6:39 p.m. update: The state Senate advanced a bill to further divorce the state from changes to the federal tax code to fund new and expanded tax credits around renewable energy, electric vehicles, wildfire mitigation and more.

ends a number of tax exemptions, including for overtime wages and investments in opportunity funds not in Colorado; limits deductions for motor fuel tax filers; lowers general fund transfers to the state highway fund; and narrows other tax credits.

Republicans, who opposed the bill, forced several public votes on Democrats around ending exemptions for taxes on overtime wages and some tax allowance for fuel and tobacco wholesalers. Democrats narrowly defeated the amendments after warning they would blow up other tax credits and services.

The bill still needs a final, recorded vote before it can return to the House for consideration of amendments. It would then head to the governor’s desk.

In the House, members gave final approval to bills about chat-bot interactions with minors, the use of artificial intelligence in psychotherapy, a financial maneuver to let the state count an over-return of taxes collected over the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights revenue cap, and protections for immigrants in Colorado.

2:50 p.m. update: A bill that’s aimed at undercutting a proposed ballot initiative before it ever goes to a vote of the people cleared debate in the Senate, setting up a final vote on the last day of session Wednesday.

was introduced at the start of the month specifically to counter Initiative 175. The initiative, which has not yet qualified for the November ballot, would require the state to spend more than $500 million a year on road funding that now goes to other priorities. Legislators opposing it worry that it would blow a hole in an already precarious state budget.

Supporters of the bill said HB-1430 would use budgeting maneuvers to create a net-zero effect on the state budget if the Initiative were approved — such as by cutting the gas tax to make room under the state revenue cap to spend on other state priorities elsewhere. Republicans debated in opposition to the bill for more than two hours before it passed on an initial voice vote.

The bill will need approval in a formal vote Wednesday, and then for the House to agree to Senate amendments later that day, to fully pass.

12:08 p.m. update: A Republican lawmaker from Colorado Springs referred to George Floyd as a “thug” this morning and claimed the Minnesota man, who died after a Minneapolis police officer pressed a knee against his neck, was killed by a drug overdose.

The comments from Rep. Scott Bottoms came amid floor debate on . The measure would require the prompt release of video or audio that captures the deadly use of force by law enforcement, and police would be required to contact the family of the person killed and offer them access to the recordings. The bill also would block officers investigating a police killing from making public comments about the case that may prejudice any future legal proceedings or inquiries.

One of the bill’s sponsors, Democratic Rep. Regina English, tearfully described people being “murdered” by law enforcement officers. She also referenced Floyd’s 2020 death.

“Murder is murder, and there should be a level of accountability for these moms and dads who are suffering at the hands of law enforcement in our state,” English told colleagues Tuesday, stressing that she wasn’t criticizing all police officers.

That prompted Bottoms, who is running for governor, to take to the floor and criticize Rep. Lindsay Gilchrist, who was overseeing the House from the speaker’s lectern. He said Gilchrist should have challenged English’s reference to police murders. As he continued to criticize Gilchrist, she moved the House into a recess — prompting Bottoms, English, House leadership and a large number of lawmakers to huddle in a corner.

Colorado lawmakers want more lobbying transparency from the next governor. Could Polis stand in the way?

As tensions rose, several of the chamber's sergeants, who serve as the House's security guards, also joined the crowd and, at one point, stepped between some of the legislators.

After the recess ended, Bottoms returned to the floor and said he didn't take issue with the bill but with English's comments. He claimed Floyd died of "drug addiction" and not from a police officer. He then argued with Gilchrist as she tried to steer him back to the contents of the bill.

When he kept talking about Floyd, Gilchrist moved the House into another recess.

The medical examiner who conducted Floyd's autopsy concluded his death was a homicide that occurred during “law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression," . The medical examiner found heart disease and drug use contributed to Floyd's death in May 2020 but that they were not the main factor.

The officer who killed Floyd was convicted of unintentional second-degree murder and third-degree murder, among other charges. He was sentenced to more than 22 years in prison.

After the second recess, Rep. Michael Carter, an Aurora Democrat, said English "was loud because she was scared."

"That fear is not imagined," he said. "It is built from our lived experience and watching systems respond differently depending on who is hurting who, and who is accused. I'm tired of having to prove that my pain is real. I'm tired of having to prove that we have to be taken seriously."

The temperature in the room gradually lowered, and the bill later passed an initial voice vote. It needs a final recorded vote in the House before it moves to Polis' desk.

10:52 a.m. update: A Hail Mary effort to let the quasi-governmental workers’ comp insurance program Pinnacol Assurance go private has officially fallen short.

House Speaker Julie McCluskie announced the latest attempt to privatize Pinnacol at the beginning of April -- giving backers about a month to push through a bill before the mandatory end of the legislative session on Wednesday. Pinnacol serves as the workers' compensation insurer of last resort, providing coverage to high-risk industries that traditional insurers don't touch.

But the latest effort was doomed, before the bill was even introduced, by opposition from union members who worried about losing affordable coverage, legal wranglings around whether the state could even take the money from a Pinnacol sale and, ultimately, the legislature’s looming deadline to adjourn.

“Unfortunately, I don’t think I got a good deal until the last week or two that would have kept Pinnacol as an insurer of last resort and saved (the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association) and allowed Pinnacol to compete in other states,” Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez, a Denver Democrat, said. “I just don’t know that the timing was there. I don’t know if labor would have been on board.”

Spinning off the program has been a longtime goal of some policymakers, including Gov. Jared Polis. Pinnacol’s share of the workers' comp market has dropped from about 60% in 2015 to 49% in 2024, as more companies work across state lines.

Pinnacol, as a quasi-state agency, can serve only Colorado businesses. Allowing Pinnacol to go private, and thus serve clients across state lines, could help the insurer remain viable, backers argue.

The state’s tight budget is also a factor that has fueled the effort. Allowing Pinnacol to go private could land the state a one-time windfall worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Rodriguez said concerns that the state couldn't afford a property tax exemption for seniors spurred him to work on the issue. Lawmakers were able to find other money to pay for that property tax exemption.

The next stage of the fight over Pinnacol’s future may go to voters this November. Supporters of Pinnacol privatization are gathering signatures for that would turn Pinnacol into a fully independent insurance company. In return, the state would receive a one-time $150 million payment, plus an estimated $10.5 million annually, with the money going into a new fund for skilled workers in the trades.

Rodriguez said he hopes the ballot measure doesn’t pass, citing “a lot of unfortunate ramifications."

10:23 a.m. update: Welcome to the penultimate day of the 2026 regular session. Let's start with a quick summary of what happened last night.

In case you missed it, Democratic lawmakers dropped their last-minute plans to try to neuter a proposed ballot measure that would give Coloradans broad rights to use and sell natural gas. In the Senate, lawmakers gave final approval to , which would let the state keep billions of dollars in additional revenue for education and other spending -- so long as voters approve it on the ballot in November.

The Senate also waved through -- that's the legislature's much-awaited rewrite of Colorado's artificial intelligence regulations. That bill now goes to Gov. Jared Polis, who is expected to sign it into law.

Elsewhere, given the late hour of the session, bills that have quietly languished on the calendar are going to start dying. Among the condemned is , which would've carved out paycheck advance services from Colorado's payday loan regulations.

This story will be updated throughout the day.

7:12 p.m. update: Well, so much for Colorado Democrats’ plans to undercut another prospective conservative ballot measure.

Three days after she unveiled the plan to reporters, House Speaker Julie McCluskie said in a statement Monday night that she would not bring forward legislation intended to establish guardrails for Initiative 177, should it make the ballot and win approval from voters. That measure aims to establish a right to use natural gas. (See the 3:43 p.m. update below for more on the effort.)

The bill that she and other lawmakers had hoped to bring — and that various outside groups could agree to — “would not meaningfully change the impacts of Initiative 177 or mitigate the harms of this measure.” She called on Advance Colorado, the conservative group backing the proposal, to withdraw it before it reaches the ballot.

6:15 p.m. update: Lawmakers killed a pair of bills Monday afternoon that were designed to undo some of the state impact of recent federal tax changes as a way to direct money to low-income families.

House Bills and , which were postponed indefinitely in committee votes at their sponsors’ requests, would have limited some of the tax cuts enacted last summer with the federal tax bill. Colorado automatically mimics changes made to the federal tax code. The extra money raised by the bills would have helped fill the gap left by the flagging Family Affordability Tax Credit. That credit, which went into effect for tax year 2024, was credited with helping to cut ��DZ��ǰ������’s child poverty rate by more than a third.

Revenue collected over the growth cap set by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights funded the credit. State revenue did not hit that cap this year in part because of the federal tax changes — meaning the family credit won’t be dispersed.

The bills would have limited the tax deductions businesses could claim for things like CEO pay, operating losses and interest deductions. That money would have then been diverted to a new credit designed to mirror the Family Affordability Tax Credit.

“We are giving preferential treatment to CEOs and corporations who are doing fine, and we are giving not-preferential treatment to people who are really struggling, who are working and contributing to our society,” said Sen. Judy Amabile, a Boulder Democrat who sponsored HB-1221.

Sponsors of these bills couldn’t wrangle enough support to create a substitute credit to help those families. Sen. Cathy Kipp explicitly blamed a veto threat by Gov. Jared Polis when she killed HB-1222.

“It is clear that this bill will be vetoed unless we agree to reducing the state income tax, something that I believe is irresponsible,” Kipp, a Fort Collins Democrat, said shortly before killing her bill.

Polis said in an interview at the start of the session that he would want broad-based tax changes to support any targeted tax credits.

“The governor has long supported providing tax relief, including income tax relief for Colorado families,” spokesman Eric Maruyama said in a statement after the bills were killed. “��DZ��ǰ������’s Family Affordability Tax Credit helped cut child poverty rates … and the governor supported strengthening this credit to help families while saving every Coloradan money on taxes.”

A third bill that would help fund the new credit, , is still alive after sponsors altered the benefits to include tax credits for restaurants’ utilities.

3:43 p.m. update: Democratic lawmakers have fewer than nine hours left to introduce and advance legislation that, they hope, would curb the impacts of a potential conservative-backed ballot measure.

Democratic lawmakers told reporters late last week that the bill would add “guardrails” to , which would give Coloradans the right to buy and use natural gas and for companies to sell it. It’s in the petition-circulation phase and hasn’t yet made the November ballot.

But the new bill still hadn’t been unveiled as of mid-afternoon. If lawmakers hope to pass it before the end of the session Wednesday, they’ll need to introduce it today, shepherd it through any and all House committees and then move it through a first full vote in the chamber — all before the clock strikes midnight. Otherwise, there won’t be enough time to pass the bill through both chambers before lawmakers call it a year.

Sen. Lisa Cutter, a Jefferson County Democrat sponsoring the bill, said today that discussions were underway with outside stakeholders. She said the bill’s fate had been back and forth in recent days. Last she heard, she said, “we might be alive.” She added: “We’re still trying to figure it out. I hope we do.”

To protest the late introduction of the bill, House Republicans have begun having every bill read aloud in the chamber — a constitutionally approved request that largely functions as a delay tactic.

“This isn’t good governance,” Rep. Ty Winter, the assistant minority leader, said. “Since they didn’t give us the time and what we need to do the due diligence … we’re figuring it out now.”

2:20 p.m. update: Colorado lawmakers passed a $174 million effort to reform the state’s competency and civil commitment systems.  aims to create a clear pathway within criminal cases to institutionalize people accused of serious crimes who are mentally ill or developmentally disabled and to ensure such defendants are not set free without care when their criminal cases end.

The bill, which was finalized today when the Senate approved House amendments, is expected to cost Colorado $174 million by 2030 and then roughly $73.5 million annually in subsequent years, according to a fiscal note. The new approach will include increased bed capacity and outpatient care.

The bill’s proponents say the effort will close loopholes in ��DZ��ǰ������’s current competency process. Critics worry it will not solve broader problems within the state’s under-resourced mental healthcare system.

“These systems that have been put in place under the competency bill attempt to reform the way people are shuffled through our courts, and reform some of the ways that people are held during their crises at hospitals or other behavioral healthcare provider institutions, but the underlying problem is they are getting to this level of crisis where they are committing a crime,” said Jack Johnson, a public policy liaison at Disability Law Colorado.

Sen. Judy Amabile, a Boulder Democrat and a sponsor of the bill, said the effort went through “tense” times as stakeholders and others weighed in on the expansive proposal, but she noted that the bill ultimately saw nearly unanimous support from lawmakers.

“At the end of the day we all had the same basic goal, which is (that) people who are dangerous because they have an illness should not just be put out on the street,” she said. “This is not a good solve. And we have been doing that in Colorado for 50 years.”

2:13 p.m. update: The second of two bills seeking to regulate data centers died this afternoon under the weight of a proposed last-minute rewrite.

was an attempt to mix regulations and incentives to rein in data center development in Colorado. Sen. Cathy Kipp, a Fort Collins Democrat, worked through the final weeks of the legislative session trying to find alignment between data center companies, Xcel Energy, environmental groups, labor unions and other interests.

The bill would have required new data centers to include community and wildlife protections and meet water efficiency standards and limits on backup generators. The proposed rewrite also included new incentives for data centers that follow best practices on environmental protections, renewable energy, and grid and ratepayer protections.

But the rewrite was going to be introduced ahead of the bill’s initial committee vote today. That left the measure with a series of extremely tight deadlines to meet before the legislature adjourns Wednesday. Kipp voluntarily killed the bill after hearing from colleagues that there wasn’t enough time.

“We really thought we were threading the needle,” Kipp said.

She promised to spend another year working on the issue. She also warned: “These (data center) companies need to come to the table, understanding the harms their operations can cause to our communities and to our grid.” The death of this bill follows the death of a competing data center bill last week. would have offered tens of millions of dollars in incentives to comply with regulations.

2:07 p.m. update: The Colorado Senate passed legislation requiring increased inspections of immigration detention centers in Colorado — but only after stripping several provisions from the bill at the behest of Gov. Jared Polis.

Once lawmakers clear a procedural vote in the House, will move to Polis’ desk for signature. As it����ap now written, the measure would require health officials to conduct at least four annual inspections of detention facilities. Those visits would probe whether the facilities sufficiently meet food, water and medical standards, while also examining their temperature control and detainees’ access to medical care and legal counsel.

Colorado has only one immigrant detention center, a privately run facility in Aurora owned by the GEO Group and contracted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bill would apply to any state, county or privately run facility, but it would not cover future detention centers owned wholly by the federal government.

The bill no longer includes several provisions drafted in direct response to how the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has unfolded in Colorado. Lawmakers stripped provisions requiring more transparency around federal immigration subpoenas received by the state, an issue Gov. Jared Polis has faced scrutiny over.

A section that would’ve prohibited ICE from entering nonpublic areas of jail facilities was removed, as was another provision, which would’ve fined state or local agencies that illegally shared information with ICE. Employees can face those penalties, but lawmakers sought to strengthen them after a Mesa County sheriff’s deputy helped get a college student arrested last year, only to quit and end a subsequent state lawsuit against him.

HB-1276’s sponsors said those changes were made to avoid a veto from Polis.

“It’s disappointing to have not been able to move forward with some of these provisions,” said Sen. Mike Weissman, an Aurora Democrat who sponsored the bill. “I think we still have a worthwhile bill here, particularly from the standpoint of being the senator whose district includes the GEO facility, which is obviously the hub of a lot of these conversations.”

Sen. Iman Jodeh, another Aurora Democrat and sponsor, said Polis’ opposition just meant “that we have to come back, and there’s a lot more work to do.” Polis is term-limited and will leave office early next year.

The governor has told reporters that he supported some provisions of the bill. “The Governor has consistently called out the federal government����ap complete lack of transparency regarding immigration enforcement and detention in Colorado,” Polis spokeswoman Ally Sullivan said in a statement this afternoon. “We appreciate conversations with the sponsors on this bill, and the Governor will review the final version.”

12:58 p.m. update: A bill that would regulate AI-powered chatbots has cleared the Senate, while the legislation faces renewed calls for a veto from a mother whose daughter died by suicide following sexual grooming by one of the chatbots.

would require chatbots to announce to users regularly that they operate on artificial intelligence. Their developers also must implement measures to prevent emotional dependence and to refer users to a crisis services provider if the user exhibits any suicidal ideation. The bill passed the Senate 24-11 with bipartisan support and opposition.

The original version required companies to try to prevent artificial intelligence bots from producing sexually explicit content. Sen. Kyle Mullica, a Thornton Democrat, sought to toughen that language by requiring chatbots to shut down any conversation that veered in that direction; that also would apply if the bot����ap programming led it to produce that content without being directly spurred by the user. That amendment passed.

Mullica invoked the death of Juliana Peralta, a 13-year-old girl whose mother still live in his district. Cynthia Montoya, Peralta’s mother, said her daughter was sexually groomed by a chatbot and the AI agent did nothing when Peralta shared suicidal thoughts with it.

Peralta died in November 2023. Montoya has fought the bill on the grounds it does not go far enough.

In a statement sent late Sunday, Montoya said she still opposed the bill. The measure would set the standard of “technically feasible” for implementing new protections — which Montoya contends would give tech companies too much power in determining if they needed to implement the protections or not.

If tech companies “cannot prevent their products from exploiting children, they need to keep them off the shelves — it����ap that simple,” Montoya said in the statement. The bill, including the new amendment, will just codify “widely gaping loopholes,” she said.

“The language is again very loose, and tech companies will likely use the same loopholes to continue their sexual abuse of children,” Montoya said. “When tech is allowed to make the laws, as they undoubtedly did behind the scenes on 1263, our children pay the price.”

Montoya called on Gov. Jared Polis to veto the bill, which still needs to return to the House for concurrence on amendments run in the Senate. Mullica said he was sorry that Montoya felt that way. He noted that he voted for a separate amendment that would have addressed Montoya’s concerns about the “technically feasible” language, but that amendment failed.

Mullica said he didn’t want to let that be the end of trying to shut down sexual exploitation by the AI bots.

“There’s more work to be done, obviously, but I don’t think that we just sit idly by and allow the sexual exploitation of children to happen,” Mullica said.

This story will be updated throughout the day.

6:12 p.m. update: Lawmakers voluntarily killed legislation that would have provided tens of millions of dollars in tax incentives to build data centers, ending half of one of the year’s most drawn-out and uncertain debates.

proposed to lure data center developers to the state by offering them sales tax breaks in exchange for complying with regulations. Data centers that skipped the tax breaks would’ve been unregulated.

“Unfortunately, we have to continue with the status quo, and I think that’s what is going to happen,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Alex Valdez, a Denver Democrat, said during committee debate Thursday night. “And that’s not good for us. Because that means Wyoming wins and Texas wins. No offense to them, but I’m playing and rooting for the home team here.”

In a tacit acknowledgement of the opposition his bill faced, Valdez voluntarily axed the measure.

But the data center fight may go on. A second bill backed by environmental groups is still alive. Senate Bill 102 wouldn’t offer any incentives and would instead impose regulations on large data center development in the state.

That measure still has not passed a single committee vote. Its sponsor, Democratic Sen. Cathy Kipp, said this morning that negotiations were still underway. Another of its sponsors, Rep. Kyle Brown, said the two sides were moving closer together. It remained unclear whether they would reach an agreement — or satisfy all sides — and clear the legislature in its final days, he said.

For his part, Gov. Jared Polis told reporters last month that he supported broad tax breaks for data centers, referring to them as the modern equivalent of 20th-century manufacturing. Critics, however, have pointed out that data centers use significant amounts of energy and offer fewer permanent jobs than the temporary work generated when the facilities are under construction.

5:22 p.m. update: The House sent to Gov. Jared Polis, passing the sole surviving legislation that would allow Coloradans to sue federal agents over civil rights violations.

The bill applies only to federal agents operating in immigration enforcement, and it seeks to plug a unique hole in state and federal law that offers only limited legal recourse against federal-rights violators. It passed the House on a party-line 41-22 vote.

Still, the measure faces an uncertain future. Polis’ office backed a broader bill, which would’ve allowed lawsuits against any federal agent. But that bill died at its first hearing earlier this week, after facing opposition from prosecutors, Attorney General Phil Weiser and local government groups.

That bill’s broader approach likely might have given it a better chance of surviving a likely legal challenge from the Trump administration, which has successfully sued over legislation like SB-5 elsewhere.

In a statement, Polis spokesman Eric Maruyama noted the governor’s support for the broader bill because it “would have protected all constitutional rights in every instance.” He said SB-5 “protects constitutional rights only in limited situations,” and Polis planned to “review the final version of the bill, while keeping in mind the legal issues associated with the legislation.”

4:24 p.m. update: The Senate gave initial support to — a gambit to allow the state to count a recent over-refund given to taxpayers against future budget revenue limits — and immediately triggered a lawsuit threat today from the conservative activist organization Advance Colorado.

The bill would free up this upcoming fiscal year, which will run from July 1 to June 30, 2027, and $153 million the next fiscal year. Lawmakers argue the refund issued for the 2024-2025 fiscal year did not take into account losses to state revenue due to the federal tax changes enacted last summer. This bill would allow them to, in effect, count that overpayment against future refunds due under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

The budgeting maneuver ran into immediate concerns among legislative staff, however. The Joint Budget Committee staff running the bill because of legal risks it posed.

Advance Colorado, which frequently is a conservative foil to the Democratic-controlled state government, stepped in to provide that legal risk today. (See also Advance’s running of a natural gas ballot initiative that Democrats are responding to, below.) The organization pledged to file a lawsuit over the budget and that specific bill.

“The state cannot attempt to fix its budget issues on the backs of hardworking citizens who are owed their TABOR refunds by law,” Advance Colorado President Michael Fields said in a statement. “Refusing to follow the Colorado constitution for monetary benefit is unacceptable, and we will defend TABOR in court or at the ballot box whenever the government tries to take money that belongs to the people.”

Senate sponsors Sens. Jeff Bridges and Judy Amabile offered little preamble or debate of the bill when it was heard this morning. It’s a key piece to closing the $1.5 billion budget deficit and meeting the state’s constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. Shortly after the debate, Gov. Jared Polis signed the budget into law.

3:30 p.m. update: Days after moving to kneecap one potential fall ballot measure, lawmakers are preparing to introduce legislation that would blunt another proposed ballot initiative — one that would give .

The exact text of the bill has not been released, and it was still being drafted early this afternoon. But the Democratic lawmakers backing it said their proposal would add definitions and “guardrails” to Initiative 177, a two-sentence constitutional amendment that, if placed on the ballot and passed, would give the state’s residents the right to buy natural gas for cooking or heating. It would also give gas producers and utilities the right to sell the product to homes and businesses.

“There are a variety of potential implications from a ballot measure that is so poorly defined,” House Speaker Julie McCluskie told reporters, “and it is really our goal to combat any of those dangerous and concerning outcomes if the ballot measure makes it. Now more than ever, it is not the time to play politics with our energy environment and with our energy partners.”

The initiative, which has not yet qualified for the ballot, is backed by the conservative group Advance Colorado. The proposal has threatened to rip open a two-year-old armistice between environmental groups and the oil and gas industry, which had mutually agreed to pause their ballot and legislative conflicts.

In response to Advance’s proposal, that would hold oil and gas companies liable for various environmental damages. A fourth proposal from the environmental group would ban utilities from charging customers for pipeline extensions or decommissioning costs.

Kennedy-Ezra Kastle, spokesperson for the group, said it “remains to be seen” if Conservation Colorado withdraws its ballot measures. Kelly Nordini, the group’s CEO, was part of a governor’s office news release Thursday making a “renewed commitment” to the 2024 armistice. Advance was not part of that deal.

But McCluskie and other Democratic lawmakers said the group, which has wielded significant influence over the legislature and the state through its ballot campaigns, should respect the truce reached between the energy industry and the environmentalist community.

“Advance Colorado may not have been part of it,” said Sen. Lisa Cutter, a Jefferson County Democrat, “but certainly when you get such a broad group of stakeholders from all sides of an issue together, working in good faith to make sound policy — to have someone put out an ill-conceived ballot measure, whether or not they’re part of the deal, it seems like a bad faith effort.”

In a statement, Advance Colorado President Michael Fields said he’d seen a draft of the bill and that he didn’t believe it would impact the ballot measure.

“Our measure is going into the Colorado Constitution,” he wrote. “And the constitution obviously supersedes any statute. Our measure is simply about lowering energy costs for Coloradans. We believe people should be able to use natural gas for cooking and heating their homes.”

Fields is correct that the bill would attempt to set statutory limits on what could be a constitutional amendment. McCluskie said she hadn’t thought about potential legal challenges, should both the bill and the ballot measure pass. But she and other lawmakers said the legislature could weigh in on constitutional rights, like the Second Amendment.

“The legislature has had obligations, and courts have accepted that we’re able to legislate to the expectations of how that right would be expressed,” Rep. Jennifer Bacon, a Denver Democrat, said.

In a statement, Conservation Colorado criticized Fields’ ballot measure as “poorly written” and focused on “the interest of corporations.”

“Rep. Bacon’s bill is necessary and appropriate to minimize some of the risks of the initiative, which could increase energy costs, undermine property rights, and endanger public safety,” Nordini, the group’s CEO, said.

The legislature’s effort to neuter Initiative 177 comes a week after Democratic lawmakers unveiled a bill to curb another ballot measure that’s in the signature-gathering phase. That proposal, , would require that the state direct revenue collected from transportation-related sources only to road transportation.

drafted by lawmakers would shift state spending to other obligations while cutting the gas tax, making room for other spending under the spending cap imposed by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

1:40 p.m. update: Gov. Jared Polis signed into law the final state budget of his tenure this afternoon, a $46.8 billion spending plan that required some $1 billion in cuts to make up for changes to federal tax code and exploding costs in must-spend areas like Medicaid.

Polis hailed budget writers for preserving education funding despite making steep cuts for the third time in two years, but he chuckled when talking about healthcare cuts.

“Healthcare costs cannot go up at 10, 11% year to year, “ Polis said. “That����ap ridiculous, and what I’ve been kind of talking (about) is it����ap especially ridiculous because it����ap not like health outcomes are getting better at 10 or 11% (increases). And when health outcomes are the same, it����ap just idiocy to spend more money. When you get the same for less, you do it.”

Polis, who is term-limited from seeking reelection, did not take questions from the media at the bill-signing ceremony.

In a written follow-up statement to respond to a Denver Post question about people worried about Medicaid cuts, Polis said his office worked with disability advocates “to protect the most essential services” and highlighted efforts to expand access and funding in recent years. He warned that federal changes would put even more pressure on Medicaid in upcoming years.

“This budget required hard decisions, but we are protecting important investments in education and public safety, and slowing the growth of Medicaid to protect the sustainability of care for years to come,” Polis said.

Members of the budget-writing committee described lost sleep and tears as they wrestled with cuts, specifically those to Medicaid that would result in less coverage for low-income children. People with children and family members with severe developmental disabilities worry that cuts to their supports will mean they can’t afford to care for their loved ones.

The budget includes $17.4 billion in general fund dollars, which accounts for most of the state’s direct tax collections and its most flexible spending. The general fund increased by about $212 million compared to last year, which is less than the rising costs in Medicaid alone — meaning the state had to cut specific programs within Medicaid and elsewhere to make up the difference.

“This year was incredibly difficult and challenged each of us in a myriad of ways that put our values to the test,” said Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat who chairs the Joint Budget Committee. “It’s a zero-sum game. A dollar here means a dollar less over there.”

Rep. Rick Taggart, a Grand Junction Republican on the committee, described “a lot of tears,” particularly when lawmakers listened to testimony from children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

“That will go down for me as one of the hardest days I’ve ever had. I dropped my head so many times because I couldn’t wipe the tears out of my eyes,” he said. “This was a tough budget, and nobody won.”

Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, a Brighton Republican on the JBC who’s running for governor, highlighted a secondary bill that will require a deep dive into the state’s healthcare programs. Colorado Medicaid serves more than 1 million state residents. She called the state’s rising healthcare costs “the No. 1 that we have to consider” in any budget year.

While Polis and others celebrated that the state kept education funding at constitutionally mandated levels, Sen. Jeff Bridges pointed to a pair of that showed the state was still billions of dollars short when it came to education funding. “I don’t love this budget,” said Bridges, a Greenwood Village Democrat, and he called the cuts “extraordinarily painful.”

But he also praised the work of the committee and staff for the thoughtful approach to the cuts.

“We have done the least harm that is possible to do through the cuts that we have been required to make, through changes at the federal level and restrictions that we have here in place in our own constitution,” Bridges said. “That said, this has been the possible outcome.”

This story will be updated throughout the day.

5:26 p.m. update: Colorado lawmakers are embarking on their third attempt in the past 12 months to rewrite the state’s beleaguered artificial intelligence regulations, with the latest go-round introduced Friday after months of closed-door negotiations.

Senate Bill 189 would overhaul the antidiscrimination protections that were passed in 2024 but have never been implemented. The proposal would require companies to disclose to people that AI is being used to make a consequential decision about them — like in hiring or financial lending. The bill would also give consumers the ability to request additional information about the technology and the decision it was used in, and to request corrections to data involved in the decision.

“This bill strikes an appropriate balance of protecting consumers while not being onerous on developers or the businesses who use AI technology,” Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez, the Denver Democrat who wrote the initial regulations and is sponsoring SB-189, said in a statement.

The initial law — which sought to curb discrimination by AI systems that are used to influence hiring, banking and other “consequential” decisions — has been consistently criticized as unworkable by just about every group with an interest in the rules’ existence.

The law’s effective date was most recently delayed until June to allow the legislature to make another attempt at overhauling it.

Previous efforts to do so have been bitterly unsuccessful: Lawmakers first attempted a rewrite last session, only for Rodriguez to suddenly and voluntarily kill it. Another effort, launched during a special session in August, collapsed after lawmakers reached a deal that was quickly opposed and scuttled by business and tech groups.

That collapse was partially fueled by disagreements over who should bear liability if an AI system is used to discriminate against someone. Under SB-189, liability would be assigned to either the AI’s developer or the tech’s deployer — companies or agencies that use the technology — depending on the circumstances.

This latest — and potentially final — swing is the product of a Gov. Jared Polis-created task force that brought together tech groups, industries and agencies that use AI, and progressive and consumer protection organizations. While those groups have repeatedly been at odds in previous AI debates, SB-189 represents their attempt at a unified rewrite.

Whether that truce — and the bill itself — holds for the remainder of the session remains to be seen. If lawmakers don’t rewrite regulations before the session ends on May 13, then the pending regulations will kick in next month — and they’re already under challenge in court by Elon Musk’s xAI and the U.S. Department of Justice.

1:33 p.m. update: Veto watch begins.

The Colorado Senate passed on a party-line vote today, sending it to a governor who has made clear he won’t sign it into law. The bill would remove a unique provision of Colorado labor law that requires that newly organized workers pass a second election before they can negotiate the provision of union contracts that describes dues collection.

“We’ve heard from the opponents of the measure that this is a balanced system that works so well for the state of Colorado,” Sen. Jessie Danielson, one of the bill’s sponsors, said from the Senate floor. “Well, they’re right — in part. It works very, very, very well for the billionaires, for the corporations, for the elite, for the wealthy. It does not work for the workers.”

Colorado lawmakers launch bid to undercut ‘irresponsible’ road funding mandate in Initiative 175

A nearly identical bill passed last year, and Gov. Jared Polis vetoed it. The governor has said he wants labor unions to strike a deal with opposed business groups. Those negotiations failed last year, and they didn't even get off the ground this time around. The governor told reporters last week that, to his knowledge, no negotiations were underway.

That means another veto is likely imminent. Theoretically, lawmakers would have enough time to override that veto -- but only Democrats supported the bill, and they're one vote shy of the threshold needed to stiff-arm Polis in both the House and the Senate.

The coming veto won't be a surprise to Democratic lawmakers or to the labor groups backing the measure.

This year's effort served two intertwined purposes: to push the candidates vying to be Polis' (likely) Democratic successor to take a position on a priority labor bill, and to put that next governor on notice that the proposal will keep coming until it's signed into law.

"We've been told a lie that it has to be (economically) hard to survive in Colorado," Dennis Dougherty, the executive director of the Colorado AFL-CIO, said in a statement, "and workers, our members, aren't buying it. If we want a strong middle class, we need strong worker protections."

12:12 p.m. update: Colorado lawmakers’ attempt to shrink the lots of single-family homes died a second, quiet death Thursday night. The Senate Local Government and Housing Committee killed as its sponsors asked for the bill to be put down and acknowledged that they didn’t have the votes to advance it.

The bill would have allowed homeowners to split and sell off parts of their lots, largely without having to get approval from local officials. The proposal was part of a now yearslong effort by Gov. Jared Polis and a coalition of legislative Democrats to rewrite local zoning rules in a bid to make it easier to build housing, including on smaller lots.

While that broader reform push has scored more victories than losses in recent years, it's also created some amount of land-use fatigue in the state legislature. Just last week, another bill that would’ve put a limit on local governments’ ability to set minimum lot sizes was also voluntarily shelved in the same Senate committee.

“We have done a lot in this space, and I think in some ways, there’s some fatigue around that,” Sen. Judy Amabile, who sponsored HB-1308 and has backed prior zoning reform bills, said Friday morning. “Maybe we need to see how all of the bills that we’ve passed are going to play out and how they’re going to interact with each other."

In 2024 alone, the legislature kneecapped local parking requirements, required denser zoning in urban areas and gave many homeowners the right to build accessory dwelling units on their properties. Those reforms were all brand new to the state, and they upended the traditional power of local governments -- and, more acutely, of local groups opposed to development -- to control their own zoning.

It will take years for the impact of those changes to be felt.

Amabile said supporters of those reforms “got a message that we need a little bit of a pause.” That message, she said, came “from my colleagues, and from the (Colorado Municipal League) and from the cities. Even the city of Boulder, which has been leading the charge on land-use reforms, was resistant to this bill."

11:44 a.m. update: Despite well over $500,000 spent on digital ads in opposition, the Colorado Senate has passed a measure that would generally prohibit credit card companies from charging certain kinds of fees on businesses.

passed in a narrow 18-17 vote Friday morning and now heads to the House. The bill seeks to limit "swipe fees," which are a small, flat-percentage fee charged on retailers by financial services companies when you use a credit card to buy something at a store. That fee is based on your total bill -- including the sales tax you're ultimately paying to the state.

SB-134 would prohibit companies from factoring sales taxes in the swipe-fee charge.

It's a small amount of money per transaction, but over the course of a year, carving out sales taxes from the fees would amount to thousands of dollars saved by small businesses -- and far, far more for giants like Target.

"This is real money, and right now, every dollar of it is leaving Colorado and landing on the balance sheets of the most profitable financial institutions in human history," Sen. William Lindstedt, a Broomfield Democrat and the bill's sponsor, said ahead of an earlier vote this week.

The legislation, then, is essentially a fight between two large business interests, pitting financial companies -- including Visa, Mastercard, airlines and banks -- against retailers, from Target and Home Depot to local restaurants and smaller businesses.

The lobbying on the bill has been intense. The Electronic Payments Coalition, a lobbying group whose governing board includes national banking officials and a senior vice president from Visa, has papered Instagram with advertisements alleging that the bill would cause "chaos" and force people to pay sales tax in cash or by check.

According to Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, the EPC has since late January, and that total doesn't include the lobbyists the opponents have hired. The Colorado Restaurant Association, which supports the bill, has also spent several thousand dollars on digital ads backing SB-134.

Friday's vote was technically the second time the bill had passed the upper chamber after it cleared on a similarly tight 18-16 vote Wednesday. But Sen. Robert Rodriguez -- the chamber's majority leader -- moved for a revote Friday, essentially to give Sen. Julie Gonzales an opportunity to talk more about it.

One Senate Democrat, Sen. Jessie Danielson, was absent for the first vote but was present -- and supported the bill -- on Friday. Rodriguez, however, changed his vote to no.

In her speech on the bill, Gonzales told her colleagues that it was "important that y'all show up and take this vote today." Most of Gonzales' comments, though, were focused on the lobbying. She said she'd been "threatened that if I vote a certain way, I'll get blown up about it and my other bills will suffer as a result."

"When this policy was first introduced, I had to get my head wrapped around how this bill might save everyday Coloradans money," Gonzales, a Denver Democrat, said. "The simple fact is it doesn't. This bill has unfolded as a proxy battle that has taken place here in Colorado and across the country, between the financial services industry ... and business."

As she did in the earlier vote this week, Gonzales supported the bill, which now heads to the House. In that chamber, it's sponsored by both House Speaker Julie McCluskie and Majority Leader Monica Duran, giving it solid odds of passing before the legislature wraps for the year on May 13.

The House and Senate had previously adopted a series of amendments to the state spending plan that needed to be reconciled. The Joint Budget Committee decided which amendments would stick, and in which fashion, as it sought to meet the constitutional requirements to pass a balanced budget.

The JBC’s approved changes included higher caps for dental care for immigrants without legal status who benefit from a Medicaid-like program, money for veterans services, and more time to allow children with intellectual or developmental disabilities to transition automatically to adult comprehensive care.

The committee also added $10 million to address an ongoing consent decree, a 2019 federal order that requires the state to reduce wait times for court-ordered mental health evaluations and treatment. The state could face fines reaching multiple times that amount if it doesn’t make progress on cutting those wait times.

This budget, which sets the state’s spending plan for the fiscal year that runs from July 1 to June 30, 2027, was the latest to feature deep cuts as the state grapples with skyrocketing costs in must-spend areas.

One estimate had put the state’s general fund deficit this year at $1.5 billion. The overall general fund, which covers most day-to-day operations in the budget, is set at $17.4 billion for the upcoming fiscal year.

In their efforts to close the budget gap, lawmakers have cut into the rainy-day fund and reserves, halted across-the-board pay raises for state employees, and turned to legal and fiscal maneuvers such as trying to count the past overpayment of tax refunds against future refund obligations.

Medicaid, which provides healthcare for ��DZ��ǰ������’s poorest residents, has seen its costs increase at a much faster pace than what state revenues or the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights allow. That made it a target as lawmakers sought to reverse the “structural deficit” in which the state has spent more than it can afford.

Among the cuts were the elimination of automatic enrollment for children with severe intellectual or developmental disabilities to adult programs, a reduction in paid caregiver hours and more.

“This has clearly been a lengthy and painful set of discussions about how we address our Medicaid budget,” Rep. Emily Sirota, a Denver Democrat and chair of the Joint Budget Committee, said after the final vote Tuesday. She said long-term support and services paid for by Medicaid, in particular, have grown rapidly.

Sen. Lisa Frizell, a Castle Rock Republican, won an amendment that sought to prevent a cap on Medicaid-paid caregiver hours, while limiting a proposed expansion of the waitlist for people awaiting services for severe disabilities. That amendment was ultimately stripped off, though, and replaced with an extension for the automatic enrollment program. It was set to end July 1 but will now run through the end of the year to give those families less of a shock.

Frizell called the waitlist for developmental disability services — currently at seven years and likely to grow following the budget cuts — “unconscionable.” She said she sought to keep not just the status quo, but to wrench down the waitlist. 

“I’m talking about families where you have adults who are the caretaker for their 30- or 40-year-old child,” Frizell said, adding that she has friends and neighbors in that situation. “This has just been a real gut punch to these families to have to worry about what����ap going to happen (to their children).” 

But, Frizell added, she wasn’t sure how she would have juggled the decisions the budget committee had to weigh this year.

Victoria Moul, the founder of the advocacy group Impacted Caregivers of Colorado, said her members were terrified of losing their homes, their cars and their children with the upcoming budget cuts.

These families rely on Medicaid reimbursement for time they spend caring for their children, who often have such complex needs that the family members can’t hold down traditional jobs. Moul, who lives in Ault, had cancer when she was pregnant with triplets, who were then born very prematurely and developmentally disabled.

“You explain to me, how can a caregiver who can’t go out and get another job afford to care for a disabled person when they can’t afford the rent?” Moul said.

The budget committee lamented the cuts to Medicaid services but saw slashing as necessary to balance the budget now and in the future.

Sen. Jeff Bridges, a Greenwood Village Democrat on the budget committee, invoked his own family members with intellectual disabilities. He and others on the budget committee said extending the timeframe when children automatically transition to receiving adult services was a way to still help families while trying to bend down unsustainable long-term costs.

“One of the things we really struggled with in this budget is ensuring that the cuts we’ve made aren’t just one-time,” Bridges said. 

Sen. Judy Amabile, a Boulder Democrat on the budget committee, promised her colleagues that budget writers would continue to look at Medicaid spending and the ripple effects of cuts.

“I want to know, what is really the right way to go about this — and when we cut things, who does it impact? And how are those people impacted in other ways?” Amabile said. She added that her intent was “just to take a more holistic view of how these departments interact, with Medicaid being at the center of this conversation.” 

Frederick Alfred Jr., a 38-year-old man , was arrested on suspicion of felony child neglect at 245 Front St. in Key West, Florida, . That address is connected to the Sunset Key Cottages, a four-star hotel.

One witness told police that Alfred’s son had approached him for help getting his sister out of the pool because his parents weren’t present, according to Alfred’s arrest report. The 4-year-old girl was foaming at the mouth and unconscious when the man pulled her from the water, prompting him to call 911 and start CPR, the report stated.

The first 911 call came in at 7:34 p.m. Monday, according to the report. It����ap unknown how long Alfred had been gone before that call was made. When Alfred returned to the pool at 7:40 p.m., he was holding an alcoholic drink, police said.

Alfred told police that he had left his 4-year-old daughter and 6-year-old son alone in the hot tub while he went to get a drink, according to the report. He claimed he was only gone for five minutes.

In the time he was gone, his daughter nearly drowned and his son swallowed an unknown amount of pool water while trying to get her out of the water, paramedics told police in the arrest report. When the 6-year-old boy couldn’t rescue his sister, he went to a stranger for help.

Alfred initially blocked paramedics from taking his children to the hospital, even after they told him “there was a very significant risk” of issues arising later from the near-drowning, police said in the report. He eventually agreed to let his children be taken to the hospital.

Police “noticed the strong smell of an alcoholic beverage” emitting from Alfred while arresting the man, the report stated.

Alfred, who lives in Commerce City, has built his platform on being a “husband, father, and community leader,” . He did not respond Tuesday afternoon to requests for comment.

“As a father, I believe families should guide their children’s education, and I am dedicated to ensuring parental rights are respected,” the website stated, adding that Alfred aims to be a “strong voice for families.”

Alfred is the only GOP candidate slated to appear on the Senate District 21 ballot and is set to face either incumbent Adrienne Benavidez or newcomer Alex Ryckman, a teacher, after the Democratic primary in June. Benavidez stepped into the role after winning a vacancy election earlier this year when Democratic state Sen. Dafna Michaelson Jenet resigned.

Alfred nearly unseated Jenet — a then-incumbent candidate — in a 2024 race for the seat, but he lost by roughly 1,500 votes across Adams and Arapahoe counties, according to . Jenet won 51% of the vote to Alfred’s 49%.

This is a developing story and may be updated.

The Colorado Senate approved the budget bill 25-10 on Thursday morning. But the body, like the House of Representatives last week, added a number of amendments. Some of those changes might throw the balance of the budget off kilter, while others would redirect spending — and potentially affect jobs — to pay for specific priorities.

Now the Joint Budget Committee will evaluate the 20 amendments adopted by the House or the Senate to decide which, if any, will make it into the final document. That decision is expected early next week.

The two chambers will then conduct final formal votes to accept the document. Members of the bipartisan committee have emphasized throughout the legislative session how painful their decisions have been as they’ve sought to close a general fund deficit of more than $1 billion — requiring the third round of deep cuts in two years.

The Colorado Constitution requires the state to adopt a balanced budget, and it is one of two must-pass bills during each year’s session. The budget will take effect for the fiscal year that begins July 1.

The overall general fund for the upcoming fiscal year will be $17.4 billion. That represents a $212 million year-over-year increase — less than inflation and less than the skyrocketing costs in some must-spend areas like Medicaid and the system that houses the prison population.

Many of the cuts this year have nonetheless landed on Medicaid patients and providers.

“This was an extraordinarily hard budget,” Sen. Jeff Bridges, a Greenwood Village Democrat and vice chair of the budget committee, said. “It kept me up at night (on) many, many days. It����ap taken a huge emotional toll.”

Bridges said the committee generally gives preference to amendments adopted by both chambers of the legislature, but “unique circumstances” in the House meant that “the process this year may look a little different.”

Last week, Rep. Brandi Bradley, a Littleton Republican, asked to have the 661-page budget bill read at length, chewing up some 16 hours of floor time and leading the Democratic majority to limit debate on amendments to keep the budget process on schedule. Some 20 proposed amendments in the House were not debated as a result.

Still, both chambers approved amendments aimed at bolstering funding for courts that handle veterans with substance-use problems and behavioral health disorders; allowing the treasurer’s office to hire more people to help return money in the unclaimed property trust fund; moving money from the governor’s mansion maintenance fund to the veterans trust fund; and creating new line items to pay for a special-needs parole program and private nursing homes for prisoners, which are minimally funded at $1 apiece.

Another amendment, which would prevent a proposed cap on Medicaid-paid caregiver hours for people with severe disabilities and limit the increase in a waitlist for people awaiting services for severe disabilities, also cleared the Senate. Its sponsor, Sen. Lisa Frizell, a Castle Rock Republican, made clear that her support of the budget was contingent on that amendment remaining. She also acknowledged that her amendment, like others, was a “long shot” to stay in the final budget bill.

Frizell was the only Republican who’s not on the budget committee to support the budget package in Thursday’s Senate vote.

“These are parents who bear burdens and responsibilities that are beyond comprehension,” Frizell said of her support for families with severely disabled children. “They are people whose biggest fears are dying before their disabled child.”

Last week, with the year anniversary on Thursday of what Trump dubbed “Liberation Day,” events were held to discuss the tariffs’ impact on the Colorado economy.

Gov. Jared Polis held a roundtable with a handful of small-business owners, manufacturers and industry leaders, alongside the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade.

“It’s long been clear: Tariffs are a tax increase that raises costs, creates uncertainty, and makes it harder to grow and hire talent. While the courts have taken important steps to stop these unlawful policies, businesses are still dealing with the fallout,” Polis said.

Also, on a news call Wednesday, state fiscal officers, including Colorado State Treasurer Dave Young, called the tariffs’ impact on communities nationwide “devastating.”

“Trump’s tariffs are a self-inflicted crisis that represents economic devastation, not liberation for working families and businesses. Businesses need predictability to grow, but what they’re getting instead is tariff whiplash,” Young said.

“Policies are announced and they’re changed. They’re reversed, they’re escalated with little warning. That creates chaos for business owners trying to plan investments, hire staff or set prices,” Young said.

Not everyone, of course, is opposed to the tariffs.

The Steel Manufacturers Association, the largest steel association in America, for its recent decision to “strengthen tariffs” on imported steel, aluminum and copper.

“The Steel Manufacturers Association applauds the Trump Administration’s actions today to strengthen the Section 232 steel tariffs,” said SMA President and CEO Philip K. Bell on Thursday.

“By right-sizing the derivatives list and updating the valuation of steel-containing goods, these measures reinforce President Trump’s signature trade achievement, ensuring the tariffs remain precisely targeted to support the revitalization of the American steel industry without undermining broader economic goals.”

Peter Navarro, senior counselor for trade and manufacturing to Trump since January 2025, shared a White House post on X celebrating Trump’s Liberation Day, highlighting “real results, putting more money in the pockets of American workers.”

He also on the administration’s plans to impose a on patented pharmaceutical products and ingredients, saying the president is “bringing pharma jobs home, reducing reliance on foreign supply chains, strengthening national security and putting downward pressure on drug prices.”

However, for Chad Franke, president of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, tariffs have been all over the board.

“We don’t not support tariffs, but they need to be done in a thoughtful and methodical way,” he told The Post in October.

Trump invoked his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose the tariffs. Using IEEPA authority, Trump began by imposing a 10% tariff on all countries, followed by a year of frequently shifting tariff policies.

Young said tariffs in Colorado have risen sevenfold, increasing from about 3% to 21%, the highest level in more than a century. He said these high costs are rippling across industries from agriculture and construction to energy and aerospace, and even coffee roasters.

“A Denver retailer recently reported that tariffs cost his business $25,000 last fall alone and across the state, Colorado businesses paid $1.1 billion in tariffs in 2025,” Young said. “For a small business that is not a formula for a thriving future, it’s a recipe for ruin.”

The treasurers’ call coincided with the release of a new “Liberation Day Report” from nonprofit , which details the economic impact of tariffs in the past year. The report said American families have paid each in tariff costs and nearly 200,000 blue-collar jobs have been lost, including approximately 89,000 manufacturing jobs and nearly 124,000 transportation and warehousing jobs.

About 96% of the tariff burden was paid by U.S. consumers, foreign exporters absorbed 4%, the report says. The report also found that Trump’s tariffs hiked retail prices for domestic goods by nearly 5% on average, while economic growth  in the fourth quarter of 2025.

For Nathan Peterson, founder and CEO of Vederra Modular in Colorado, the strain has been building steadily.

“Over the past year, tariffs have pushed our material costs up around 6–7%, but the bigger issue has been supply chain instability and inconsistent delivery times. To manage that, we’re carrying more inventory, which, in addition to the price increases, is requiring more capital costs and ultimately driving up the cost of housing in Colorado,” Peterson said.

New data from , a grassroots coalition comprised of over 1,100 small businesses that advocates against tariffs, revealed American businesses have paid $265 billion in overall presidential tariffs. Business leaders emphasized that even after the recent Supreme Court decision major portions of the tariffs, the impacts remain.

The federal government is working to return through a refund process requiring detailed claims and data submissions. A process expected to take months or longer to fully complete.

U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, alongside 18 of his Senate Democratic colleagues, last month to Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney S. Scott, demanding the administration to use existing records to automatically refund small businesses instead of forcing small businesses to opt-in.

The letter states the Trump administration’s proposed refund process, known as the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries system, creates unnecessary burdens for small businesses who are already struggling under tariffs.

“Small businesses should not have to do additional work to receive refunds on what amounted to illegal tariff payments,” the senators wrote in a news release last week.

“Every cent of illegal IEEPA tariffs must be returned. The only question is whether CBP will make that process as simple and equitable as possible, or whether it will implement a complicated and unfair system through which large corporations and Wall Street will benefit financially,” the senators wrote.

Hickenlooper, a former small-business owner and an outspoken opponent of Trump’s tariffs, recently introduced the , which would fully refund businesses that paid the administration’s tariffs, and the to exempt small businesses from the administration’s sweeping tariffs.

In 2025, Polis and state agencies to analyze the effects of tariffs across key industries, finding widespread cost increases, planning challenges, and market .

According to the OSPB’s , actual U.S. tariff revenue in 2025 was $287.1 billion on $3.44 trillion in U.S. imports, resulting in a U.S. effective tariff rate of 8.3 percent, which is a 219% increase in the effective tariff rate from 2024.

For Colorado, OSPB expects an effective tariff rate of 8.8% in 2026 and 7.7% in 2027, which is slightly below expectations of 9.% and 8.1% for the U.S. as a whole in 2026 and 2027 respectively.

The report also noted that small businesses have taken on an outsized burden of the tariff increases and lack the legal resources necessary to pursue refunds.

In response, the state is offering new and expanded resources through OEDIT and World Trade Center Denver, including a that provides regular tariff updates, one-on-one advising and specialized consulting for businesses.

But over time, I’ve also learned that showing up isn’t just physical — it����ap mental.

As athletes get older, the environment around sports changes. The competition increases, expectations rise, and the pressure can feel constant. While the game itself stays the same, what it asks of you mentally often grows.

I notice it in small ways — when the rhythm on the field feels different, when my confidence wavers, or when one split-second decision changes how you’re perceived. These things are not always talked about, but athletes feel them every day.

My older sister, Alyssa, was a soccer player and a ski racer. She loved sports, and they were a big part of how we grew up. In our family, athletics were never only about winning. They were about discipline, commitment, and learning who you are when things feel challenging.

In 2019, we lost Alyssa after she struggled with her mental health following a series of concussions. We later learned that concussions can be linked to serious mental health challenges and an increase in suicide, especially in young people.

Since then, my family has been working to raise awareness about the connection between concussions and mental health, including advocating for a new bill at the state Capitol — “Alyssa’s Act.” The bill would require youth sports coaches to receive basic mental health training and ensure parents are informed about potential mental health impacts after a concussion.

Like many athletes, I’ve experienced injuries, including concussions. At the time, my focus was always on recovery and getting back to the game. Looking back now, I see how important it is to recognize that recovery is not always just physical, and that the mental side of returning to play matters too.

Athletes are often told to be mentally tough. To push through and move on. Resilience matters, but I have learned that real mental strength also comes from having support and knowing how to manage pressure in healthy ways.

That����ap where coaches come in.

Coaches play an important role in shaping the environment around sports. The tone they set influences how athletes support one another and how safe it feels to take risks, learn, and grow. When effort and development are valued, athletes are more likely to stay engaged and confident.

My coaches have taught me that even when the pressure builds, we still have to show up for ourselves and for our team. I believe coaches should have the tools to recognize when an athlete may be struggling and help connect them to support.

Alyssa’s Act would make sure coaches across Colorado receive basic mental health education — including how to recognize signs of anxiety, depression, and the potential mental health effects of concussions.

Coaches’ education matters because early awareness can make all the difference.

Listening to athletes and recognizing the mental side of competition does not weaken sports. It strengthens them. When athletes feel supported, they become better teammates, stronger competitors, and more resilient people.

Sports are not just about results. They are about learning how to handle pressure with perspective, respect, and consistency. Those lessons matter whether you are the top player on the field or someone who keeps showing up because the process itself is worth it.

That is why I keep coming back to the field. Not because it is easy, but because it continues to teach me how to grow. And it����ap why I hope we make sure every athlete has the support they need to keep showing up, too.

Emily Peterson is a student-athlete and youth advocate from Arvada, Colorado, helping advance Alyssa’s Act (Senate Bill 60), which has passed the Senate and is now moving through the Colorado House.

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.

The debate over accountability for public officials has sharpened nationally as Gov. Jared Polis has questioned whether justice was evenly applied when comparing the length of the sentence imposed on former Republican Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters with the sentence imposed on former Democratic Colorado State Senator Sonya Jacquez Lewis last week.

In a social media post, Polis noted that Jaquez Lewis was convicted of the same exact felony as Peters, but received a much more lenient sentence. The facts differ, as do some of the legal theories, but Polis notes that the scale of Peters’ punishment has placed her sentence outside the typical range involving elected officials, raising legitimate questions about proportionality.

The legitimacy of our justice system depends on the public’s belief that the rules apply evenly, regardless of party, ideology or notoriety. From my vantage point as a former Democratic lawmaker, and a former Denver city attorney and assistant attorney general who worked on criminal enforcement matters, the Peters case is striking not because accountability was inappropriate, but because the sentence appears inconsistent with other cases and may have been influenced by her polarizing political speech.

Polis’s office has made it clear that he is not considering a pardon for Tina Peters, and neither would I. Instead, he is reviewing her application like anyone else for clemency and likely considering a modification to her sentence.

In my time as chief of staff to former Gov. John Hickenlooper, we carefully vetted many clemency cases, and the public is able to weigh in during this process. It is imperative that Peters takes accountability for her actions and is remorseful.

None of this is to excuse Tina Peters’ conduct. Peters was found guilty on seven charges, including four felonies, for her role in orchestrating a municipal election security data breach of the county’s election equipment in 2021, well after the 2020 election results were affirmed by the county and certified by the state. Peters faced 20 years in prison and was sentenced to 9 years.

Make no mistake: courts are right to treat threats to election integrity with gravity, and deterrence is a legitimate sentencing goal. However, legitimate questions were raised on appeal as to whether her political speech, not popular in Colorado, erroneously informed the trial judge’s sentencing of her.

Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Craig Welling, who served as chief legal counsel for Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter before joining the court, grilled the state’s attorney over the trial judge reciting Peters’ false statements about elections in handing down her sentence and said, “the court cannot punish her for her First Amendment rights.”

During oral argument, all three Court of Appeals judges expressed concern about the fairness of her sentence and highlighted how the district court judge’s political statements made about Peters may have unfairly and unconstitutionally influenced her sentencing. The court has not ruled yet in this case and could easily make the conversation about clemency moot.

Proportionality is not a soft concept; it is a cornerstone of justice. A review of similarly situated cases, demonstrates that Peters’ sentence is an outlier.

Lewis, a Democrat, faced serious allegations tied to her official conduct, drawing headlines and political fallout. Lewis was convicted of four felony charges (one count of attempting to influence a public servant and three counts of forgery). In January 2025, during an investigation by the Colorado Senate Committee on Ethics, Lewis forged several letters reportedly written by former aides to refute allegations that Lewis was mistreating staff. She faced up to 15 years in prison, but received two years of supervised probation and 150 hours of community service. I have yet to hear a single person opposed to leniency for Peters argue that Lewis’ sentence was too lenient or inappropriate.

In 2023, former state Rep. Tracey Bennett, a Democrat from Boulder, faced felony charges related to residency fraud and pleaded guilty to attempting to influence a public servant and perjury about lying about her place of residence to run for reelection in a more favorable political district. She faced up to 8 years but received a deferred sentence, including two years of probation. Again, no outcry about whether her sentence was too lenient. Indeed, most public official-related cases don’t end in jail time, but rather probation, deferred sentencing, community hours and fines.

Context matters, and in ��DZ��ǰ������’s political climate, Peters is undeniably red meat for many Coloradoans who, like me, are rightfully concerned about election integrity. Peters became a figure whose actions were not just unlawful but emblematic of broader threats to democratic norms. That political reality does not invalidate the legal process, but it does make the need for visible consistency even more important. Justice must be not only fair, but perceived as fair.

Before critiquing Gov. Polis ask yourself this: would the result have been different if the Peters was the Boulder County Clerk who committed the same crime with the same result? Certainly, the political outcry to Polis’ post about a Democratic elected Boulder County Clerk’s disproportionate sentence would have been more muted.

When similarly situated officials receive vastly different outcomes, it risks creating the impression– whether accurate or not — that punishment can be shaped by the political temperature surrounding a case. And, without question, it is clear that the court itself is openly questioning the severity of her sentence.

In an era when trust in institutions is already strained, that perception carries real consequences.

Doug Friednash is a partner with the law firm Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck.

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.