The Colorado Public Utilities Commission approved the “clean heat” plan to carry out that directed utilities to reduce the emissions from the natural gas they provide as part of The PUC’s decision issued Dec. 1 said cutting emissions 41% from 2015 levels by 2035 is a step toward meeting the goal.

The decision will help make all-electric homes and buildings more affordable, advance progress toward Colorado’s climate goals, protect public health and cement Colorado’s role as a nationwide leader in clean heat policy, said Jim Dennison, a Colorado-based attorney with the Sierra Club.

Mi Familia Vota, which works with the Latino community on environmental justice and other issues, supported the PUC’s decision.

“This decision moves Colorado closer to an equitable transition away from fossil gas, and we’ll continue advocating for climate solutions that protect our communities and our future,” Christo Luna, deputy state director for Mi Familia Vota, said in a statement.

But opponents of the PUC’s decision argued it’s a mandate that will force families to buy “costly heat pumps, retrofits and electric appliances” to switch from gas to electricity and phase out natural gas. In a letter to the PUC, House Republican lawmakers said nearly a quarter of utility customers in the state qualify for energy assistance and the plan will boost that number “and push even more families into crisis.”

The legislators asked the PUC to reverse its decision.

Rep. Ty Winter of Trinidad, the assistant minority leader in the House, said the drive to move from coal and natural gas is costing jobs and cutting local and state revenue. As a result, Republicans and labor, whom Winter called “odd bedfellows,” have worked together to object to the clean-heat requirements.

Winter said he is hearing from constituents concerned about the clean-heat requirements and is telling them “the only way to fix this is at the ballot box.” When lawmakers return to the state Capitol in January, Republicans plan to call people to testify on energy bills being introduced.

“We’re going to fight this tooth and nail, and we’re going to use every avenue we have,” Winter said.

Jon Caldara, president of the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute, called the PUC’s decision “magical thinking” in a Dec. 7 column in Colorado Politics. “If we mandate it, reality will eventually fall in line!” he wrote.

“You cannot regulate your way to changing physics and the PUC thinks that you can,” Caldara told The Denver Post.

About two-thirds of the energy Coloradans use still comes from fossil fuels, Caldara said.

Renewable energy made up 43% of Colorado’s in-state electricity net generation in 2024, according to the Coal-fired power plants accounted for 27% and natural gas made up about 29%.

Natural gas heats the majority of the state’s buildings, according to the

“They’re trying to regulate us away from any fossil fuels and taking away our appliances and our heaters. You’re increasing the load on electrification without there being any way to fill it,” Caldara said.

But Dennison of the Sierra Club said the heat plan doesn’t require any individual customer to get rid of gas appliances or heating systems.

“That remains completely voluntary,” Dennison said. “What the clean-heat framework does do is provide a mechanism for utilities to support individual consumer’s choice to electrify.”

The utilities that must reduce emissions from natural gas, including Xcel Energy and Black Hills Energy, are investing in electrification, Dennison said. Regulators approved a plan in 2024 by Xcel to invest $440 million, including money for rebates for heat pumps and energy efficiency. Heat pumps use electricity to both cool and heat buildings.

Dennison said Xcel still plans to spend nearly $2.9 billion on maintaining and expanding its gas infrastructure through 2030, more than 6 times as much as what it will spend on the clean heat plan.

As for concerns about the impact on ratepayers, the PUC’s approval of a 41% reduction in emissions doesn’t decide the cost of a utility’s plan, said Stacy Tellinghuisen, deputy director of policy development for the conservation group Western Resource Advocates.

“The PUC will still evaluate every utility’s clean heat plan and can decide if the costs are reasonable,” Tellinghuisen said.

The clean-heat legislation directed that utility plans be of

Tellinghuisen disputed that electrifying buildings will drive up costs and threaten the reliability of the electric grid. She said the anticipated growth of large data centers was a major factor in Xcel Energy’s projected demands for electricity in a plan recently approved by the PUC.

The clean-heat plan’s benefits for Coloradans include improved air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change and its effects such as drought, Tellinghuisen said.

“It’s mid-December, and we have power outages across the Front Range that are preemptive because we’re worried about wildfires. That imposes costs,” she added.

Western Resource Advocates and other environmental groups wanted to see an emissions reduction goal of 55% by 2035. The Colorado Energy Office and the state air pollution control division backed a goal of 31%.

Xcel Energy proposed “an ambitious but possible range” of 22% to 30%. The company said in a filing with regulators that its previously approved investments “came at a significant cost” and the loss of federal rebates for heat pumps will make it more expensive to maintain the same level of rebates.

The Trump administration will eliminate federal heat-pump rebates approved by Congress under the Biden administration at the end of this year. The state offers

The phasing out of the federal rebates played into the Colorado Energy Office’s decision to endorse a target lower than the one supported by environmental groups. Will Toor, executive director of the energy office, said based on trends and the utilities’ plans, the PUC will likely set goals closer 30%, which he sees as an aggressive target.

“We think it will take real work by utilities to be able to achieve it,” Toor said.

He expects the various parties involved in the proceedings to ask the PUC to reconsider its decision.

Area residents — some on horseback, armed with sidearms and clad in Stetsons — joined with sheriff’s deputies and other law enforcement officers to block roads, search cars and go door-to-door to hunt for Bundy, then suspected in the murders of eight women. Bundy broke into a cabin just south of Aspen as the June manhunt swelled to a . He pillaged supplies and tried to cut across to U.S. 50, but was thwarted by the spring snowpack.

Bundy turned back to the mountain cabin but found posse members staking it out. He retreated and stole a car. Around 2 a.m. on June 13, Bundy was headed toward Interstate 70 in that stolen car — but was so exhausted that he weaved across lanes. He was pulled over for suspected drunken driving and arrested after a week on the run.

The sheriff’s posse with helping to thwart Bundy’s escape by blocking him from resting at the cabin. He might have been awake enough to drive unnoticed out of town had he been able to recuperate at the cabin first, observers speculated.

Although Bundy’s escapade occurred a half-century ago, sheriff’s posses — volunteers who county sheriffs can call on for a variety of duties — are not a vestige of Colorado’s past. More than a third of sheriff’s offices across the state still maintain active posses, The Denver Post found by surveying all 64 of Colorado’s sheriffs.

Most sheriffs keep uncertified posses, with civilian volunteers performing duties like search and rescue, traffic control, patrols, crowd control and crime scene security, The Post found. A handful of Colorado posses also include reserve officers — state-certified, volunteer police officers with almost full police power — but more often, reserves are a separate unit.

There are no statewide standards for posse members; each sheriff sets their own training regimen. Reserve officers, on the other hand, must complete at and be certified by the state’s Peace Office Standards and Training, or POST, board.

Some sheriffs have come to rely on posse members more in recent years as the number of reserve officers has steadily declined. Colorado counted 528 certified reserve officers in 2015; that number slid to just 360 this year, a 32% drop over the last decade. In 2018, the POST board certified 149 new reserve officers. In 2024, it certified just 19.

Leaders at sheriff’s offices across the state pointed to several factors behind the decline in reserve officers, including the extensive required training, increased costs, a general shift away from volunteering, and the end of qualified immunity, a legal defense that previously protected sheriff’s deputies from being sued in their individual capacities in most cases.

“What we found with our reserve (officers) was that life happened fast,” said Capt. Michael Yowellc at the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office, which disbanded its reserve officer program in 2023. “And trying to live two lives, one as a law enforcement officer and one working at the bank, they just collided too much.”

The agency still keeps about a 15-member posse, he said, which doubles the manpower of its 15 deputies. The posse takes a supporting role and typically does not engage in direct law enforcement, Yowell said.

“We don’t put a gun on their hip and say, ‘Hey, come back me up,'” Yowell said. “They are more of a, ‘Hey, we need that ATV, could you put it on a trailer and bring it to us?'”

The posse was double its size years ago, but interest has waned. Still, the posse members do provide an extra set of eyes when deputies are spread thin, Yowell said.

“It sure makes a cop feel better, when he is 60 miles from the nearest backup, to know that there is a guy there who can help him if anything — we hope that never happens, but they’re there if we need them,”  he said.

A special power of sheriffs

Posses long predate the United States.

They are rooted in English traditions that date back to the ninth century, particularly the notion that policing should be done by the community, for the community, said David Kopel, research director at the , a libertarian-leaning Denver think tank.

“Posses were important on the Western frontier, but they were quite pervasive and common in more settled areas in the east for many, many years,” Kopel said. “When people were moving to Colorado, starting with the Gold Rush in 1858, and they began using posses, they were not creating something new.”

Under both common law and , judges, coroners and sheriffs can all call up posses, he noted, though the power is today almost exclusively used by sheriffs. Technically, participating in a posse is a civic duty, like jury duty, that can be compelled for men over the age of 16, Kopel said.

“But we haven’t had anything where anyone has been forced to do it for quite a long time,” he said. In the modern era, posses have largely been used when sheriffs do not have enough deputies to handle a situation, be it a blizzard, wildfire, concert or football game.

“Instead of tying up a sworn deputy manning a roadblock out in the middle of nowhere, they’ll do that for us,” said Park County Sheriff Tom McGraw, who has about a dozen regularly active posse members, all of whom carry guns after going through training and qualifying on the range.

Almost 20 years after Bundy’s escape, a posse of about 100 citizens was formed in 1994 after was shot and killed by two bank robbery suspects, leaving the sheriff’s office with just one deputy. The posse helped to block the suspects’ escape.

Another 20 years after that, Larimer County’s then-Sheriff Justin Smith deputized local firefighters as posse members after the 2013 floods cut off some parts of the county, so the firefighters could work as “peacekeepers” if necessary, he said.

“We had a period of time when the county was cut off, we were extremely limited on what resources we had,” said Smith, who will take over as executive director of the next year. “…It was to see to it that if they were going to be called on to help protect the community, it gave them some legal authority and protection to do that.”

The Larimer County Sheriff’s Office is one of just a couple of agencies in Colorado that include both certified reserve officers and uncertified volunteers . In the majority of agencies, the reserve unit is separate from the posse, or the posse is made up entirely of certified reserves.

POST-certified reserve officers can do anything that paid police officers can do, as long as they are being supervised by a fully POST-certified officer, said Col. Ronald Abramson, chief of the , an organization of about 100 reserve police officers that provides the volunteer officers to about three dozen law enforcement agencies across the state.

The agencies, including the Denver Police Department, pay a subscription fee to the Colorado Rangers — which the rangers, who are unpaid, use for equipment, insurance and training — and in return, the agencies can call in volunteer rangers for extra manpower as needed.

“Most of what we do is pre-planned, like a Denver Broncos game or CU football games, large city events, but we also fill in when police departments are low on officers, or if small departments have officers who get sick and can’t work,” Abramson said.

After the Marshall fire in 2021, rangers patrolled the burned neighborhoods in Boulder County for six months, he said.

Decline in reserve officers

Abramson suspects the decrease in statewide reserve officers might be because agencies are relying more on the Colorado Rangers. It is expensive for agencies to run their own reserve program, he noted, and they are often limited to a handful of reserve officers.

“Of all our agencies we work with, I don’t think any of them have reserve programs anymore,” he said. “They use us as their reserves. I can surge almost 100 reserve officers to any agency if I need to.”

But several leaders in sheriff’s offices also pointed to 2020 police reform — particularly the changes under Senate Bill 217 that allowed police officers to be held personally liable for up to $25,000 in damages under certain conditions — as a reason for the decrease in reserve officers.

“As a volunteer, a person who doesn’t get a dime out of it, you have the same level of liability, and that would, in my opinion, drive down the number of people,” Smith speculated, calling the law a “great deterrent.”

In Logan County, Undersheriff Dennis Aulston said the 2020 reform and a general lack of interest in volunteering drove the sheriff’s office to shut down its long-standing posse in 2021.

“A lot of our posse members had gotten older,” he said. “We had had one for years and years. There just wasn’t the interest in that like we were having. We had a few younger guys, but not enough. And then when that Senate bill came out, we just couldn’t be putting people in that predicament.”

Generally, interest in police jobs has waned in recent years, as has interest in volunteering of all types, Smith said.

For the Colorado Rangers, where all rangers carry reserve officer POST certifications, Abramson has no problem attracting volunteers, but he is limited by rising costs.

“Many paid police officers will tell you that they barely do the job because they get a paycheck and they can’t imagine anybody doing the job not getting paid,” he said. “We take that as a compliment. It is a very tough job.”

Insurance costs for the rangers’ reserve officers increased 64% from 2022 to 2024, which Abramson said is likely tied to recent large jury verdicts in civil cases against police officers.

“We have to be judicious in the number of rangers we can bring into the program, because the cost of each ranger is so high with insurance, body cameras and training costs,” he noted.

In El Paso County, the sheriff’s reserve unit dropped from more than 30 reserve officers to about a dozen, which Sgt. Kurt Smith attributed to the extensive training that is required for a reserve POST certification.

“It just requires so many hours of training; someone doesn’t have the ability to take that much time off their normal work, and their normal job,” he said. The sheriff’s office reserves are now largely retired law enforcement officers who want to volunteer, rather than active professionals with other jobs, he said.

In Eagle County, Avon police Cmdr. Ken Dammen runs one of just a handful of reserve officer academies in the state. The police department hosted its first class — two paramedics and a local surgeon — in 2018 so that the three medical providers could carry guns while they were deployed with the region’s team.

Dammen has run one academy every three years since — the minimum frequency to maintain his standing with POST — meeting for one full weekday each week over two semesters. The last two academies have each graduated one new reserve officer, he said. Four other people dropped out before the end of classes, he said.

“It was just either scheduling wasn’t going to work out for them or they decided they didn’t want to do it,” he said. “That is the difficulty with reserves in general. It is volunteer… So at the end of the day, if they choose at any point they don’t want to do it, or it����ap too much, or I have other things I want to do, there’s not a whole lot you can do to keep them.”

A brand new posse

In June, the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office in part to boost the ranks of volunteers and bridge the gap left by the lower number of reserve officers.

The first class of about 25 posse members graduated from the sheriff’s roughly five-week training course in June. The class met for four hours twice a week on weeknights and for several hours on Saturdays. The training covered the basics of traffic control, radio use, policies and procedures, said Hayley Suppes, volunteer coordinator at the sheriff’s office.

“They are not POST-certified, they don’t have powers of arrest, they don’t carry weapons beyond OC spray,” Suppes said, referring to pepper spray used to incapacitate suspects. “They are meant to be a force multiplier for our deputies in the field, whether that is running security for an event, traffic control, extra eyes or help on the radio.”

The office asked the posse members to give at least 80 hours a year in volunteered time, and most have already exceeded that, Suppes said. The sheriff’s office is now recruiting for a second posse class.

Posse member Mark Shuster has put in 104 hours so far, he said. He joined the posse in part because his son works for the sheriff’s office, and because he was looking for a way to contribute to the community after he retired from the military.

“Sometimes it is hard to scratch that itch,” he said.

He’s volunteered with deputies at football games, helped with intakes at the jail and assisted with traffic control. The posse wears maroon uniforms — a different color from deputies — and members do not carry guns. Shuster hasn’t yet been called out to a larger-scale emergency, like a wildfire, but he’s ready to go if needed.

“If I’m available, I will drop everything… and I will go report for duty,” he said. “Because that is the commitment I made. But the good news as a volunteer is, if you can’t show up, they’re not going to give you any grief, because you don’t work for the sheriff’s office.”

The three county commissioners on Tuesday that would hit businesses in unincorporated parts of the county with $50 fines for each 24-hour period following an unreported theft, with a maximum fine of $1,000 per incident.

The measure still needs a second vote to become law.

“We’re not going to allow a culture where people walk out of a store with a stack of drills and nobody says a word — that era is over in Douglas County,” said Commissioner Abe Laydon during a livestreamed news conference from county headquarters in Castle Rock on Tuesday. “We also want to protect honest customers. So we’re putting an end to the era of silent losses that get passed on to the community.”

District Attorney George Brauchler, whose office prosecutes criminals in Douglas County, cited state laws that have raised dollar thresholds and lowered penalties for retail theft as a big contributor to the problem. Many of those changes to misdemeanor and petty offenses handled in state courts were part of sweeping reforms in 2021 that of the misdemeanor code, but critics argued it went too far.

The practice of releasing thieves on personal recognizance bonds will be severely curtailed in the county, Brauchler said.

“That culture is a failed culture — it hasn’t worked,” Brauchler said at the event. “We wanted to take a different approach, and so the approach that I pitched … was we’re going to try to arrest everybody. You steal from us, expect to go to jail.”

But Chris Howes, the president of the Colorado Retail Council, is wary of placing part of the burden on retailers when it comes to merchandise disappearing from their shelves. Douglas County says there are about 900 retail outlets in unincorporated parts of the county.

“Retail store staff are busy enough with customer service during the holiday shopping season without having to adhere to additional strict mandates — so we look forward to more conversations with county officials,” he said. “Penalizing the store for the actions of thieves may not be the most effective approach.”

Jon Caldara, the president of the libertarian-leaning Independence Institute, agreed with Douglas County leaders that state lawmakers in recent years paved the way for increased criminal activity in Colorado by passing what he called “soft-on-crime” laws.

But for him, the idea of punishing retail outlets in the wake of a theft is a bridge too far.

“It is such the wrong approach, I believe,” Caldara said. “To be victimized by a crime and then victimized by the system is wrong.”

Theft has been a bane to Colorado retailers over the last few years, with grocery and convenience stores among those locking up certain highly sought items to keep them from disappearing. Brazen robberies have made headlines, as happened when four thieves dressed up as construction workers and used drills, power saws and blowtorches to ransack a Cherry Creek jeweler last year.

The men made off with more than $12 million in luxury watches and accessories.

In a , the Common Sense Institute, a business-oriented think tank, found that Colorado recorded 27,094 shoplifting incidents in 2024, a 22.4% increase over the prior year. That number was nearly 10% higher than a decade ago, the organization reported.

The institute also found that nearly 90% of retail thefts in Colorado go unreported.

That’s a percentage Commissioner George Teal wants to sharply reduce.

“We also know that many local storefronts are taking their cues from corporate headquarters, in places like New York and San Francisco, where liberal policies allow for lawlessness,” he said. “If we don’t know about it, we can’t address it.”

Douglas County’s ordinance would require businesses to report a theft within 96 hours of it happening, though it’s not clear how law enforcement would discover a violation of that rule. It also would require retailers to retain photographic or video evidence of a crime and forbid management from retaliating against an employee who reports a theft.

“We don’t tolerate shoplifting in Douglas County,” Laydon said. “We protect our retailers, and we protect our citizens and the citizens that are shopping.”

I recently logged on to the U.S. Forest Service South Platte Ranger District website to get some current information. At the very top of the is a special alert which states, “The Radical Left Democrats shut down the government. This government website will be updated periodically during the funding lapse for mission-critical functions. President Trump has made it clear he wants to keep the government open and support those who feed, fuel, and clothe the American people.”

This political propaganda is revolting, totally disgusting and perhaps a violation of the . Trump and his fellow Republicans control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, and seemingly the Supreme Court, so if they really wanted to “open the government,” that is clearly in their power!

Many Americans are already hurting because of the government shutdown, and the pain will greatly increase as the shutdown continues. Trump considers himself to be the ultimate “deal maker.” Brokering the reopening of the government would seem like a wonderful opportunity for the president to intervene if he truly “wants to keep the government open” and “make the deal.”

Gene R. Reetz, Denver

No on Props LL and MM

Re: “Universal school lunches: Fate of program hangs on results,” Oct. 26 news story

My biggest disappointment with and is the missed opportunity to truly help the poor with these measures. According to the article, if both measures fail, the state will “give universal school meals only to low-income schools, and free meals to low-income students at wealthier schools.” So, without these proposals, the poor are already given a free lunch. With these proposals, students from the middle class and wealthy households also are given free lunch.

How does this help the poor? We’re taxing the rich to give to the slightly less rich, as Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, suggests.

In the article Shannon Thompson, public policy and legislative chair for the Colorado School Nutrition Association, suggests the $50 million annual increase for lunch costs shows the need for these lunches. That is ridiculous! All it shows is that most parents will have their kids accept a free lunch when it is offered.

If we want this tax to truly help the poor, let����ap use it to provide air conditioning to the schools in Denver or add tutors to help with education. The poor are already eligible for free meals!

Ronald Mol, Highlands Ranch

Yes on Props LL and MM

As a parent and Broomfield resident, I want every child in our community to thrive. No child should have to worry about affording lunch or skip a meal because their family is struggling. Yet Colorado families face food insecurity. For many students, school meals are the most nutritious food they receive all day.

The provides more than 600,000 free, healthy meals every day. Measures LL and MM ensure this vital program continues. Voting yes means our kids will keep the nourishment they need to focus, learn, and grow.

Access to healthy food is not a luxury — it is a foundation. For our children, our schools, and our community’s values, please join me in voting Yes on LL and MM.

Shannon Hancock, Broomfield

Beware the wolves of Canada

Re: “Reintroduction in Colorado: Feds: Wolves must come from U.S., not Canada,” Oct. 25 news story

We can see where this is going. If it’s illegal to bring wolves in from Canada, then they would be illegal aliens and ICE could go after them. Aha, now we know. And, how do you tell if a wolf is Canadian? When it howls, it goes arooooo, eh.

Steven Turner, Aurora

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.

Every eligible school district signed up for the program and students ate 25 million more school meals than the year before. But food prices continued to rise across the country and state officials quickly realized: The program needed a lot more money.

The rising price tag — $50 million above estimates in each of its first two years — puts the program, known as , at a crossroads. 

Propositions LL and MM, on the ballot in November’s election, will determine the future of the universal school meals program.

Yes on both, and it continues on, with enough money to fulfill all its initial promises, advocates said. LL allows the state to keep and spend tax dollars collected above the projections approved with Proposition FF in 2022, while MM will expand the tax on high-income households to bolster the program.

Further, MM will also help fund the state’s share of the following changes to federal eligibility requirements.

Healthy School Meals for All is funded by limiting write-offs that Coloradans making more than $300,000 per year can claim. LL would allow the state to keep about $12.4 million in taxes collected over initial expectations set in the 2022 measure.

MM would further limit the write-offs, from $16,000 now for joint filers at that income level to $2,000. It would, in effect, raise taxes on high-income Colorado taxpayers a year, while leaving taxes for Coloradans making less than $300,000 per year alone. The tax increase would affect less than 6% of Colorado taxpayers.

If both fail, the Healthy School Meals for All Program will be pared back into a program that only gives universal school meals to low-income schools, and free meals to low-income students at wealthier schools — a system similar to what preceded it.

“Without LL and MM, hunger will rise sharply across our state,” said Anya Rose, director of public policy for , a key backer of the proposals. “We know kids were going hungry at school. We’ll go back to that method where many students are not accessing meals at school, either because their families can’t afford it or because they’re facing that fear of shame and stigma.”

In the 2023-2024 school year, the first with Healthy School Meals for All in place and the most recent data available, schools across the state reported serving 8 million more breakfasts than the year before and more than 16 million more lunches — respective increases of 37% and 30%, according to .

Hungry Free Colorado the program saved Colorado families $1,250 per child in school annually.

Emma Ansara, a mother of three in south Denver, hasn’t tallied her exact savings from the program, but the help has made her finances easier as three sons worked through school. And she’s appreciated not worrying about surprise over-budget bills when the school term ends and cafeteria bills come due, she said.

The free meals have also been a safety net as she juggles her sons’ schedules with her own as a Ph.D. student and nurse practitioner. Sometimes, lunch planning falls through as their morning schedules dance around each other. 

But the other kids in their classrooms, and the feeling of support from the community voting in Healthy School Meals, are where she sees the program really shining. Every kid being sure of a meal at school, including hers, helps make a better learning environment for everyone, she said.

“We have a lot of families in Colorado who are food insecure,” Ansara said. “This seems like a really thoughtful and planful way to meet kids where they are. Them having access to food throughout the school day really shows up in a lot of ways, both in their physical health and their learning.”

She added, “Learning is a communal process.”

Colorado voter guide: Stories and explainers for the 2025 election

LL and MM have scant formal opposition

Taxpayers for a Better Deal, an issue committee linked with the libertarian-leaning think tank , registered in opposition to the measures, though it reported having raised and spent zero dollars for the effort as of Sept. 30, the most recent filing period.

In a statement opposing the measures, the organization referred to Healthy School Meals for All as a “failed experiment,” blasted it as “financially unsound” and called it a case of “classic bracket creep” because inflation will drive more families into the tax bracket that pays for the program.

Jon Caldara, the institute’s president, reiterated the argument that led the opposition toward Proposition FF in 2022. Yes, lower-income folks should get free meals. But kids whose families can afford school lunch shouldn’t have taxpayers foot the bill.

“Why are we taxing wealthy people to buy free lunches for the kids of just slightly less wealthy people,” Caldera said in a statement. “Of course, children of poorer families should get a free lunch. But buying lunch for those who can afford it isn’t charity. It����ap theft.”

Supporters of the measure formed . That committee, which is linked to Hunger Free Colorado, has reported raising $683,000 to support the measure. 

The program’s funding source does look to those who can most afford the higher tax rate, said Rose, with Hunger Free Colorado. But she noted that even those high-income families will reap savings if they have any kids in public schools.

“This is a time when folks are facing an affordability crunch, but that����ap why it����ap really important there’s an equitable mechanism here,” Rose said.

'Kids need these meals'

Shannon Thompson, public policy and legislative chair for the , said the extra money will also help keep school meals healthy and made from scratch. Cutting back would mean a heavier reliance on heat-and-serve meals and other prepared foods.

The program aims to use more locally grown foods -- a goal that����ap been stifled by the lack of available money. Having funds to pay for more staff and better training in the state’s “biggest restaurant chain” will mean better, healthier meals.

Thompson also shot down complaints that the program has led to more food waste because students aren’t paying for the meals. Instead, it's long lines and short lunch periods that have kids dumping uneaten food. They simply don’t have time, she said.

That finding was echoed by after the program’s inaugural year and, supporters say, a product of the program’s success in drawing in kids.

"Right now, the original Proposition FF was so successful it cost the state of Colorado more than was anticipated. That success was really important to show that kids need these meals,” Thompson said. “...If Proposition LL and MM don't pass, it's going to reduce that equitable playing field that we've made over the past couple of years for students."

The local undertaking coincides with a larger federal investigation by the commission into what at American college campuses following Hamas’s October 2023 attack on Israel and that nation’s retaliatory war in Gaza.

Demonstrators set up a 23-day encampment at Auraria last year — the largest of Colorado’s pro-Palestinian protests — at which students and others protested the war and called for the University of Colorado to divest financially from Israel.

The committee’s alleges the Auraria encampment featured participants chanting slogans “calling for the extermination of the state of Israel and for terrorist attacks on Jews globally.” The proposal attributes that statement to “news reports,” but does not cite any specifically.

The proposal acknowledged such statements are not “per se illegal… just as reading ‘Mein Kampf’ out loud in public is not illegal,” but alleged the encampment interfered with campus access and classes, and included a “hostile occupation” of the student union and vandalism.

A representative of the Auraria Higher Education Center told The Denver Post last month that the campus is committed to fostering a “safe, inclusive and respectful environment for all,” and that antisemitism, along with any form of hate or discrimination, has no place on campus.

Auraria is home to the Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State University of Denver, and CU Denver.

During Thursday’s 45-minute virtual commission meeting, a handful of Auraria students from anti-Zionist advocacy organization said they were present during the encampment and felt welcomed and safe until the university called in police to break up the protest.

“These investigations seemingly about antimestimism all across the country have little to do with Jews and everything to do with dismantling higher education,” said a virtual public commenter who identified themselves as Asa.

, a member of the Colorado Advisory Committee and research director at libertarian think tank , proposed the antisemitism research project.

In a virtual meeting earlier this year, Kopel described antisemitism on college campuses as “a matter that is long overdue for serious analysis… and that has been swept under the rug and dismissed by a lot of authorities in the past.”

“State advisory committees are formally charged with being the eyes and ears of the commission in D.C., so as a factual investigation, this is a place to get some facts and write about it ourselves for Colorado, but also do a useful investigation elsewhere,” Kopel said.

As the project progresses, the committee will invite speakers to provide testimony to inform a forthcoming report.

The committee identified the following questions as guiding its study:

• What are university and college campus policies around antisemitic discrimination?
• How did university and college administrators address recent incidents of antisemitism?
• How are antisemitic incidents documented and/or reported?

“An anticipated outcome of the project is to ensure that the commission is advised of the presence and/or absence of antisemitism at Colorado institutions of higher education,” the project proposal said. “The committee intends that such information will lead to a better understanding of addressing any related civil rights concerns through its recommendations.”

The committee intends to release a report with findings next year that may include recommendations for federal, state or higher education policy or statutory changes, the proposal said.

“The committee also hopes to make recommendations that will protect both students and faculty impacted by antisemitism, while strictly adhering to the First Amendment rights of all Americans, whatever their views,” the proposal said.

The committee’s next meeting is scheduled virtually for

Senators voted 29-6 to override the veto the morning after Polis issued it. , if it becomes law, would require social media companies to promptly ban users who violate their terms of service, make annual reports to the Colorado Attorney General’s Office and better cooperate with law enforcement.

The House will also need to vote to override Polis’ veto for it to be successful. Like the Senate, the chamber will need a two-thirds majority to force the measure into law.

The bill passed the General Assembly with sweeping bipartisan support earlier in the session. Backers say it will better protect Colorado’s children by removing predators and people who use social media platforms to sell drugs and guns; opponents warn it represents a worrying intrusion on First Amendment rights and amounts to a de facto deputization of social media companies by the state.

Polis fell in the latter camp. He vetoed it Thursday night.

“Despite good intentions, this bill fails to guarantee the safety of minors or adults, erodes privacy, freedom, and innovation, hurts vulnerable people, and potentially subjects all Coloradans to stifling and unwarranted scrutiny of our constitutionally protected speech,” Polis .

He cited opposition from the liberal group ProgressNow Colorado and the libertarian-conservative Independence Institute, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and more.

In Colorado bill debate over social media and porn sites, when does protection of kids become overreach?

Backers of the measure warned last week that they would attempt a veto override if Polis tried to kill the bill. They made good on that Friday -- marking a legislative chamber's first successful veto override vote of Polis' term. Democratic Sens. Julie Gonzales, Faith Winter, Katie Wallace, Janice Marchman, and Nick Hinrichsen, and Republican Sen. Mark Baisley, cast the six votes against the override.

The most recent overridden vetoes in Colorado were in 2011 and 2007. Both of those were of spending instructions attached to the budget. A veto override of a standalone bill hasn't happened since the Reagan administration.

"This bill gives us the tools to help remove predators and traffickers who use social media to harm our kids," Sen. Lindsay Daugherty, an Arvada Democrat and sponsor of the bill, said ahead of the vote. "This is not about censorship. It's not about speech. It's about standing up for the safety and dignity of our youngest and most vulnerable."

Letting the veto stand would mean "choosing to protect the business interests of billion-dollar tech companies over the safety of Colorado kids," she added.

In a memo issued ahead of the veto override vote, Attorney General Phil Weiser's office found the bill's provisions are "permissible exercises of the State's police power" and would not infringe upon First Amendment protections. Its requirements for account removal based on illegal activity are likewise "narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest." A copy of the memo was distributed to members of the legislature.

Weiser, who is running for governor in 2026, serves as the state's lawyer. The legislature has its own legal counsel to advise on bills. Daugherty said the legal memo was produced at her request.

In a statement, Polis spokesperson Shelby Wieman said the governor supported parts of the bill that would help law enforcement "crack down on online criminal activity, especially targeted at children." He "remains open" to future legislation that would address illegal activity, without impeding privacy and freedom, she said.

“The governor vetoed the bill because the bill in its current form is unworkable, contains no safeguards for private information that could be leaked, gives big tech too much power to deplatform people, and he is worried about preserving civil rights and defending vulnerable Coloradans, which are so important at this critical moment," she said.

The House has not set a time for when it will consider the override, but it won't be Friday, House Democratic spokesman Jarrett Freedman said. The chamber had other floor work to clear, and it couldn't consider the override until it finished its other business, which may take a fair chunk of the day.

House Republican spokeswoman Laurel Boyle said the vote was likely to happen Monday.

The Senate is also considering a veto override for , which Polis rejected April 17. That bill would reform the Colorado Open Records Act to create separate classifications -- and fulfillment deadlines --  for open records requests based on the entity making the request. It was Polis's first veto of the legislative session.

That veto override vote has been rescheduled several times. On Friday, it was pushed another week, until May 2. Sponsor Sen. Cathy Kipp, a Fort Collins Democrat, said backers were "still having conversations" about the attempt.

Veto overrides in Colorado are exceedingly rare. In most cases, a veto is issued after the 120-day legislative session has ended -- meaning lawmakers would need to call for a special session to override it. However, if a bill makes it to the governor's desk with more than 10 days left in the legislative session, as happened with SB-77 and SB-86, the governor has a 10-day window to sign or veto it to give lawmakers a chance to override it.

The legislature is scheduled to adjourn its 2025 session on May 7.

Staff writer Seth Klamann contributed to this story.

is now one vote away from the House floor, where it’s expected to pass and then face an uncertain fate on Polis’ desk. The bill would remove a unique piece of Colorado law that requires unions to pass two elections — the second requiring a higher threshold — before workers can negotiate a part of their contracts that govern dues and fees. The measure has been near-universally backed by Democrats, including by state legislators, five former U.S. labor secretaries and two of Colorado’s Democratic congresswomen.

But it’s been opposed by the business community and by Polis, who has privately threatened a veto. In a news conference last week, the governor didn’t directly invoke that specter, though he reiterated his desire for a deal and his support for the state’s labor status quo.

Negotiations aimed at a deal are ongoing, both sides said, and the bill is unlikely to reach the floor in the next week. It first must pass through the House Appropriations Committee after winning an earlier committee vote, but a vote had not been scheduled yet.

The two sides also have entered something of a new phase: As the bill nears the finish line, the AFL-CIO that, if passed, would require Colorado employers to have “just cause” to fire their workers. Under current law, Colorado — like every state but Montana — is an at-will state, meaning employees can generally be fired for any — or no — reason not related to discrimination or other existing protections.

The initiative was filed with the legislature earlier this month — the first step in a long road to next year’s ballot. But its filing represents a larger goal for unions and a deeper threat to businesses than the union elections bill: While labor advocates argue that the second union election is a needless impediment to union negotiations, the just-cause protections sought by the initiative would place a much firmer restriction on business operations.

“I think you’re going to see more and more emphasis on workers’ rights initiatives on the ballot at the state level, especially with what’s going on at the federal level,” said Dennis Dougherty, the executive director of the Colorado AFL-CIO, referring to President Donald Trump’s return to office.

He said the just-cause restriction was “a policy we’ve had our eye on for quite some time.”

Loren Furman, the president and CEO of the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, said Friday that she interpreted the ballot measure both as a legitimate desire of labor unions and as a negotiating tool to ensure SB-5 is passed into law.

“It was pretty alarming when it was filed,” she said of the ballot proposal. “It would have a very, very significant impact on employers — all private sector employers across the state.”

She said Dougherty pledged to withdraw the ballot measure if an acceptable deal was reached on SB-5. Dougherty confirmed that the proposal would be pulled back “if we can find something that meets the interests of workers.”

But Dougherty said the labor groups also wanted a competing ballot measure — an anti-union proposal to make Colorado a “right-to-work” state, which would bar negotiated requirements that workers pay union dues and fees — to be withdrawn. That proposal is being backed by Jon Caldara, the president of the Independence Institute, a libertarian-conservative think tank in Denver.

If the right-to-work proposal advances, Dougherty said, then the just-cause measure would be “the first of many” from labor unions. Pointing to Caldara’s public statements, Furman said his measure would be taken down, too, if an SB-5 deal was reached. The business community has not introduced any ballot measures of its own.

The ballot-box arms race, then, hinges on the fate of SB-5 — and on Polis’ veto pen.

But it’s unclear if a grand compromise will materialize. The business community has made three offers that have included proposals to expedite union elections and to make it easier for workers to pass the second election, which SB-5 now seeks to eliminate, Furman said.

Dougherty and Rep. Javier Mabrey, one of the bill’s sponsors, both declined to comment this week on the negotiations or what the bill’s supporters may agree to, other than to say conversations were underway and happening in good faith.

“Any deal has to be something that labor and the labor organizations feel like is a meaningful movement of the ball forward,” Mabrey said. Negotiators have also included representatives of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and Colorado Concern, which was also heavily involved in previous ballot-box standoffs related to property taxes.

Supporters are adamant that the bill has the votes to pass, with or without a deal — and say they’re prepared to send the bill unchanged to Polis’ desk. Pressed by reporters last week, the governor wouldn’t say what he would do should that happen.

“As we indicated from the start, I remain open to a solution that brings workers and businesses to the table in a way that’s stable for the state,” he said.

Furman said the negotiations — and the growing threat of renewed ballot wars — put “a lot of pressure on the governor on what to do.”

Democrats have sought to frame the fight as a referendum on the direction of the party. They’ve enlisted outside forces — like the five previous labor secretaries, including Robert Reich from the Clinton administration and Marty Walsh from the Biden administration — to put pressure on the governor. Labor groups plan to rally outside the Capitol on Wednesday and deliver “thousands” of postcards to Polis’ office calling on him to sign the bill into law.

A veto would be “a massive mistake at a time when Democratic Party popularity is at and union popularity is ,” Mabrey said. “That would be a weird way for the governor to go.”

But should Polis veto SB-5, the lawmaker said, Democrats and unions will just wait him out.

Polis has fewer than two years left in the governor’s office, and so far the only Democrat in the race to succeed him — Attorney General Phil Weiser — was present at SB-5’s unveiling in November. So, too, was another potential candidate: Secretary of State Jena Griswold.

“If the rumors are true and — Michael Bennet was a vocal supporter of the , which goes quite a bit further than what we’re trying to do here,” Mabrey said Tuesday, referring to the U.S. senator’s support of pro-labor congressional legislation. “I’m confident that Michael Bennet would sign it if we’re unable to get it done this year.”

Government officials, academics and union representatives fear a future with climbing costs, more food deserts throughout the state and farmers receiving unfair prices. But others aren’t worried yet about the impact of the deal approved by the boards of both companies, which is expected to close in early 2024.

It comes at a time when consumers are balancing holiday shopping with inflation, while American businesses are struggling to fill worker vacancies — all while a recession looms. The “food at home” consumer price index – grocery prices – rose 12.4% in October compared to the same period in 2021, the reported.

A “deeply concerned” Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser is in the process of launching an investigation into the merger. His office is putting together a team to evaluate whether it will hurt consumers, workers and industry competition.

With no set time frame in place, the team plans to interview experts and industry observers, reach out to consumers and more. “All that will help us come to a conclusion: Is this merger illegal?” Weiser said.

Count Rick Edwards among those casting a wary eye toward the proposed merger. The Denver resident was loading groceries into his SUV at a Safeway store Thursday when asked if he has concerns about the two big chains teaming up.

“Absolutely. I think corporate concentration is not a good thing. It doesn’t help the consumer,” Edwards said.

Higher prices for consumers as a result of consolidation is one of the concerns Weiser will explore. He will also consider potential threats to the food entrepreneurial ecosystem, fewer job opportunities for workers and the proliferation of food deserts. If the negatives outweigh the benefits, Weiser said he will challenge the merger, which means going to court, or pursue a legal settlement to protect competition.

filed a Nov. 1 lawsuit to block Albertsons from paying its shareholders with a $4 billion dividend before regulators review the merger. His subsequent was granted.

The move “protects Colorado consumers,” Weiser said. With that relief in place, he doesn’t need to take similar action, but will consider his options if it’s lifted, he added.

“If this merger results in closing stores, that’s going to hurt,” Weiser said.  — including King Soopers and City Market locations — with around 22,000 employees in Colorado. manages 103 locations in the state.

Albertsons spokesperson Rachael Collins referred to the , highlighting Kroger’s “plans to invest in lowering prices for customers and expects to reinvest approximately half a billion dollars of cost savings from synergies to reduce prices for customers.”

The merger with Albertsons “advances our commitment to build a more equitable and sustainable food system by expanding our footprint into new geographies to serve more of America with fresh and affordable food and accelerates our position as a more compelling alternative to larger and non-union competitors.”

Concerns about food deserts, rising prices

Law and economics experts are also skeptical that the public benefits cited by Kroger and Albertsons will actually materialize. Kroger said combining the companies would help shoppers because it would streamline supply-chain logistics and allow for more targeted promotions to regular customers, said Sanjai Bhagat, finance professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder’s Leeds School of Business.

“It����ap easy to talk about supply-chain logistics. It����ap much harder to integrate these supply chains,” he said. “Many companies in other industries have not had success in doing it.”

Bhagat, who previously worked at the Securities and Exchange Commission, said operations improvements from mergers in industries such as airlines and pharmaceuticals have ranged from modest to negligible. Most of the economists at the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission who are looking at the merger will be concerned that some customers will pay higher prices for groceries if they live in neighborhoods that don’t have other chains, he said.

“In some cases, the higher prices would be very, very high if they are in a food desert,” Bhagat said.

He added companies decide against opening stores in certain areas because of and the expense of higher security and insurance. Elected officials aren’t upholding law and order, he said.

Christine Bartholomew, a University of Buffalo Law School professor, believes food deserts result from “multiple, compounding factors.” She hopes the FTC will require more information from the grocery store chains about the problem. Bartholomew, who practiced consumer protection and antitrust law, said she also has “grave concerns” about grocery prices rising if the two chains become one.

A 2012 FTC study found, overall, results supported “the hypothesis that increases in market concentration resulting from mergers cause prices to increase when mergers take place in already concentrated markets.”

Bartholomew criticized Kroger and Albertsons for citing the ability to better compete against the country’s No. 1 food retailer, Walmart, as a reason for joining forces.

“That can’t be the test,” she said. “There’s got to be a little more analysis as to what would really happen to consumers beyond questions of whether these two together are actually going to have more success or not combating Walmart.”

While declining to speculate whether federal officials will approve or oppose the merger, Bartholomew said she expects the decision to take a while. “This is not going to be an easy one.”

Colorado Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet supports a rigorous examination of the deal by the government.

“(He) believes it is critical that the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice carefully review the proposed merger between Albertsons and Kroger,” press secretary Rachel Skaar said.

Bennet also backs the hearing announced for this month about the proposed merger by the .

“Consolidation doesn’t always mean higher prices”

Others want to wait and see how the merger plays out.

Jose Tamez, managing partner at grocery retail and wholesale talent search firm Austin-Michael LP, in Golden, predicts its short-term impact will be “zero.” He said inflation, supply-chain issues and the rising cost of labor are the biggest influencers of price increases — not the merger.

Tamez pointed to Kroger’s “very successful track record with its past acquisitions and integrations.” He credits that to the company’s respect for its acquired brands, its inherited workforces and new customer bases.

“It’s in both their principles, and in their best interests, to keep pricing as affordable and competitive as possible for the customers in Colorado, and I expect them to do that,” Tamez said.

Jon Caldara, president of Denver-based libertarian think tank Independence Institute, said “consolidation doesn’t always mean higher prices” — but, often, the opposite, because of economies of scale. He referred to Walmart’s pricing as an example.

“We don’t yet know if Albertson’s locations will become King Soopers or if they will be vacated,” Caldara said, with the latter option opening up space for competitors.

“As long as the merger doesn’t block other companies from opening a store, there isn’t a long-term market issue,” he added.

Union opposition

Kim Cordova, president of the United Food & Commercial Workers Local 7 union, fears that stores will be divested, closed or spun off because of the brands’ “big footprint” in the region. An immediate result of in 2015 was the shuttering of roughly 33 local stores, Cordova said.

Employees aren’t only worried about job losses, but also impacts on health and pension plans. “If they close a lot of stores out here, then we can’t sustain benefits,” Cordova said, adding that unionized stores may become targets for closures.

She highlighted farmers’ individual contracts with Kroger and Albertsons. “They can really set the price on what they’re going to pay for the product, and then turn around and raise those prices for consumers,” Cordova said.

The Rocky Mountain Farmers Union opposes the merger, as “this market concentration would hurt our farmers and ranchers by eliminating any form of competition that would allow them to receive a fair price for their goods,”  Executive Director Ben Rainbolt said.

Members also voiced concerns that the merger would cause small grocers to go out of business.

The Colorado Farm Bureau doesn’t have a position on the merger yet, said spokesperson Taylor Szilagyi.

But while questions remain about whether Kroger’s acquisition of Albertsons would worsen problems with food deserts, the only way for Denver’s Montbello neighborhood is up.

mapped what kind of food access neighborhoods have by looking at where people live outside a 10-minute walk to a full-service grocery store. For Montbello, the closest stores are 4 to 6 miles from its main residential area, said Donna Garnett, CEO of the Montbello Organizing Committee.

“We’ve been working on food-access issues since 2017,” Garnett said. “A year or so before that was when the last grocery store in our community closed up shop and left, leaving us with no grocery store.” The shuttering occurred around the time Albertsons bought out Safeway.

On Thursday, vehicles lined up on 53rd Avenue, waiting to turn into the Montbello Recreation Center parking lot where the MOC and the Food Bank of the Rockies run a bimonthly food pantry for community members. Green Valley Ranch resident Monica Villela has volunteered for years and used the food pantry herself.

“The pandemic has affected us and now all the prices went up. Everything is so ridiculously expensive,” Villela said, adding that she’s trying to sustain a family of six. The pantry “has really been helping us a lot.”

No matter what happens with the merger, MOC’s Garnett doesn’t expect neighborhoods like hers to gain new supermarkets. The Montbello community talked to national chains and local operators. “In the end, the answer was always ‘no,’ ” Garnett said.

So, they stopped asking. Instead, the organizing committee worked with foundations, investment banks, the city and others to raise most of the $75 million for a development that will include a nonprofit-run grocery store. The groundbreaking could occur as early as January.

The Rev. Vernon Jones of Denver’s Kinship Church noted that Kroger provided resources and food during the pandemic for families in need.

“I hope they will keep that disposition, and understand that it����ap not just about being a grocery store, but it����ap about being a community partner.”

About 55% of voters backed the measure, with 1,122,541 votes, as of 1:33 p.m. on Thursday, according to a call by the Associated Press. That number includes all 64 counties, with 79% reporting, although post-election reporting is still in progress.

The initiative will establish and fund the Healthy School Meals for All Program. It will boost taxes for households with incomes higher than $300,000 by curbing state income tax deductions. The move will impact about 114,000 joint and single-filer tax returns, or about 5% of those filed in Colorado.

It will hike the overall tax burden of those households by more than $800 for those with incomes of $300,000 to $499,000, and round up to an average of more than $1,150 for those with $1 million or more in annual income.

The proposition is “the first-ever state ballot initiative securing free school meals,” according to nonprofit MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger.

“At this pivotal moment, we urge states nationwide to follow Colorado’s bold example and make universal free school lunches a reality,” said president and CEO Abby Leibman.

Ashley Wheeland, director of public policy at Hunger Free Colorado, celebrated the initiative’s victory.

“This is a massive victory for hungry children,” she said. “The Prop FF campaign began and finished as a community-based effort with grassroots and advocacy organizations, non-profits, education service providers and educators sharing their own stories of how school meals for all would help thousands of Colorado children get the food they need to learn.”

“This effort will continue with community partners as Colorado implements the best school nutrition program in the county.”

The measure will not only help reduce food insecurity in the “expensive” Centennial State, but will also “remove shame for low-income students,” she said.

Wheeland pointed to the federal government’s temporary decision to offer students free school lunches during the coronavirus pandemic, which “showed this works.”

She added that the proposition was penned by Colorado’s policymakers, anti-hunger advocates and community-based organizations “to help our district’s school nutrition departments meet their students’ needs.”

“Once this is implemented in our cafeterias, we can provide every kid in Colorado with a healthy meal made with local, Colorado-grown products,” said Zander Kaschub, a school food and nutrition service worker with the Jeffco Education Support Professionals Association and a member of the Colorado Education Association. “With this program in place, we’ll also show that we care about fair wages and good training for school staff — a key piece of this measure.”

The Rocky Mountain Farmers Union Board of Directors also endorsed the initiative, as it will “allow school districts to use their meal funding to invest in their communities.”

It will also strengthen the state’s regional food systems and local economies, while “creating a link to community agricultural producers,” the board wrote.

“We are encouraged by the results,” said spokesperson Ben Rainbolt. “This can be a win for local foods and local producers and, of course, a win for our kids.”

Jon Caldara, president of Denver-based libertarian think tank Independence Institute, called the proposition “wrong” in many ways.

While he concedes that children from low-income families “should have help,” Caldara argues that the current system already serves those kids free or reduced-cost meals, on top of support from food banks, county and city programs and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

The proposition instead “taxes rich families to buy lunches for other rich families,” Caldara wrote in an emailed statement. “Middle, upper and high income families shouldn’t be put on the dole.”

He pointed to one potential consequence as “encouraging wealthy families to stop giving to charity” since tax deductions, including charitable deductions, are limited.

The measure needed a simple majority to pass after being referred to voters by the legislature. A prior bill to pay for universal meals with general fund money stalled.