The , or PERA, serves hundreds of thousands of Coloradans and is responsible for investing its $61.5 billion fund to ensure it meets promises to current and former employees. But a recent analysis of the program’s finances by the PNYX Group for the subcommittee warned that the fund could be short billions of dollars by 2048, when it’s supposed to be 100% funded.

State officials took note of the warning during the Friday meeting of , which is led by state lawmakers and is under the Colorado Pension Commission. But they urged against making any drastic moves without first gathering more information.

Sen. Chris Kolker, the chair of the subcommittee and a financial planner by trade, noted that the PNYX Group referred to its predicted gap as a “.” He sees that as a reason for more investigation, not dismissal of the findings.

“This is not something that we need to have a knee-jerk reaction on,” Kolker said. “Investing is long-term investing. There are tweaks that can be made to investing to make it better. … Those tweaks, though, do not have to be made immediately because we need to understand how they impact us (and) how they impact the pension.”

PERA’s put its funding ratio — how much money it has compared to what it owes to retirees in the future — at 69.6%, down slightly from the year before. Its unfunded liabilities add up to $27.5 billion, a marked improvement from six years ago when lawmakers passed PERA reform.

Still, the PNYX Group’s analysis predicts that the fund could see 10% higher liabilities than current projections — potentially increasing that shortfall. Its proposed solution is for the state to set aside $2 billion in a fund now, an amount that PNXY predicts would grow to more than $20 billion by 2048 and be able to cover shortfalls — and potentially achieve full funding sooner.

That’s a tall order, given state budget realities. Instead, the biggest suggested tweak to come out of Friday’s meeting was to peg future state contributions to inflation to make sure the fund keeps up with costs.

Current law calls for the state to pay a flat $225 million into the fund every year, though future legislatures always have spending discretion.

Kolker said he planned to advocate for the change at the Pension Review Commission next week. That board, made up entirely of lawmakers, recommends new legislation, though he was pessimistic about the change becoming law because of the budget impact.

More than 700,000 Coloradans are members of PERA to some degree through jobs in school districts and local and state governments, .

The fund has always been under a microscope, perhaps never more acutely than in 2018, when analysts found it was dramatically short of projected needs. The result was the passage of a landmark law, 2018’s , to shore up the fund by cutting retirement benefits and increasing contributions — including setting the $225 million annual state contribution.

It also requires analysts to regularly assess the odds of hitting investment benchmarks decades down the road as they seek to account for future market conditions, PERA enrollment, beneficiary trends and other data points.

A separate report, , puts PERA’s odds of a fully funded pension by 2048 at between 42% and 56%, depending on underlying assumptions.

Policymakers can adjust their decisions based on those odds. Compound interest means decisions made now can have greater effects years down the road, though that’s a consideration that lawmakers need to balance against ongoing budget pressures.

Former Sen. Jack Tate, who sponsored the 2018 reform law and now serves on the subcommittee, said PERA does a good job with the money it has — it just doesn’t have enough to ensure the fund is meeting long-term financial obligations to retirees.

“If the probability (of fully funding the pension) won’t be too good, now is the time to take care of it, not 10 years from now when the hole is too big,” Tate said.

The $2 billion recommendation by the outside analysts come as Kolker and others are still aiming to fill the gap from when lawmakers failed to make the state’s $225 million contribution to PERA in 2020. Back then, lawmakers were concerned the pandemic would prompt draconian cuts across state government.

Kolker has run a series of bills in recent years that try to backfill just the principle lost from that skipped year, without accounting for missed interest and investment dividends.

Hilary Glasgow, executive director the state employee union Colorado WINS, sees the ongoing concerns about PERA as part of a continuing push to overcome worker shortages in the state. She urged state officials to ensure PERA’s solvency.

Without it, she warned in an interview, the workers the state relies on — including firefighters currently battling wildfires across the Front Range — would be harder to come by.

“How much do we love firefighters where they’re able to get out there and put their lives on the line to protect their friends and neighbors?” Glasgow said. “… That’s great, and we can appreciate them all day long, but we have to pay them enough to put food on the table — and give them good health benefits and a retirement they can rely on.”

Kolker noted during Friday’s meeting that the program’s solvency has a personal stake for him, too. His wife is a middle school counselor and PERA member.

“This has real-world implications,” Kolker said, “so you don’t want to rush to judgment.”

One of the twin pillars of Colorado tax law — a measure that has withstood prior attempts to dismantle it — was repealed Tuesday with most of the vote counted.

Amendment B, which had almost 58% support with 82% of the vote counted, proposed getting rid of the state’s 1982 Gallagher Amendment. Proponents called it a “huge win” for Coloradans, businesses, schools and fire districts.

Even as voters gave local governments more fiscal breathing room with that measure, though, they also appeared to be passing a state income tax that will mean less revenue for the state.

Proposition 116, the income tax cut, also passed late Tuesday with nearly 57% support.

Colorado voters, who seemed to be in a “yes” mood this year, were also supporting a third state fiscal measure, Proposition 117, with a narrower 52% support. If it passes, it will require voter approval before the state can create some new fees.

The Gallagher Amendment ties residential property tax rates to commercial property tax rates, requiring that homeowners pay no more than 45% of total property taxes, while commercial property owners always pay 29% of their properties’ value. The residential tax rate fluctuates to maintain the 45/55 split.

As home values have gone up — particularly on the Front Range — the residential rate has been cut to keep homeowners’ share of taxes below the 45% threshold. Commercial properties, meanwhile, have picked up more of the tax burden.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers referred the measure to the ballot in the 2020 legislative session — the latest of several attempts to get rid of Gallagher.

Proponents have said Gallagher harms businesses as residential rates continue to go down as well as local governments and special districts that rely on property taxes for the money to operate. They can’t just raise taxes to make up the revenue loss without voter approval because of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, and many rural areas don’t have the Front Range’s fast-rising home values or large commercial property bases to depend on.

Opponents, however, have argued that the repeal will hurt residential property owners, who have some of the lowest property rates in the nation.

Sen. Jack Tate, R-Centennial, one of the backers of the measure, acknowledged that it was complicated, but said a broad coalition made sure to inform voters about its effects.

“People rallied around an idea of tax fairness and tax stability and not wanting … to have tax burdens to shift to the small businesses while they’re struggling during this recession caused by the pandemic,” he said.

Despite being a constitutional amendment, the measure repealing Gallagher just needs a majority of the vote to pass because it doesn’t add any new language. Figuring out changes to the formula will be the next step.

“I think our message got through and people saw the importance of getting these outdated parts of our constitution removed,” said Sen. Chris Hansen, D-Denver.

Voters also gave the OK for a statewide income tax cut, reducing the rate from 4.63% to 4.55% in a win for conservatives championing Proposition 116.

Proponents such as the Independence Institute and Colorado Rising State Action have advocated for the cut, saying it will help Coloradans struggling during an economic recession. But opponents argue that reduction will deliver less than $40 per year for the average Coloradan, providing a larger cut for the wealthy and reducing funding to programs that Coloradans depend on.

Proposition 117 also seemed to be heading toward approval. The measure would require Coloradans approve any new state enterprises if the projected or actual revenue from fees and surcharges is expected to exceed $100 million within the first five years.

Proponents argued that if voters have to approve all new taxes or increases through the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, they should similarly do so for fees. But opponents of the measure said requiring voter approval of fees would restrict funding of needed programs and operations, including for school districts.

The votes are in line with how Coloradans have previously voted on statewide tax measures, noted Michael Fields, executive director Colorado Rising State Action.

“As Democrats are doing better statewide for elected office, we’re still a fiscally conservative state,” he said.

For people, policy and Colorado politics

What’s The Spot? You’re reading an installment of our weekly politics newsletter. Sign up here to get it delivered straight in your inbox.

Weeks ago, a Democratic Party staffer contacted me to say that some Colorado Republicans would be speaking out against Donald Trump. I decided I’d better wait to see which Republicans were in that group. It turned out the list comprised only former elected Republican officials, and none who’d served in high office.

So I called up a few ex-officials and officials who aren’t up for reelection to ask why, in a state where Trump is deeply unpopular, even swing-district, moderate Republicans have decided it’s in their best interest to either endorse the president or just keep quiet. Most told me they personally know Republicans who are voting for Biden, but that there are compelling reasons why those people don’t say so publicly.

Here’s the calculation, says outgoing GOP state Sen. Jack Tate: “Do you demoralize your base by not supporting the top of your ticket, or stick with the base and have the middle attack you mercilessly by saying you’re supporting the bad guy?”

John Brackney, a former Arapahoe County commissioner, is one of the handful of formerly elected Republicans who’ve endorsed Biden. The campaign rolled out the list in August, and to me it was more notable for its lack of big names or current elected officials than it was for the point that the handful was making.

“If you’re in the tribe, there’s no doubt that the peer pressure, the caucuses, the state assembly, the county assemblies — it’s a passionate crowd,” Brackney said.

“When you’re that elected official and you’re trying to mark out your career and your lifestyle and who you want to be, it’s crazy hard to do what Jeff Flake did or what Justin Amash did. Neither one of those are running for office again,” he continued. “The power within both parties is so strong. It’s the high school dance on steroids. It’s so powerful that you can’t buck it, you can’t be a leader when you’re in the party.”

Well, it’s not that GOP officials who dislike Trump can’t say so. Plenty did when he was still a candidate for president. But they won’t.

I spoke with Russell George, the Rifle Republican and former Colorado House speaker. He recently endorsed Democrat Diane Mitsch Bush in the congressional race against Lauren Boebert. He said “the limitations are our own” — as in, bucking the party is a choice available to anyone at any time.

And as far as I know, none who are currently serving in elected office in Colorado have made that choice.

Speaking of voting: If you haven’t done so yet, or you know someone who hasn’t voted, here’s a last-minute guide to the people and issues on your ballot.

Our team will of course be hard at work on Election Day, so madly refresh denverpost.com Tuesday evening and early Wednesday for latest results, insights and analysis.

To support the important journalism we do, you can become a Denver Post subscriber .

Questions?

Have a question about the upcoming election? Submit it here and it’ll go straight to The Denver Post politics team.

Top Line

After Democrats’ sweep of most state offices two years ago, Colorado Republicans’ best hope for political relevance is to retake control of the state Senate this fall, or at least to keep Democrats’ lead there narrow enough to block their most progressive efforts.

Capitol Diary • By Saja Hindi

Getting out the Latina vote

A little more than half of registered Latino voters in the United States are extremely motivated to vote this year, according to a , and groups across the country have been trying to get as many of them to vote as possible.

“It is true that both campaigns have done a lot of work to move Latino voters with their digital ads and their television ads,” said Cecilia Marquez, a history professor at Duke University, on a call about voter turnout. “I’ve been sort of shocked by the diversity of Spanish-language ads, including different accents depending on what part of the country you’re in.”

In Colorado, Katherine Archuleta launched a campaign specifically targeting Latina voters.

“The voices of women, especially through our votes, need to be heard, and (for) the Latina community, it����ap especially important,” Archuleta said.

Archuleta, a Latina herself, founded the Latina Initiative in 2002. It took a hiatus in 2011 and returned this year with a different focus: getting Latinas to vote through digital campaigning.

Before she launched the group, Archuleta told then-Attorney General Ken Salazar that she had participated in her last “honk and wave” at an event. Instead, she wanted Latinas to have a seat at the table where they could ensure their voices were heard.

This year, with increasing voter turnout and interest in the presidential election, Archuleta wanted to focus her efforts again on the Latino vote. One in five Coloradans are Latino.

“It����ap usually the forgotten population because we tend to be progressive voters and we tend to be swept up in progressive voter turnout strategy,” she said.

To drill down further, she and her co-founder decided to focus on young Latina voters, a group they say is never focused on as a subgroup. Archuleta used her experience from working with the Obama administration to work on the outreach efforts, partnering with a digital programming group and researchers to use data to inform their strategies.

It����ap still too early to know exactly how many Latina voters they were able to get to the polls or ballot boxes in Colorado, but based on data and feedback through their campaign, Archuleta said they have been able to touch voters who were never reached before.

“This is about building a representative electorate,” she said.

There’s a lot of conversation among groups about how to get the most votes, Archuleta said, but that often doesn’t take into account individual subgroups whose voices should be heard.

More Colorado political news

• More than 400,000 Coloradans will receive $375 direct payments, Gov. Jared Polis announced.
• District attorney elections are setting the stage for criminal justice reform in Colorado.
• Colorado’s attorney general finds evidence of voter intimidation at Fort Morgan mobile home park.
• Colorado’s homeowners have some of the lowest tax rates in the country, but businesses say they’re paying the price.

#COSen 2020 • By Justin Wingerter

A closing message from Republicans

In the week since Joe Biden said he intends to “transition away from the oil industry” if elected, Colorado Republicans have tried to make it a wedge issue and central to their closing argument.

“John Hickenlooper wants to ban our oil and gas industry and eliminate more than 200,000 Colorado jobs,” Sen. Cory Gardner’s campaign two days later.

Hickenlooper’s plan — — is not to ban fossil fuels but rather to transition America’s energy away from them and over to renewable sources, a process they expect will take decades. One challenge for Republicans, especially in climate-conscious states like Colorado, is to make that sound radical and economically ruinous. In the closing days of the campaign, they’re trying.

“Joe Biden and DMB — two peas in a pod — want to decimate your energy sector. What would YOUR life look like without oil and gas?” tweeted congressional candidate Lauren Boebert on Wednesday, referring to her Democratic opponent, Diane Mitsch Bush.

In the Senate race, this strategy isn’t exactly new. Gardner often accused Hickenlooper of radical environmentalism during the debates, and the Colorado GOP has sent at least seven mailers to my home claiming Hickenlooper wants to ban fracking, alongside photos of unemployment lines, “Sorry, We’re Closed” signs and forlorn men in hard hats.

The difficulty for Republicans, to put it bluntly, is to speak louder than the state of the nation. The top issue for voters, according to, is the economy, followed by health care, the Supreme Court, COVID-19, foreign policy and abortion. Energy is not a top issue this year, with a few geographic exceptions, like Garfield County, which has two closely watched races that could reshape the staunchly pro-oil and gas county commission there.

Democratic candidate Leslie Robinson is an advocate for more regulations on the industry. it “would be great” if she “had the power to close the oil and gas industry.” Robinson has since claimed the remark was sarcastic, but it has become a campaign issue in her run against Republican incumbent Mike Samson, an adamant natural gas defender.

And the all-Republican county commission recently voted to spend $1.5 million in taxpayer cash to push back against state regulations on oil and gas. All three challengers — two Democrats and an independent —, another significant wedge issue in their races.

More federal election news

• Trump administration yanks endangered species protection for wolves nationwide.
• Gardner voted Monday for Amy Coney Barrett����ap confirmation to the Supreme Court.
• Far-right conservatives see the future of Colorado’s GOP in Lauren Boebert.
• All is quiet in what was once a political battleground: the 6th Congressional District.
• In western Colorado, Democratic campaigns play it safe with COVID-19.

Forward this newsletter to your colleagues and encourage them to .

The case for: “The Gallagher Amendment is outdated and full of unintended consequences,” according to the state blue book. Amendment B is not a tax increase but rather fixes rates at their current levels. A repeal would ease the tax shortfall that’s expected to hit schools, fire districts and local governments because of the economic impact of the pandemic.

The case against: Repealing Gallagher would result in higher residential property taxes over time because residential tax rates would no longer be forced to drop. Rather than repealing the amendment statewide, taxpayers have the option to approve changes at the local level to best meet local needs.

Ballot question: “Without increasing property tax rates, to help preserve funding for local districts that provide fire protection, police, ambulance, hospital, kindergarten through twelfth grade education, and other services, and to avoid automatic mill levy increases, shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution to repeal the requirement that the general assembly periodically change the residential assessment rate in order to maintain the statewide proportion of residential property as compared to all other taxable property valued for property tax purposes and repeal the nonresidential property tax assessment rate of twenty-nine percent?”

The measure requires a simple majority vote to pass because it doesn’t add anything into the state Constitution. Earlier versions of this story said otherwise, based on incorrect information provided by state officials.

Now it needs two-thirds support in the House, and Rep. Matt Soper, R-Delta, a sponsor, says he is confident he has secured the needed margin. That vote is expected later this week.

Gallagher, named for a former state senator, was initially approved by voters in 1982. It was designed to limit residential property taxation and ensure that business property owners paid a fair share. The calculation built into it is such that the financial impact of the coronavirus will result in substantial property tax cuts if Gallagher remains untouched. Legislative analysts predict K-12 education will lose roughly half a billion dollars, in addition to hundreds of millions of additional losses for local government spending.

Lawmakers want to avert that situation by repealing Gallagher, which many of them view as outdated and inflexible.

“We can send a clear signal today that it’s time to adjust our Constitution, that we’re asking the voters to participate in this,” Senate sponsor Chris Hansen, D-Denver, said Tuesday on the floor. “It’s so important that we bring this in front of the voters in November.”

Co-sponsor Jack Tate, R-Centennial, said Gallagher is a “blind automaton” and compared it to NFL star Tom Brady.

“He has had a very excellent football career, but that does not mean he should still be playing football when he is 72 years old,” Tate said.

One of the main criticisms of Gallagher is that it’s one-size-fits-all, meaning that a recalculation triggered by rising property values in Denver affects rural communities just the same, even when property values there don’t change.

“This is a rural issue, and that’s why I’ve really been behind it,” said Sen. Bob Rankin, R-Carbondale, an influential voice on fiscal issues. “What fits Denver doesn’t always fit rural Colorado.”

Republican Sens. Jerry Sonnenberg, Owen Hill, Bob Gardner, Chris Holbert, Ray Scott, Paul Lundeen and Jim Smallwood voted against the proposal.

The conservative group Colorado Rising State Action, which advocates on fiscal issues, signaled its opposition in a statement from Director Michael Fields: “While repealing Gallagher won’t do anything for businesses, it will certainly raise property taxes on families who can hardly afford that added financial burden right now.”

The repeal proposal needs 44 votes from the 65-member House — all 41 Democrats plus three Republicans — to pass. Soper said 10 Republicans are in play and he’s certain he’ll get at least three.

“I really do believe now is the time to have this conversation,” he said. “Gallagher did what it was supposed to do. It drilled the residential assessment rate down. And now it’s time to reassess.

“The idea that something’s in the Constitution and should never, ever be touched again — that’s not right.”

The vast majority of the fire department’s calls are for medical emergencies like heart attacks and strokes, Tillotson said — situations in which the chances of death escalate dramatically if responders don’t arrive within five to seven minutes.

But if the department’s $4 million annual budget dwindles any further, that vision of empty fire stations and delayed response times will become a reality.

The coronavirus pandemic has already meant a costly drop in sales tax revenue for the Glenwood Springs Fire Department, and the economic devastation the pandemic is wreaking — combined with a state law called the Gallagher Amendment — means local governments’ property tax revenues will suffer for years to come.

“It����ap an insurmountable obstacle,” Tillotson said. “We work on a relatively meager operations budget anyway and with the current devastation to our sales tax, we’re already having to cut back and basically we’re furloughing our firefighters. Any further cuts are going to reduce service.”

Unless the amendment is removed from the state Constitution.

To head off the upcoming financial crisis, Sen. Jack Tate, R-Centennial, said he and a bipartisan group of lawmakers are proposing to repeal the 1982 Gallagher Amendment, which they say has become a twisted version of what was once a good idea.

The measure will be introduced Monday, said Sen. Chris Hansen, D-Denver. It will be followed by a second measure to freeze residential property tax rates for several years.

Lawmakers have wanted to do away with the amendment for decades, but the pandemic has created a new sense of urgency.

“Right now we’re in a moment because of a pandemic, where the economy is hurting and a lot of people are therefore hurting as well,” said Rep. Daneya Esgar, a Pueblo Democrat who’s chair of the Joint Budget Committee. “If we don’t fix the Gallagher Amendment that hurt can be felt even deeper.”

The amendment����ap namesake, Dennis Gallagher, said he’s abstaining from an opinion until he sees the specific proposal. In theory, a repeal makes sense, he said.

“I understand it completely,” he said.

But something must be put in place to maintain the idea behind the amendment, Gallagher added.

What is the Gallagher Amendment?

In short, the Gallagher Amendment is meant to protect homeowners by keeping residential tax rates lower than commercial rates, Gallagher said. Property owners “back east” in New Jersey pay through the nose each month, he said in an interview, and he wanted to prevent that from happening in Colorado.

The amendment categorizes all properties as either residential or commercial and mandates that homeowners pay no more than 45% of the property tax total. Commercial properties are always billed 29% of their building’s value, and the residential rate floats to maintain the 55/45 split.

“It leveled property taxes for residential property owners and ratepayers in Colorado, and it����ap been working,” Gallagher said.

What’s the problem?

The issue is that while the commercial property tax rate is constant, the values of commercial properties are not, Tate said. Those properties are largely assessed based on the income of the businesses inside them.

And that income is falling drastically after two to three months of shutdowns and the overall economic slowdown brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, Tate said. As income drops, so do property values and commercial tax revenue.

To maintain the legally required 45/55 ratio, residential property tax rates will also have to drop.

Estimates from the state’s property tax administrator show that residential rates could drop from the current 7.15% to 5.88%, and a $204 million cut for county governments, as Chalkbeat reported.

“The impact on schools is going to be brutal if we don’t repeal Gallagher,” Hansen said. “Massive.”

And that lost revenue will stay lost, Esgar said. While the Gallagher Amendment allows residential rates to float up and down as needed, a second amendment passed in 1992, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, prevents the taxes from rising again, she said.

“If we get rid of Gallagher before the residential assessment rate drops, we can at least maintain where it is right now,” Esgar said. Otherwise, “we’ll never be able to get back to where we are now.”

Repealing the amendment would prevent residential property taxes from falling in conjunction with commercial rates, but it wouldn’t raise rates for homeowners, Esgar said.

“We’re not raising your taxes,” she said. “We can’t.”

If Gallagher isn’t repealed, fire departments across the state will lose a substantial amount of cash. Already the Glenwood Springs department����ap 28 full-time employees face staggered furloughs, but another hit to the budget would mean fire stations would go unstaffed, Tillotson said. Emergency calls would be answered by other stations across town or from neighboring departments dealing with their own budget shortfalls.

“Some of those are a 10- or 20-minute drive away,” he said. “If you’re having a heart attack, you don’t want that to happen.”

The same goes for house fires, he said.

“The size of a fire escalates exponentially for every minute that we’re not there,” he said. “We work really, really hard to build fire stations and staff them within five miles of our major populations. So when one of those stations closes and now we’re eight or 10 miles to the nearest staffed fire station, that exponentially affects the response time.”

The amendment already has been particularly problematic for Western Slope communities, where property values haven’t risen as high or as fast as those on the Front Range.

But the pandemic has touched every corner of the state, and revenue drops would hit every agency that depends on property taxes — hospitals, libraries, ambulance services, cities and state government, in addition to schools and fire departments.

“This is community-level impact that we’re talking about,” Esgar said.

The legislature can address the problem putting a measure on the fall ballot asking voters to repeal the amendment, she said.  It will be difficult, she acknowledged. Both chambers of the legislature must approve the measure with a two-thirds majority. But she and Tate said they believe the support is there.

Then the measure would only need a simple majority from voters for passage, Hansen said.

The effort is sure to face opposition, although none has announced itself so far.

“We are studying it,” said Jon Caldera, president of the conservative Independence Institute and a frequent opponent of tax changes.

But if there’s strong bipartisan support in the legislature, Hansen said, that should help in November.

Tillotson said education will be key in the push to repeal the amendment, and representatives of libraries, fire departments, schools and other affected agencies will be happy to do the educating.

“Gallagher’s been on the books for a very long time, and as homeowners that����ap a tough sell,” he said.

It’s a tradeoff, Tillotson said. Repeal would mean that property taxes remain where they are, but then so, too, would the firefighters in Glenwood Springs’ fire stations.

For all the evidence that the death penalty has been unjust in Colorado, there is just as much evidence that the three men on death row in this state committed heinous crimes leaving victims to carry on without their loved ones.

Lawmakers at the General Assembly who wanted to strike the death penalty from Colorado state law moved forward with respect for those victims and went through a deliberative process that allowed their colleagues to weigh the issue and victims to have a voice.

We thank Sen. Julie Gonzales, Sen. Jack Tate, Rep. Jeni James Arndt and Rep. Adrienne Benavidez for getting Senate Bill 100 through the lengthy debates these past five weeks that culminated in a five-hour discussion on the House floor last week. The bill passed the House 38-27 and had passed the Senate 19-13 last month.

Gov. Jared Polis is expected to sign the bill into law.

The Denver Post editorial board has called for the repeal of the death penalty for decades. Execution has not been applied evenly across jurisdictions, meaning a murder in one county has brought a capital justice trial while a murder that was just as egregious in another community meant the pursuit of life without the possibility of parole. Evidence indicates that Colorado executed an innocent man — Joe Arridy — in 1939 and Gov. Bill Ritter pardoned him posthumously in 2011.

Prosecutors say that the threat of the death penalty is an important tool to get the worst criminals to plea to life without parole. It spares the victim’s family from a trial. But, here in America, where we value justice and the premise of innocent until proven guilty, guilty pleas should be extracted on the strength of evidence, not by the threat of death.

And the three men remaining on death row in Colorado have drawn out the process for decades with appeals and legal challenges. One of them has a temporary reprieve from execution that was granted by Gov. John Hickenlooper, however, any future governor could revoke the executive order and send Nathan Dunlap to the execution chamber. This legal limbo does not inspire confidence in a justice system.

Indeed, Colorado will be better off without the death penalty.

The only remaining question is what should happen to the three still on death row. Dunlap was convicted of killing three teens, a 50-year-old manager and seriously injuring another when he opened fire at a Chuck E. Cheese in Aurora in 1993. Sir Mario Owens was convicted of killing three people, including two who were to be witnesses in the trial of Owens’ accomplice in the first murder. Robert Ray, the third man on death row, was Owens’ accomplice in the first crime and was found to be the mastermind of the murder of the two who were set to testify against him.

Polis should close the book on this chapter now and convert these sentences to life without the possibility of parole. Let����ap not leave the fates of these men to future governors, or leave the possibility for one or two last executions.

Polis alone has the power to end the legal back-and-forth and put these men in prison for the rest of their lives.

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.

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.

Julie Reiskin, executive director of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, characterized Senate Bill 151 as a “pro-RTD bill.” She was one of nearly a dozen members of the disabled community who attended the proceedings in front of the Senate Transportation and Energy Committee.

“Without RTD, we don’t have jobs or the ability to live independently,” Reiskin told lawmakers.

That is why it’s so important that the bill, which Reiskin said would provide necessary additional protections for disabled passengers, needs to become law.

The Senate Transportation and Energy Committee, which is chaired by Democratic Sen. Faith Winter, will take another day of testimony on March 3 before voting on whether to move the bill through.

Andrew Montoya, an attorney with the coalition, said that if disabled riders could bring complaints against RTD in state court, rather than just in federal court per the Americans with Disabilities Act, faster and more effective outcomes could be achieved.

He said federal disability cases are “extremely expensive and time-consuming,” citing one lawsuit his organization filed against RTD that dragged out for three years.

But RTD fired back, saying that SB 151 could potentially burden the transit agency with an avalanche of litigation as the agency tries to comply with a “legal standard that seems impossible to meet,” said RTD attorney Jenifer Ross-Amato.

“Broadening liability will invite litigation and the threat of litigation,” she testified. “The bill creates new protected classes not identified in federal law.”

Zamy Silva, senior manager of RTD’s civil rights division, was adamant that the agency is fully compliant with ADA requirements and said RTD’s “complaint procedure is very, very robust.”

“It’s embedded in our mission and core values,” she said.

SB 151 was introduced in late January and contains several elements that have gotten pushback from RTD. Spearheaded by Republican Sen. Jack Tate, the measure would expand RTD’s elected 15-member board of directors by two new members, both of whom would be appointed by the governor. The new at-large directors would be tasked with advocating for disadvantaged communities in the district and riders with disabilities.

There would also be two non-voting members — the state treasurer and the executive director of the Colorado Department of Transportation — who would provide increased fiscal oversight and transportation planning coordination.

Heather McKillop, who is heading up RTD until newly hired Interim General Manager Paul Ballard starts in his position next week, said more bodies on the dais may not be a wise move.

“We do have concerns that adding four additional members would make the board somewhat unwieldy,” she told lawmakers.

She also noted that RTD is already heavily audited by no fewer than 13 external agencies.

SB 151 would call for a higher level of transparency at RTD, including placing directors under the constraints of Amendment 41 and giving whistle-blower protection to employees filing complaints. Amendment 41, passed by voters 13 years ago, requires all elected officials to disclose any benefit or gift they receive valued at more than $59, with some exceptions.

RTD has been in the spotlight of late, besieged with the twin evils of falling ridership and a driver shortage. Late last year, the agency said it would have to consider making significant cuts to bus and train service to better align its service with the workers it has to operate its fleet.

On Wednesday, RTD will launch the first of more than a dozen community meetings throughout the metro area — to be held over the next two weeks — to get public feedback on its proposed service cuts. The RTD board will make a final decision on any curtailments in March. Any changes would go into effect in May.

Re: “RTD reaches a crisis point,” Jan. 26 news story

The obvious reason that RTD keeps losing riders is that its fares are too high. The fare for one rail ride from Littleton to downtown Denver is $5.25, and a monthly pass for the same ride is $200. It����ap cheaper to drive your car than to use RTD, particularly if more than one person is in the car, so people are going to stick with their cars as long as that is the case. In comparison, in New York City, the fare for one subway ride to anywhere in the system is $3, and a 30-day pass is $127.

Kristine K. Lapehn, Centennial

Hip hip hooray for sensible Republican state Sen. Jack Tate of Centennial for stepping up front and center to take the overstretched Regional Transportation District bull by the horns in the Colorado General Assembly. Since early 2019, I tried to interest Denver Republicans in stepping up to improve the multi- problem-plagued RTD. Now, I will take my noble conquest straight to Tate.

Emzy Veazy, Aspen

I cringe at the notion that RTD’s ridership and driver issues will be solved by adding more people to the oversight board. Let����ap start with the actual problems, instead of imagining that increasing the bureaucratic structure will somehow help.

• Actual problem: Not enough drivers. In a low-unemployment economy, RTD must make its driver positions more attractive, not less. Start by paying drivers more — more benefits, more dollars per hour — and less overtime.

• Actual problem: Unreliability. Cutting schedules will only make RTD’s ridership drop further and faster. If published schedules have little relation to when trains and buses actually run, people with time-sensitive obligations won’t use RTD.

• Actual problem: Park-n-Ride lots need to accommodate those who might use them. If suburban lots fill up early, what options does a later commuter have?

Everyone on RTD’s board needs to ride the buses — not just the nice routes, such as the Flatirons Flyer, but the grungy ones too, such as the #15 (Colfax). Get a taste, then have some sympathy for the drivers. How much would someone have to pay you to take that job?

We need RTD. I fail to see how making a large board (15 members) larger is going to solve these issues.

Nancy B. Weil, Denver

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.

Re: “There is no room for the death penalty in Colorado,” Jan. 26 commentary

While I will not argue the pros and cons of the death penalty, what I do find disturbing is that legislators Julie Gonzales and Jack Tate appear to be forcing their personal views onto the electorate.

A 2015 Quinnipiac poll found two-thirds of Coloradans favor keeping the death penalty. This issue is something that should be decided by the voters, not the legislature.

I would suggest the legislature needs to focus its efforts on something of more importance, like the road woes, which directly impact all Coloradans. Let the voters decide on the contentious issues such as repealing the death penalty, which most directly impacts the three people on death row in our state.

Mike Conkey, Thornton
Editor’s note: A bill to repeal the death penalty advanced in the state Senate on Thursday.

More examples of the need for personal responsibility

Re: “The daily erosion of personal responsibility,” Jan. 26 commentary

George Brauchler’s outstanding op-ed should be required reading.

I am reminded of this week’s Denver Post report of the murder of a woman whose attacker had been repeatedly arrested for domestic abuse and assault and labeled a habitual criminal. Each instance of his criminal violations had been reduced, through judicial “deals” to probation and freedom, culminating with his last act — the murder of his spouse.

So my question is: Why did the justice system and judges not take personal responsibility for their disastrous decisions regarding this criminal?

Jeanne Slade, Morrison

Although I find myself in agreement about Brauchler’s assertion, it has struck me that among his examples of baseball cheating and bad state legislation, he has omitted perhaps the most egregious example — that of the leader of his own political party, President Donald Trump, a man who admitted to soliciting foreign help in violation of the law for his personal gain; a man who cheated numerous people out of their money in his fraudulent Trump University scheme for his own personal gain; a man who cheated on all of his wives, again, for his own personal gain.

Had Brauchler included Trump among his examples, he would have bolstered his argument and shown some real political courage, but more important, I would not look upon his column with such disdain.

Gerry Camilli, Englewood

Candidates as jurors: Conflict of interest

I do not claim to be fully informed, but I have been paying some attention and have not heard anyone comment on the apparent conflict of interest that the four senators still running for president have been sitting as members of the jury in the impeachment trial of the current president. Should they not recuse themselves? If any of them were to vote for removal, would that not be using the power of their elected office for personal benefit in removing their direct political rival from office?

Jim O’Dowd, Arvada

Dancing while the deficit builds

Re: “U.S. budget deficit to top $1 trillion for next decade,” Jan. 29 news story

Why isn’t this front-page news? It����ap like Rome is aflame while the Senate dances to the president����ap tune and the populace scrolls mindlessly through its social media feed. I honestly don’t understand the complacency I see here.

Is this a generational thing? Is it flying under the radar because Social Security retirees continue to get their checks knowing they’re unlikely to live to see the day when the nation’s debt will equal 98% of its economic output?

And why is it happening during a period of sustained economic expansion? Isn’t that the time to pay down debt? Why aren’t people demonstrating to hold Congress and the president accountable for this looming disaster?

Rhonda Norman, Wheat Ridge

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.