Mugatu
• Jim Rundberg
• Daniel Thomas
• Kelvin “K-Man” Wimberly

Source: Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

The poll confirms Bennet as a clear front-runner in the Democratic primary for governor, with 53% of likely voters in that contest supporting his candidacy. His support both cracks the critical majority threshold and is double the number of undecided voters, 25%, for next summer’s primary election.

The general election is in November 2026. Polis is term-limited from seeking reelection.

Attorney General Phil Weiser, the only other big-name Democrat in the race, has support from 22% of likely voters, according to the poll.

The poll was conducted by Global Strategy Group, a well-respected firm with a track record of accuracy in Colorado elections. The results are based on a survey of 600 likely Democratic primary voters and have a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4 percentage points. The poll was conducted on behalf of Bennet¶¶Òőap campaign.

A memo outlining the candidate’s favorable ratings and overall support was provided to The Denver Post.

“While voters like both Senator Bennet and A.G. Weiser, this is not a close race at the moment,” Andrew Baumann, a partner at Global Strategy Group, said in a statement. “Bennet has stronger standing and converts more of his name ID into votes, which is why he is above 50% and leads by a better than 2-to-1 margin.”

Weiser, while well-liked among Democratic voters, is far less well-known than the three-term U.S. senator. Just under half, 48%, said they were unfamiliar with Weiser. Only 13% said they were unfamiliar with Bennet.

Otherwise, many more voters reported favorable feelings than unfavorable feelings about both men. Bennet received 74% favorable to 13% unfavorable, while Weiser received 45% to 7%.

The poll also showed Bennet received majority support from likely Democratic voters 55 and older (64%), Hispanic Democratic voters (63%) and registered Democrats (55%).

“This poll confirms what we’ve been hearing from voters across Colorado: Michael Bennet is the right leader for this moment, and he’s building a broad, winning coalition to prove it,” Ben Waldon, Bennet¶¶Òőap campaign manager, said in a statement. “Coloradans know what¶¶Òőap at stake, and they’re getting behind Michael because he delivers results and brings people together. We’ll keep showing up in every corner of the state to earn every vote.”

The poll only surveyed Bennet versus Weiser in the Democratic primary.

Weiser’s campaign, in response to Bennet’s poll, pointed to a December poll of the race commissioned by Healthier Colorado.

The older poll showed 57% of likely Democratic primary voters did not have an opinion of Weiser, while 32% had a favorable view of the attorney general. Bennet’s poll shows that more likely voters now have an opinion of Weiser, and more of the total view him favorably than they did six months ago. The Healthier Colorado poll did not include Bennet.

“We have the fundraising and grassroots support we need to contest this race all the way to election day,” Weiser said in a statement. “Coloradans deserve a competitive primary among candidates who show up across our state to ask for their vote and have a rigorous debate. We’re going to give them one.”

Colorado hasn’t elected a Republican as governor since Gov. Bill Owens in 2002. State Rep. Scott Bottoms, of Colorado Springs, Sen. Mark Baisley, of Woodland Park, former U.S. Rep. Greg Lopez and Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell have declared for the GOP nomination.

Bennet officially jumped into the race in April and immediately upended it. Last week, he announced more than 130 endorsements from prominent Coloradans across the state, including a handful who had initially endorsed Weiser.Ìę

Global Strategy Group also polled favorability and vote choice for attorney general on behalf of Secretary of State Jena Griswold’s campaign for that office.

It showed Griswold leading the field with likely voters, with 42% support, over other Democratic candidates, though just as many said they were undecided. Michael Dougherty, the Boulder County district attorney, had the next-largest share of voters at 8%, according to the poll.

The 11 vetoed bills touched on a raft of issues: social media regulations, new rules for ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft, criminal justice reforms, health care, the Colorado Open Records Act and several more.

Some, such as his veto of a bill that would have made it easier for unions to negotiate dues, were telegraphed well ahead of time.

Others surprised the bill sponsors, chiefly a proposed ban on surprise charges from ambulance rides — a proposal that had passed both the House and Senate unanimously. Supporters of the bill believe it is the first time a governor has vetoed a bill that had no votes against it.Ìę

Sponsors were hesitant to read much into Polis’ slightly more frequent use of his veto pen than in prior years. The 11 vetoes — up from Polis’ previous high of 10 in 2023 — nonetheless underscored the adage that every bill must pass by clear threshold to become law: 33 votes in the House, 18 votes in the Senate and one vote from the governor’s office.

During a news conference near the end of the signing period following the 2025 session, which officially ended Friday, Polis said he reviews each bill individually before determining if “it¶¶Òőap in the best interest of Colorado.”

The vetoes don’t mean the ideas behind the bills are totally dead, Polis said. He cited one law he signed this year regarding heating, ventilation and air conditioning in schools and another to combat wage theft that arose from bills he vetoed last year. Lawmakers tried again, winning his approval.

Colorado’s recent governors have reached for their veto pen to varying extents. Polis’ predecessor, now-U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, did so less often — in part because split control of the legislature’s chambers at times kept partisan measures from reaching the Democrat’s desk. His single-year record was nine vetoes, during his final year in office in 2018.

But Gov. Bill Owens vetoed bills more often, especially during the Republican’s second term after Democrats won majorities in both legislative chambers. He in 2005 and, the next year, he vetoed 18 bills in a single day.

Is Polis ‘out of step’ with Democrats?

This year, Rep. Javier Mabrey, a Denver Democrat, saw Polis veto three of the bills he sponsored, the most of any individual lawmaker.

was aimed at making it easier for unions to negotiate dues. sought to ban the use of algorithms by landlords to, in effect, coordinate rent prices. And would have prevented local governments from instituting harsher penalties than state sentencing guidelines.Ìę

Mabrey chalked up Polis’ high veto total as a response to what lawmakers passed, rather than some change in how the governor approaches veto power in his second-to-last session as the state’s chief executive. Polis, who is term-limited, will leave office after the 2026 session. Democrats will have controlled both legislative chambers throughout his tenure.

But, Mabrey said, “each of the bills of mine that he vetoed were targeted to help people who are poor and struggling.” The vetoes, to him, show Polis is “out of step with the mainstream of his party.” In particular, he cited Polis’ veto of the union bill.

Nationally, Democrats have been ceding union support to Republicans, a loss that to President Donald Trump’s election in November.

The 2024 election results should be a “five-alarm fire” for Democrats, showing they need to show they support the working class, Mabrey said.

“Democrats in the legislature did step up, but the governor prevented us from standing on the side of working people in that fight,” Mabrey said.

Kelly Caufield, the executive director of the Common Sense Institute, a nonpartisan, free enterprise-oriented think tank, said she saw in Polis’ vetoes a focus on the broader economy and secondary effects of some of the bills.

On the union bill, for example, a  found that the most union-friendly states tend to have a higher cost of living, biting into union workers’ higher wages, and higher youth unemployment.

“The through line, for me, is (that) the governor is focused on the data, facts and economic consequences in a state where we’re seeing a decline in overall competitiveness,” Caufield said.

Polis has made affordability central to his administration, even if his definition of it may differ from some in the legislature. In his veto of the union bill, for example, Polis said he is “pro-union, pro-worker and (has) worked throughout my career in public service to protect the right of workers to organize.”

But, he wrote in , there should be “a high bar” to set mandatory dues for union shops, “particularly at a time when hardworking Coloradans are concerned about the cost of groceries, the economy, and their job security.”

His veto on that bill was also cheered by business groups.

Loren Furman, the president and CEO of the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement that the bill would have “threatened our statewide business climate at a time when we should be fostering a competitive economy,” and the veto “preserves the unique labor laws that set us apart from other states.”

Veto leaves sponsor ‘incredibly disappointed’

Polis’ concerns about direct costs also resulted in perhaps the most surprising veto of the year: .

The bill sought to eliminate so-called surprise billing when a person with health insurance is transported in an ambulance and gets charged because the emergency service wasn’t part of their network. It faced no opposition among lawmakers.

Rep. Karen McCormick, a Longmont Democrat and sponsor of the bill, said she hadn’t gotten any indication the governor would veto the measure. She recalled reaching out to the governor’s team at the end of April, before the bill’s final votes, and not hearing back on any suggested amendments. The governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment on that timeline.

Polis’ May 29 veto left her “surprised, incredibly disappointed (and) confused.”

“The folks who vote no on everything voted yes on this,” McCormick said in an interview.Ìę“I’m still kind of shocked about that. That lets you know this was a sensible consumer protection, non-cost-raising measure. This, to me, kind of fits right in on the governor’s mission of saving people money on health care.” 

In , Polis wrote he worried about potential premium increases of 73 cents to $2.15 per person per month on a health insurance plan.

“A family of four would likely pay as much as one hundred dollars more per year in insurance premiums if I were to sign this bill; by every estimate, this bill raises costs for consumers,” Polis wrote. He also said the bill had “several drafting issues that render it unimplementable in its current form.”

McCormick disputed both counts.

Several other states, including some on the opposite side of the political spectrum like Texas and Oklahoma, have implemented the change without meaningful changes in insurance costs as a result, she said. And lawmakers have worked on the issue for two years, with legislative lawyers reviewing bill language along the way.

McCormick said she had asked for evidence that the bill would drive costs higher and was told Polis heard it from health insurance companies, like Anthem and UnitedHealth Group, and the Colorado Association of Health Plans, an industry group.

Kevin M. McFatridge, the trade group’s executive director, said in a statement that his members “appreciated” the veto.Ìę

“Our members’ priority is to maintain affordability for their customers,” McFatridge wrote. “This bill would have mandated drastic price increases for ground ambulance services which would have led to higher healthcare costs for Coloradans.”

He added that the bill would have put enforcement under the Colorado Department of Insurance, which does not have jurisdiction over group ambulance providers.

But he, like Polis, said the industry wants to continue working on the issue.

McCormick, having run bills aimed at eliminating surprise billing the past two years, said she planned to file the bill again next year — after she takes a breath and tries to understand better why this attempt was vetoed.

“I guess the people of Colorado are just going to have to wait,” McCormick said. “This would have helped their finances and made it so folks weren’t scared of calling 911.”

Thirty-eight million dollars for school bus electrification? Cut.

Seventy-two million dollars to promote alternate transportation? Cut.

And so on. Dollar by dollar, through programs big and small, whether by “haircut” or outright elimination, Colorado lawmakers have spent months sifting through the state’s $16 billion state budget looking for more than $1 billion in cuts to state spending.

Budget-writing lawmakers have described the decisions as gut-wrenching and compared the cuts to ranking the worst days of their lives. They’ve responded with rage and tears as they try to protect programs for kids, and fretted over what hard caps on spending will mean for education in the state.

The exact nature and scope of the proposed cuts won’t be available until the budget is formally introduced later this month. On Friday, lawmakers delayed the introduction a week, until March 31, so members and staff can have more time to finalize the document — and wrestle with some of the sharpest decisions left to make around education and health care for the most vulnerable Coloradans.

The budget will dictate state spending for the upcoming fiscal year, which begins July 1, but will ripple through for years to come.

“More than any other year, this has been a year of competing values,” Sen. Jeff Bridges, chair of the Joint Budget Committee, said. “… We’ve made some really hard choices and we’ve cut some programs that truly improved people’s lives. But we just don’t have the funds available because of the rationing equation in TABOR.”

The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, aims to keep state spending in check through a formula based on consumer inflation and population growth. The costs of government service, especially through medical inflation and mandatory Medicaid spending, have grown faster than the cap allows — in effect shrinking how much money the state has for other programs.

It¶¶Òőap left the budget-writing lawmakers to reckon with a structural spending problem, one divorced from the overall economy, where they have to make massive cuts this year and with little hope the crunch resolves in years to come. It¶¶Òőap led to early conversations about whether a change to the cap should be proposed, or if the state needs to reorient its priorities to grapple with the 30-year-old, voter-approved amendment to the state constitution.

Cuts “likely aren’t coming back”

Bridges contrasted the cuts to this year’s budget to a recession. During sharp economic downturns, the state needs to make deep, immediate cuts — but once the economy bounces back, so can state programs, he said.

“Recessions you can recover from,” Bridges, a Greenwood Village Democrat, said. “Because we know the cuts we make this year likely aren’t coming back unless there is a change to the structural rationing that we have in our budget, we have to be really careful.”

Members of the budget committee said they’ve been trying to give the public and policymakers a longer runway before making harder-to-stomach cuts around Medicaid and child welfare, as well as state priorities like K-12 and higher education.

It¶¶Òőap led to proposed cuts to programs deemed non-vital, minimally used or otherwise less likely to have an immediate impact on the state, like the energy efficiency program for marijuana grows and downtown revitalization grants. In other cases, like school bus electrification, it’s a relatively easier decision because spending through the federal Investment Infrastructure and Jobs Act covers the state’s aims

It¶¶Òőap also led to harder choices, like cutting $1 million from food banks. They’re all decisions with real-world consequences, but ones that don’t necessarily stave off future cuts.

“Next year, there will be more cuts, probably fewer one-time options and, as time goes on, the cuts will lean more to the ongoing programs because there won’t be any more one-time cuts to make,” said Rep. Shannon Bird, a Westminster Democrat. “It¶¶Òőap kind of giving us more time to find what the path forward looks like.”

Rep. Rick Taggart, a Grand Junction Republican on the committee, echoed the sentiment. The committee is aiming for a “softer landing” this year — but that leaves less padding for cuts next year. The sheer size of this year’s gap has already led to discussions about what cuts to Medicaid could look like — and if that would push out health care providers or otherwise keep Coloradans from getting the care they need.

“When you have to trim (human and health care services) back, you know you’re hurting human beings,” Taggart said. “And for anyone who thinks that doesn’t hurt, well, it hurts. But at some point, you just don’t have a choice. You’ve got to find savings.”

Changes to TABOR limits pick up steam — but not without opposition

While this budget is still weeks away from approval, and months from going into effect, lawmakers are already grappling with how to break out of the deficit spiral. Taggart, a former CEO, wants to pivot departments toward zero-based budgeting — essentially building budgets from scratch every year, versus starting from the previous year’s budget — to control spending.

But that also doesn’t address entitlement programs, like Medicaid and education, where the state needs to pay for costs as they crop up. Medicaid, in particular, shot past projections by hundreds of millions of dollars as more people used the services.

“We’ve got to find ways where we make absolutely certain we are not wasting dollars, but at the same time, these are people that need our help,” Taggart said. “There’s a humanity there. So there’s not a perfect answer.”

Bird, the committee’s vice chair, said “thoughtful limits” aren’t necessarily a bad thing, as they force state officials to stay in line with voters’ wishes. But, she added, “How is that limit configured to best reflect the priorities of the people of our state?”

She, like others, raised the idea of exempting some taxes from TABOR limits to pay for Medicaid, though nothing has been formally proposed. Any changes would need voter approval — and voters soundly rejected the last two efforts to change the TABOR formula.

Bridges, the budget committee chair, said he feels “a moral responsibility” to beat the drum about the spending cap’s effect on state services. He’s repeatedly invoked Republican Gov. Bill Owens’ push for Referendum C 20 years ago, a voter-approved measure that reset the TABOR cap, though that may not be the right option for this problem, he said.

“We don’t have a revenue shortfall,” Bridges said. “We have a structural deficit because of the structural deficit created by TABOR.”

State Republicans have so far bristled at any idea of changing the way the cap works. Raising it would be a de facto tax increase, they argue, and state government instead needs to work within the amendment¶¶Òőap constraints. That argument helped sink Proposition HH, the complicated property-tax-and-education funding measure, in 2023, and rose again during a recent floor debate on the legislative branch’s budget.

“I’ve heard it more than once being said that TABOR is why we can’t have nice things,” Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican on the budget committee, said. “My response always is, TABOR is why the hardworking taxpayers in this state get to have nice things.”

On one side of the GOP primary is Dave Williams, who was elected state party chair last year and now running for Congress. He claims the mantle of the bare-knuckle conservative fighter — and, in doing so, is leveraging the party’s resources to sling invectives at his opponent.

On the other is his rival, Jeff Crank, a longtime radio host and vice president with the influential conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, with a comparatively simple pitch: Let’s push the Republican cause forward, without turning the party against itself.

Both men have run for the seat before, and both lost to retiring U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn in primary races. The seat is now open for the first time in nearly 20 years, guaranteeing that in the June 25 primary, one of them will finally secure the Republican nomination.

On issues, the two don’t seem far apart. Both tout endorsements that underscore their opposition to abortion and their Second Amendment bona fides on gun rights, and both list immigration as the top issue on their campaign websites.

Crank, 57, acknowledged the similarities at a campaign event Tuesday when he took questions from the audience. But voters might not know it from some of the campaign literature, he suggested, and joked that reading some of the claims caused him to second-guess even his own support for his candidacy.

Williams, 37, did not respond to requests for an interview for this story.

The winner of the primary in the longtime Republican stronghold will face the nominee who emerges from the 5th District’s Democratic primary, which features River Gassen and Joe Reagan.

Crank, who disputed any notion that he falls short on conservative principles at his event, repeatedly has called for Republican unity and an end to intraparty fighting.

While referring to some of Williams’ attacks, Crank said during his event: “I’m not here to tell you that Dave Williams, my opponent, is going to grab your guns. He’s not. He’s pro-Second Amendment, I’m pro-Second Amendment.”

The Colorado Republican Party website’s , meanwhile, opened in recent days to a party newsletter that shows a picture of Crank under the word “,” while featuring Williams and former President Donald Trump under the “MAGA” slogan. Trump in the race, as have U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, the El Paso County Republican Party and, of course, the state party — which this year has weighed in on primary races to an unusual degree.

Crank has backing from Republican U.S. House Speaker , former Gov. Bill Owens and Lamborn.

Crank underscored his other conservative tenets to supporters, among them a firm opposition to abortion — except in cases of rape or incest or to protect the mother’s life — and support for the restoration of Trump’s so-called “Remain in Mexico” closed-border policy. He said it would discourage migrants from making the treacherous journey to the United States.

During hosted by Colorado Springs media earlier this month, a moderator asked exactly what separates the two.

Williams responded that he would fight against Democrats and LGBTQ+ Pride events and for Trump, “especially in light of this rigged verdict” in the recent hush-money trial. Crank, by contrast, would be another Washington insider, Williams alleged — emphasizing his ties to Americans for Prosperity, the advocacy organization founded by conservative billionaire Charles Koch and his brother.

“We need to start electing people that are going to take the fight to Democrats and not be timid,” Williams said.

Crank retorted that Williams, instead, is the very definition of an establishment politician: a former state lawmaker and current head of the state Republican Party who’s now looking for a seat in Congress.

Williams sparks GOP revolt

It¶¶Òőap in his current role that Williams has divided his fellow Republicans, with some going so far as calling for his resignation while others have filed formal complaints with the Federal Election Commission.

Lisa Brandt, who hosted the Tuesday meet and greet for Crank in Black Forest, started the event by waving around some mailers that slammed Crank and boosted Williams.

In the top corner of the ads, a disclosure was printed: Paid for by the Colorado Republican Committee, the formal name of the state party.

“The mudslinging in politics really bothers me, personally,” Brandt told the crowd. “I think it¶¶Òőap childish. But what really bothers me, in addition to that, is that the mudslinging is now, I guess, paid for by the Colorado Republican Committee.”

Kelly Maher, a Republican consultant in Denver and executive director of a political action committee aimed at integrity in politics, filed a complaint with the FEC this spring, alleging that Williams was using the party as a “” for his campaign.

She expects a lengthy process before official action is taken on the complaint but said she wanted to draw a line in the sand.

“(Williams is) flipping the proverbial middle finger to everybody,” Maher said. “Every member of the Republican Party, every other candidate, every other voter. I wish I had the correct adjective for it. Brazen isn’t even enough.”

Williams’ behavior as chair has crossed lines with other Republicans, too, including some predecessors as state party chair. Nancy Pallozzi, chair of the Jefferson County Republican Party, calling for Williams’ resignation over the party’s recent call to burn all LGBTQ+ Pride flags. She sought a special meeting of the party central committee to force a vote to replace him, and it’s attracted support from some state lawmakers and congressional candidates. She was censured for the effort late Thursday because she went outside the county party’s executive committee.

“This was about protecting the Republicans in the state and saying that this is not what Republicans stand for,” Pallozzi said. “We are not about hate, and we are not about burning Pride flags or any flags for that matter — and that tweet was just horrible.”

In the June 6 debate, Williams doubled down on his anti-Pride statements and framed it as a religious battle.

“It¶¶Òőap come high time that we fight back against these people and start doing what the Lord would have us do,” Williams said. “… Do you want a feckless person that’s not going to stand up to the Pride Nazis that want to shove this wicked agenda down your throat and your kids’ (throat)?”

Crank, for his part, declares that there are only two genders — a shot against the concept of non-conforming gender identities — and stands against gender-affirming health care for children, while adding: “I don’t know that you can call it ‘care.’ ”

He stands against any state or federal resources going to such care, he said, and promised to at the debate to fight “the woke nonsense at our schools.” He also said at the meet and greet that adults in this country are free people who can otherwise make their own choices.

Outside money bolsters Crank

Crank has been a strong fundraiser, reporting about $507,000 in total contributions from individuals and political action committees through June 5, according to a pre-primary report filed Thursday. Williams, as of his new report, has reported raising a total of nearly $237,000 in contributions through June 5, but that includes a $100,000 candidate loan. Williams had slightly more money left for the final weeks, about $148,000 to Crank’s nearly $137,000.

It¶¶Òőap not apparent from federal election filings how much money the state party has spent to boost Williams’ campaign, and that report isn’t due until next week.

But other independent expenditures have almost universally benefited Crank.

About $2.25 million has been spent either to explicitly support Crank or to oppose Williams’ candidacy, according to FEC filings. More than half of that spending has been by America Leads Action, a super-PAC that¶¶Òőap received support from former Walmart chairman and Denver Broncos co-owner Rob Walton and other conservative activists.

Another $475,000 has come from Americans for Prosperity Action, the political arm of Crank’s employer.

But Crank rejects the idea of any parallel between that spending and the state party’s explicit support of Williams. The Americans for Prosperity PAC exists to get involved in races, and Crank said he was immediately “firewalled” from its activity as soon as he declared his candidacy.

Americans for Prosperity’s PAC is “free to go and raise money 
 to elect principled conservative candidates,” Crank said — adding that Williams would be, too, if he started a PAC.

“But that¶¶Òőap not what (Williams has) done. He’s hijacked the party to attack members of that party, and that¶¶Òőap just unethical,” Crank said.

The district is historically one of the reddest in the state, having gone for Lamborn by more than 15 percentage points in 2022. But Democrats and independent candidates have made inroads there in recent years, with some Colorado Springs legislative seats flipping blue and Colorado Springs electing political independent Yemi Mobolade as mayor last year.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

In all, Polis nixed six bills. His office announced the vetoes in a news release Friday evening, and they prompted expressions of disappointment from fellow Democrats who had sponsored the rejected measures, some of which had also been endorsed by the Democratic Women’s Caucus.

The other vetoed bills would have required higher standards for grant-funded ventilation upgrades in schools, including for air conditioning; prohibited mandatory attendance for anti-union seminars and other political meetings at work; required new background check requirements for youth sports organizations’ employees, coaches and volunteers who travel with a team, along with requiring that CPR-certified adults be present for all their activities; added new restrictions and disincentivized the combustion of municipal solid waste; and prohibited insurers from requiring that prescriptions administered by health care providers be dispensed only by specific network pharmacies.

In some of the veto letters, Polis signaled support for a bill’s concept but took issue with how it would have been implemented. He also wrote that his office had tried to work with lawmakers in some cases, but couldn’t find agreement.

The wage-theft bill has been his most prominent veto so far this year.

Its sponsors previewed the measure before the legislative session’s official start, and it was named one of the Democratic Women’s Caucus’ priority bills. The bill also factored into some intra-caucus conflict when a Democratic senator was removed from sponsorship after she faced accusations she wouldn’t sign off on an aide’s time card.

In his for , Polis called wage theft “a deplorable crime” but took issue with its final version. By allowing general contractors to be held liable, the bill sought to ensure subcontractor employees working on the job weren’t stolen from and left without recourse.

“Under the bill the general contractor — even when not at fault under any reasonable standard — would effectively pay for the same work twice (in addition to fines, penalties, and interest), raising costs,” Polis wrote.

His letter said he sought to address his concerns with sponsors. Sen. Jessie Danielson, a Wheat Ridge Democrat and the sponsor of the bill in its second chamber, said she never saw suggested amendments from Polis. But her understanding, she said, was that they would have “completely gutted” the bill in a way that none of the sponsors or workers the bill sought to protect would have found acceptable.

Danielson, in an email, wrote that Polis “sided with those companies that earn their profits off of the exploitation of workers.” Co-sponsor Sen. Chris Kolker, a Centennial Democrat, said he had never heard from the governor’s team about changes, adding: “The veto has the governor choosing to not protect workers.”

Despite the veto, Polis highlighted his administration’s efforts to fight wage theft and said he would direct the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to continue to look at other strategies.

Among the other vetoed bills, Polis , which targeted employers’ anti-union meetings, “too broad and too ambiguous” because it more generally discipline of employees for failing to attend mandatory meetings on political or religious matters. He wrote that he’d support a narrower bill specific to banning forced attendance of anti-union meetings.

And he said , the background check measure for youth sports organizations, added “unrealistic and counterproductive expectations and undue burden” that would make it harder to recruit volunteers and run the leagues. He also cited a misalignment between it and , which also sought to regulate youth sports and was signed into law. Lawmakers who sponsored the bills had issued a public statement last week calling on Polis to sign both.

Danielson sponsored four of the six vetoed bills. She said in an email that “the governor’s vetoes put him squarely at odds with Colorado families and workers.” In particular, she called the veto of background checks for youth sports employees and volunteers “shocking and disturbing.”

“He should be dedicated to protecting kids in sports from sexual predators and abusers,” Danielson wrote.

The vetoes struck down two of the six priority bills from the Democratic Women’s Caucus that passed the legislature. Caucus co-chair Sen. Lisa Cutter, a Littleton Democrat, noted that 18 of the vetoed bills’ 22 sponsors were women, including on bills that weren’t officially part of the caucus’ priority list.

“I think I speak for the entire women’s caucus to say we’re really disappointed that things women believe to be important are not always in alignment with what the governor believes,” Cutter said.

The governor does generally hear out the caucus’ ideas, Cutter said, and she appreciated that four of the priority bills — including free menstrual products for students and a requirement that schools use students’ preferred names — did become law.

This first batch of bill rejections follow a historic year of vetoes for Polis in 2023, when he axed 10 bills. That was the most of Polis’ tenure as governor, and the most since Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, vetoed 44 bills from the Democratic-controlled General Assembly in 2006. Polis typically has vetoed about five bills per year.

Polis previously has said he makes his signing decisions as the one person involved in enacting laws who represents the entire state, versus the individual districts that lawmakers represent.

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.