But when legalized sports betting debuted in Colorado in 2020, another tradition took hold at those Lot W tailgates: sports gambling. Now, when the family assembles before the home games, they discuss parlays and point spreads almost as much as they talk about Bo Nix and Sean Payton.

On a warm January day, while partying outside their late-model Winnebago painted with blue-and-orange stripes, they figured out the wagers they planned to put on the Broncos’ final regular-season game, against the , and other NFL matchups.

They weren’t alone. Sports betting and fantasy football dominated conversations throughout the parking lots as tailgaters speculated how much they might win.

The gameday bets — putting a little money on the line — are all part of the fun of football Sundays, said Joe Canales, a family friend who joined the tailgate.

“We all get excited when somebody wins,” he said.

Legalized sports betting is changing the face of sports and fandom in Colorado as people wager billions annually on games and on the athletes who play them. In the six years since voters approved Proposition DD, the state’s gamblers have wagered more than $30.6 billion on sports, averaging $425 million a month.

For years, sports betting was taboo within the professional leagues as commissioners and team owners kept gambling at arm’s length for fear of scandal. Now, leagues and teams promote their partnerships with gambling companies. Fans watching games on TV are inundated with sports-betting ads, and those in the stands can see gambling companies’ names painted on courts and fields.

Bettors often care more about individual athletes’ performances than about their hometown teams as they wager on how many three-point shots a basketball player will make or how many touchdowns a quarterback might throw, multiple people told The Denver Post. Athletes feel the pressure, whether it’s because they receive angry messages on social media from people who lose money or from gamblers seeking an edge from inside information.

Legalized gambling is also threatening the integrity of sports, with fans fearing athletes, coaches and referees may alter calls or plays to influence the outcomes of bets. Just before the NCAA’s March Madness basketball tournament kicked off, Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Connecticut, that found a majority of Americans — almost 60% — believe sports betting affects the integrity of college basketball.

“It����ap ruining the relationship between a player and their sport, and it����ap ruining the relationship between fandom and the athletes,” said Montee Ball, a former Broncos running back who leads the , which focuses on athletes’ mental health.

All of that is forcing coaches and administrators to incorporate gambling and mental health awareness into athletes’ training, with education now starting as early as high school for athletes in Colorado.

In the past six years, sports betting scandals have rocked professional and college leagues, ensnaring Colorado athletes such as hometown basketball legend Chauncey Billups, who was implicated last fall as an unnamed co-conspirator in a rigged NBA betting scheme.

This story, which examines how gambling is changing sports, is the third in The Post’s series about legalized sports betting’s impact on Colorado. The first story looked at an alarming rise in gambling addiction, while the second installment covered how sports wagering’s tax revenue benefits water projects in Colorado.

Sports betting has existed in America as long as athletes have laced up their high-top sneakers. In the past, gamblers sought bookies in secret to place bets, collect winnings and pay debts. Gamblers turned to offshore sportsbooks once the internet became accessible.

Now, sports fans place bets from their phones, often in the middle of games, thanks to a that overturned the , allowing states to set their own laws regulating sports betting. Colorado acted quickly, putting the question to a ballot referendum in November 2019; voters allowed sportsbooks to open for business in May 2020.

And, almost as quickly, Denver’s professional sports teams announced business deals with gambling companies.

An evolving relationship

Just a little more than a decade ago, the was so antagonistic toward sports gambling that the league’s commissioner threatened to suspend Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo over his plans to attend that was being organized by a company he owned.

The NFL prohibited players from participating in any event sponsored by a gambling-related company, and the league so narrowly defined gambling that fantasy football was included, even though those games pit people against each other rather than the house, which keeps the profits.

Players are still not allowed to bet on the NFL, play daily fantasy games or visit sportsbooks during football season. But the league and team owners have embraced sports betting.

Denver’s major sports teams are reluctant to talk about those new business relationships, with every professional team as well as the University of Colorado Boulder and its football coach Deion Sanders declining The Post’s interview requests.

The Broncos and the Colorado Rockies sent prepared statements via email, declaring that they follow the rules while protecting their players and the games’ integrity.

“In compliance with the NFL’s gambling policy, all members of our organization undergo comprehensive training on the subject,” the statement from Broncos spokesman Patrick Smyth said. “For players, this includes mandatory in-person education as well as in-season communication and other resources from the team and league.”

The Broncos inked their first business deal with sports-betting app in June 2020 — one month after Colorado’s sportsbooks opened for business.  The team also partnered that summer with , which opened a now-shuttered luxury lounge inside the stadium, and . Today, BetMGM is the team’s lone sports-betting partner.

The Colorado Rockies partner with Denver-based , allowing the company to have a sign on the outfield wall.

also partners with bet365 as a sponsor for the and . That , which allows bet365’s logo to be placed under the Avalanche’s ice and on the Nuggets’ baseline, is in place through the 2028-2029 season.

Courtney Brunious, an assistant professor at the , said he was not surprised Denver’s teams did not want to talk about their business relationships with gambling companies.

“There’s still a certain stigma attached to it,” said Brunious, who teaches sports business. “It’s still — I don’t want to say an uneasy relationship — but it’s an ongoing and evolving partnership. It’s not necessarily something they want to put a spotlight on.”

The gambling companies are eager to associate with professional sports because it puts their names in front of enthusiastic fans, Brunious said. The teams benefit from sports gambling because people who bet money on games are more likely to watch them on television, boosting coveted audience numbers.

The sure thing, Brunious said, is that those relationships will not dissolve. There’s too much money at stake.

“It’s not going away,” he said. “It����ap going to require adjustments to make sure all parties are protected as much as possible.”

The sports teams and betting companies are entwined with each other’s success.

Every decision a team makes is analyzed by gamblers and can move a betting line up or down, changing the fortunes of those who wager and those who make money off of it.

When the Los Angeles Rams on June 1 traded for reigning defensive player of the year Myles Garrett, that team became Las Vegas oddsmakers’ favorite to win the next Super Bowl. Meanwhile, the odds for Garrett’s former team, the Cleveland Browns, dropped to 200-to-1 from 115-to-1, according to a news release from Circa Sports.

Peter Jackson, the chief executive officer of , FanDuel’s parent company, explained in a February how “player narratives” impact his company’s revenue. When the NFL’s most popular players are not in the playoffs, the fans bet less money, he said.

“There was one player we had on our books over the course of the year that had more money bet on him in the course of the season than the Pats did,” Jackson said, without naming the player. “This player stuff is super important, and when we don’t have those key players making the playoffs or the Super Bowl, it really does impact player engagement and betting volumes.”

Pressure and harassment

Players are well aware that fans’ interest in their performance is more intense when money is on the line.

They already face performance anxiety because players are super competitive and want to win, said Ball, who played for the Broncos during the 2013 and 2014 seasons. Professional athletes also know that an injury or a bad game can cost them playing time and shorten their careers. Now, they also have pressure from fans who want to win money by betting on whether they throw a touchdown pass or catch an interception.

“The athletes can’t escape it,” Ball said. “They shouldn’t have to turn everything off because John is screaming on Twitter, ‘I hope you tear your ACL.’ ”

Athletes in all sports are reporting an increase in harassment since sports betting became legal.

Nuggets guard Bruce Brown brought it up on Oct. 23 in the wake of an NBA sports-betting scandal, telling reporters, “Obviously, after every game, we get DMs about not hitting people’s parlays. There’s been games where I’ve been called every name in the book, just because I didn’t hit a three or two. I mean, that����ap just the state of the game we’re in, since sports betting got legal. So I mean, just kind of deal with it. Not think about it. Don’t check your DMs after games.”

Cory Fox, senior vice president of public policy and sustainability at FanDuel, said the company banishes gamblers from its app if they are caught harassing athletes. The other legalized sports books have similar policies.

“First and foremost, we find the harassment of athletes abhorrent,” Fox said.

In June 2025, FanDuel who heckled Gabby Thomas, an Olympic gold medalist in track. The fan, who goes by “Mr100kaday” and describes himself as “The Track and Field Bully,” posted a video of himself hurling insults as Thomas signed autographs and claimed that his heckling caused Thomas to lose the race and allowed him to win a $1,000 parlay bet.

FanDuel is working with sports leagues to develop a process to identify and investigate harassers so they can be banned from the app, Fox said.

“It’s also true there has been an increase in bad behavior,” he said. “This is something we’ve seen globally and it has a lot of factors involved.”

Temptation lurks

There is another dark side to sports gambling — rigged performances.

A major betting scandal rocked the NBA in October when the Terry Rozier, a former Charlotte Hornets point guard, who stands accused of participating in an illegal sports-betting scheme using inside NBA knowledge to defraud sportsbooks and for checking out of a game early to benefit bettors. He has .

And the city of Denver was shocked when Billups, who was then the head coach of the Portland Trail Blazers, was linked to the Rozier scandal as an apparent unindicted co-conspirator. Billups was also for allegedly participating in a Mafia-backed illegal poker scheme to defraud unwitting players during card games. He has also pleaded not guilty.

Other sports-betting scandals involving athletes with Colorado ties:

• Denver Broncos defensive lineman Eyioma Uwazurike was suspended for the 2023 season for gambling on NFL games, including five involving the Broncos
• Colorado Rapids midfielder Max Alves was removed from the team in 2023 in the wake of a match-fixing investigation in his home country of Brazil
• Jontay Porter, the brother of former Nuggets starter Michael Porter Jr., was banned from the NBA in 2024 after he disclosed confidential information to sports bettors about his health and limited his participation in one or more games for betting purposes while playing for the Toronto Raptors

Sports betting scandals are almost as old as sports themselves. Think of the Black Sox scandal during the 1919 World Series, when multiple team members conspired with professional gamblers to throw games.

, who played in the NBA for eight years and overseas for three, said gambling is part of the culture for professional athletes.

During his 11 years of pro ball, teammates would bet on anything — trick shots during practice, card games on the road, even which referees would call a playoff game, Funderburke said. It’s the nature of being competitive and confident.

“You’re taught at an early age to bet on yourself,” he said. “You’ve overcome the odds, right? Little League, high school, college, now in the NBA, you’re playing against the best in the world. You always feel like you can overcome the odds. And with athletes, they feel like they can win at just about anything.”

Funderburke, who now works as a financial adviser, speaks out against gambling and tells his clients there are better things to do with their money. He traveled to Colorado in May to encourage lawmakers to pass a bill that would establish guardrails on sports betting in an attempt to curb addiction rates.

“Here’s the problem with the culture,” he said. “Most of the guys that I know — and I won’t say names — who had issues with gambling, not only end up having financial constraints and issues, but their marriages and their families deteriorate at the same time, which I think is much worse than any type of financial problems.”

The professional leagues and universities know the temptation is there and they are working to combat it.

But they are not always successful.

The controversy surrounding Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby serves as the latest example.

‘A source of heartburn’

Days before the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament, sent a warning to all of its athletes: Sports betting is against the rules.

“It is still to a large degree one of the worst violations you can have,” said , CSU’s associate athletic director for compliance. “With sports wagering, the door pretty much gets shut down. Like a positive drug test too many times, your eligibility is just shot.”

However, the Sorsby case upended that policy for college football.

Sorsby made thousands of impermissible bets worth at least $90,000 on college and pro sports, including some on his team when he was a freshman at the University of Indiana. The NCAA suspended Sorsby after he was caught and admitted to gambling, but he sued in an attempt to play his senior season.

A Texas judge ruled June 8 through a temporary injunction that Sorsby should be allowed to play during the upcoming season after serving a two-game suspension. The ruling could overturn NCAA rules, and it propelled college football into uncertainty as to what happens if other student-athletes bet on their own games.

The decision undermined a longstanding NCAA policy that forbids college athletes from gambling on sports and bans them if they’re caught betting on their own teams.

College sports are rapidly changing, with athletes able to earn money from their schools, booster clubs, television commercials and social media feeds. They have more money in their pockets now — in some cases, millions of dollars, Siemer said. The temptation to bet on sports lurks, he said, especially for high-level athletes who believe they know more about their sport than anyone else and can predict wins and losses on sports-betting apps.

“That’s a source of heartburn for us,” he said. “We don’t want to legislate morality, but they have more money now than when they just had a scholarship, and we want them to be smart with it.”

Every student-athlete signs a gambling agreement, acknowledging that they cannot place bets and cannot provide insider information to others, Siemer said.

Each year, CSU brings in experts to talk to students about the risks of gambling and to educate them on the NCAA’s rules that prohibit gambling. The athletics department wants them to understand how important it is that they do not leak tips about injuries or game strategies to others, who might benefit from the inside knowledge, Siemer said.

Last year, a presentation to students revealed just how much money was bet on each sport during a single season, and while Siemer said he could not remember the specifics, he recalled that it was “jaw-dropping.”

While football is the most popular sport for gamblers who bet on CSU sports, other teams also see healthy amounts of wagers, he said.

“I think the presumption is everyone is betting on football,” Siemer said. “Well, it’s not just football. It’s all of the sports. These sports-betting companies will put a line on anything. It doesn’t matter. Women’s tennis. Women’s soccer. The presumption that it’s all on football and basketball should be put to bed.”

Nip it in the bud

Aside from talking to athletes about the pitfalls of gambling, the leagues and teams are turning to professional monitors for help. The NCAA’s major conferences contract with , a company that specializes in sports compliance and integrity.

Matt Heap, a former deputy director, manages IC360’s , a program that monitors betting among athletes at more than 150 universities and more than 25 professional sports leagues.

“That monitors every game, every goal, every pitch,” he said.

Prohibet coordinates with sportsbooks to detect irregular gambling patterns, Heap said. The colleges also provide identifying information — dates of birth, driver’s licenses, phone numbers — on every student-athlete, making it easier to detect prohibited bets. Prohibet also monitors coaches, trainers, administrators and referees to identify irregular betting patterns.

The program can even find crossover bets from different internet addresses that can connect student-athletes to accounts owned by friends and family, he said. Word is spreading among college athletes that they can get caught, he said.

“It nips it in the bud,” Heap said. “The ones that continue to do it and push it are the ones they need to keep an eye on.”

IC360 also works with NCAA athletic departments to educate athletes on the rules surrounding gambling and to warn them about the pitfalls surrounding them. Even telling a friend, family member or classmate about a team member’s injury can sway bets, Heap said.

“Something that seems as innocent or innocuous as that can be the first sign someone is trying to get a hook into a player,” he said. “You guys are targets because someone who wants to manipulate a game outcome has to have a player, a ref or some other game official.”

Those who work with athletes believe education about sports betting must start at a younger age.

Last year, the paired with the to start a gambling awareness program for high school athletes.

CHSAA officials wanted players, parents and coaches to understand the rules and the consequences of violating them, commissioner Mike Krueger said. It’s becoming a national issue at the high school level.

Legal sportsbooks don’t take wagers on high school sports because it is prohibited by state laws, but offshore betting sites accept those wagers, as do emerging prediction markets. People must be 21 to open a legal sports betting account in the U.S., but young people access them through family members and older friends.

“It’s recognizing the reality,” Krueger said. “That’s where we’ve got to have the awareness. While sports betting continues to expand across our society, our responsibility remains unchanged. We look at it as a student well-being issue and not just around rules enforcement.”

READ MORE FROM THIS SPECIAL REPORT: Colorado’s gamble on sports betting

Donna Savoy of Parker to one count of willful failure to account for and pay over trust fund taxes, according to a news release from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Savoy, the owner of in Denver, was sentenced Monday to one year and one day in prison, court records show. She faced a maximum sentence of five years in prison, .

“As the owner of the company, Savoy was responsible for withholding Social Security, Medicare and income taxes from her employees’ wages, paying those funds over to the IRS and filing quarterly employment tax returns with the IRS,” federal officials stated in the release.

Savoy withheld taxes from her employees’ wages, but didn’t pay those taxes to the IRS between 2014 and 2024, according to the release. She also failed to file employment tax returns during that decade and spent the tax money she withheld from her employees on personal and business expenses, officials said.

On top of her year in prison, Savoy was ordered to repay the unfiled taxes and a $20,000 fine, according to a news release from the IRS.

“By choosing to enrich herself at the expense of her employees and honest taxpayers, Savoy undermined the integrity of our tax system,” said Amanda Prestegard, the special agent in charge of the field office in Denver. “Employment tax fraud carries significant consequences, and our special agents remain committed to holding business owners accountable who engage in this type of fraud.”

Savoy’s attorney and attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.

This is a developing story and may be updated.

Attorneys with the filed a motion Tuesday to join with Douglas County Sheriff Darren Weekly and 23rd Judicial District Attorney George Brauchler in their January lawsuit against Gov. Jared Polis and other state officials over the law.

The local officials argued that the state law unduly limits law enforcement officers’ discretion when crime victims apply for , a visa set aside for non-citizen victims of crime who cooperate with law enforcement and meet other conditions.

The Department of Justice called Colorado’s law “deeply unfair” and argued in the motion to intervene Tuesday that the federal government’s law supersedes state law.

“The United States has an obvious interest relating to the integrity of the federal U-Visa program; that interest could be impaired or impeded by a ruling in Colorado’s favor,” the motion states.

Crime victims seeking U visas must have their applications certified by a law enforcement agency — that is, local officials must state that the applicants were victims of qualifying crimes and that they are helping in the investigation or prosecution of those crimes.

Federal immigration officials make the final decisions on whether or not visa applications are granted. Under federal law, victims seeking U visas must show that they have suffered physical or mental abuse due to a qualifying crime that happened in the U.S., they possess information about that crime, and they have been helpful or will be helpful to the prosecution.

In 2021, Colorado legislators changed state law to require that state officials consider only a victim’s helpfulness and whether they were subject to a qualifying crime when deciding whether to certify a victim’s application for a U visa. The state law also requires that officials consider a victim to be helpful unless there is documentation that the victim refused to cooperate with the case.

That shift undermines federal goals for the U visa program, the DOJ said in a news release Tuesday.

“Congress created a scheme to incentivize cooperation with law enforcement while relying on local official discretion to ensure that only deserving applicants receive U visas,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in the news release. “But Colorado is favoring the unhelpful alien over the crime victim who helps promote public safety and order. Federal law does not tolerate that backwards policy.”

No more than 10,000 U visas can be issued in any given year nationwide, creating a competitive process to receive one.

Between 2019 and 2025, 55 Colorado law enforcement agencies and district attorneys’ offices reported receiving 1,368 requests for U-visa certifications, according to records kept by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice. The agencies signed off on 1,118 of those requests — approving about 82%.

Despite that, Denver International Airport is sticking to its that prohibits all marijuana, with no exception for medical use.

The states that medical marijuana is allowed in both carry-on and checked bags. “The final decision rests with the TSA officer on whether an item is allowed through the checkpoint,” the site says.

“TSA’s screening procedures are focused on security and are designed to detect potential threats to aviation and passengers. Accordingly, TSA security officers do not search for illegal drugs, but if any illegal substance or evidence of criminal activity is discovered during security screening, TSA will refer the matter to a law enforcement officer.”

TSA did not provide details on how much medical marijuana may be allowed per person on a flight.

At DIA, any marijuana is prohibited, according to . “It is illegal to take marijuana across state lines. Denver International Airport prohibits marijuana on its property.” The ban covers the possession, use, display, transfer, transport, distribution, and sale of marijuana anywhere at the airport.

Marijuana for medical use is legal in 40 states and the District of Columbia. Colorado and 23 other states have also legalized marijuana for recreational use.  On April 23, the U.S. Department of Justice reclassified state-licensed medical marijuana as a “Schedule II” drug with low potential for creating dependence.

Hundreds of Democratic elected officials, volunteers and voters have asked the state party to formally censure Polis, alleging that his commutation decision is “incompatible” with the party’s values. , which was released Monday, asks party officials to condemn Polis’ decision to have Peters released on June 1 and find that it amounts to “conduct detrimental to the interests of the Colorado Democratic Party.”

Besides a censure, the complaint asks that the party limit Polis’ appearances at state party events like early June’s DemFest, including not allowing him to speak at or attend them.

The committee could then vote on whether to reprimand Polis or take other actions sought in the complaint.

“Given the urgency of the issue and the remedies being sought, (Murib) believes the most productive path forward is for the (central committee) to consider the matter directly,” Nicla wrote. Murib was among the Democrats who criticized Polis’ decision after it was announced on Friday.

The potential rebuke is the latest in a wave of scathing criticism from Democrats against Polis after he announced that he was reducing Peters’ original sentence of nearly nine years by roughly half for convictions related to an election data-breach scheme. The former Mesa County clerk and ally of President Donald Trump will end up serving about 20 months in jail and prison, with her release now coming roughly 30 months earlier than her prior parole eligibility date.

“The Colorado Democratic Party has consistently defended election workers, election administration, and public confidence in democratic processes,” the complaint’s authors wrote. “Granting clemency to one of the nation’s most prominent election denial figures directly undermines those efforts and weakens the Party’s credibility on issues of democracy and election integrity.”

In a statement Tuesday, Polis spokesman Eric Maruyama said Polis understood that other Democrats disagreed and were disappointed, but the governor “made the decision he felt was right, not popular.”

Ian Coggins, an official with the Denver Democrats, drafted the complaint letter over the weekend. Of the hundreds of people he sent the letter to, none has said they felt it was inappropriate, he said in an interview.

Coggins said the commutation was “icing on the cake” after a series of recent rifts between Polis and the broader party. That has included the governor’s efforts to comply with an immigration subpoena and his veto of a pro-union measure last year.

Coggins said the official party complaint seemed to be the strongest venue available to condemn Polis’ actions, especially since a special legislative session — with the goal of a censure by the General Assembly — seemed out of reach.

“(Polis) is the highest elected state official of the party in the state,” Coggins said, likening the situation to when people demanded the GOP condemn Trump if he didn’t represent that party’s values. “… We have to do the same thing, too, and say as a party, ‘This does not represent us.’ ”

Nearly 600 people have signed complaint

The complaint had attracted nearly 600 signatories by Tuesday afternoon, though that total included unaffiliated voters.

A dozen Democratic lawmakers had signed on, as had a number of candidates and local officials. They included elected leaders from Denver, Thornton, Superior, Westminster, Edgewater, Adams County, Lakewood and elsewhere.

State Sen. Lisa Cutter, a Jefferson County Democrat and early signatory to the complaint, said Peters’ commutation sent “a really bad message, at a really bad time.”

Democrats, aside from Polis, lined up early to oppose any kind of clemency for Peters, including in a letter signed by every Democrat in the legislature in March. The former clerk had become the face of election conspiracies and attempts to undermine voting systems, Cutter said. Cutter also noted that the judicial process still had not finished playing out for Peters.

She said that “every single Dem I’ve spoken to is mad about this.”

“There are certain things where (Polis) feels like he needs to override the will of the legislature, override the will of the party, override the judge that sentenced her,” Cutter said, while stressing that she didn’t personally dislike Polis and praising good things he’d done. “There’s a lot of hubris that is shocking.”

In the governor’s office statement Tuesday, Maruyama said Polis agreed with a recent Colorado Court of Appeals decision that found Peters’ speech had influenced the length of her initial sentence.

“One of the great things about the Democratic Party is that we are a big tent, and there is space to debate and disagree. No clemency decision should be granted only on whether it will be popular,” Maruyama wrote.

Still, by cutting out the judicial branch and waiting until after the legislature had adjourned its session, Polis was “just ignoring” the other two coequal branches of government, said Sen. Chris Kolker, a Centennial Democrat and another signatory.

“This was a pointed message to a lame duck governor, saying we don’t agree with this,” Kolker said.

The complaint, which was first reported by , came days after Polis announced that he was commuting Peters’ sentence and that she would be released on parole early next month.

Peters’ attorneys plan further appeal

The former clerk has become a cause célèbre among right-wing Trump allies and election conspiracists, and the president had repeatedly pressured Polis to release her, including by taking actions against Colorado.

The two men also spoke about her sentence during a phone call last year, .

Peters still plans to appeal the underlying convictions, her attorney Peter Ticktin said in an interview Tuesday. The deadline for her to file an appeal to the state Supreme Court is later this week.

Though Peters released a statement last week saying she was sorry, Ticktin said she wasn’t contrite.

“I don’t think that she was showing contrition for what happened,” Ticktin said. “I think she realizes that it was a mistake and things could’ve been handled in a better way.”

Peters may also be eligible for payment from the Trump administration, Vice President JD Vance suggested Tuesday.

He indicated that Peters should receive “some compensation” from that seeks to provide settlements for people who suffered what the department described as “weaponization and lawfare.”

“Tina Peters is a person who’s about to get out of prison, thanks in large part to the president’s good work in Colorado,” . “This is a woman who, at worst … committed misdemeanor trespassing, and someone threw the book at her.”

Peters, who as clerk sought to give an outside party access to secure voting equipment, was convicted of multiple felonies, including three counts of attempting to influence a public servant. A jury also found her guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state.

Peters’ case was brought by state prosecutors, not by the Biden administration, which pursued prosecutions against people involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol following Trump’s 2020 election loss.

Asked about Peters’ eligibility for a settlement, the White House referred comment to the Justice Department. Representatives for DOJ did not return messages seeking comment Tuesday.

Ticktin said he still needed to examine whether Peters was eligible for the settlement, as she wasn’t prosecuted by the Biden administration but rather, in his characterization, by a “globalist judge” in a “captured state.”

Polis had mulled pardoning Peters for months before the appellate decision came down. Starting last fall, other elected officials in the state came to believe that he would soon take action on her sentence, and the governor later repeatedly mused that her sentence was too harsh.

As required by law, his office consulted in January with the judge who sentenced Peters. In March, to assuage angry lawmakers, the governor’s office privately said he would wait out the appeals court before making a decision on Peters’ sentence.

Ultimately, that decision came two days after the legislature adjourned for the year, effectively neutering Democratic lawmakers’ ability to formally respond to him — as they had privately discussed doing earlier in the year.

Two Democratic candidates in the spring primaries, congressional hopeful Melat Kiros and attorney general candidate David Seligman, have since called on the legislature to reconvene to take action against Polis. The day after Polis’ announcement, someone also launched a website calling for his impeachment and directing people to call lawmakers.

But a special session is not likely, given the hurdle.

Short of a governor’s call, the legislature can gather for a special session only if two-thirds of both the House and Senate support it. Reaching that threshold would require every Democrat in the Capitol to get on board, plus at least one Republican in each chamber.

Senate President James Coleman and House Speaker Julie McCluskie both declined to comment on the party complaint Tuesday. They earlier issued a statement opposing Polis’ commutation.

Still, lawmakers have made no secret of their displeasure with Polis, with many signing on to the complaint or releasing statements criticizing the governor last week. Some, like progressive Democratic Reps. Javier Mabrey and Jenny Willford, said Tuesday they wouldn’t attend bill-signing ceremonies with the governor in the coming weeks.

“The overwhelming public outcry we’ve seen is a testament to how poorly the governor has handled this,” Rep. Steven Woodrow, a Denver Democrat who signed the complaint, said in a text message. For his part, he said he would attend bill-signings with the governor.

“When our republic came under assault from a corrupt administration, he quickly folded,” Woodrow said. “People are justifiably outraged.”

Tell us what you think about this story

Starting Jan. 1, the law passed as will require companies or agencies to notify job seekers, prospective college students and people seeking bank loans if AI will be involved in weighing their applications. It’s not yet clear what form those notifications will take.

SB-189 also gives people whose applications are rejected the ability to request more information about what data was used to make the decision and to request “meaningful human review and reconsideration.”

“We were able to reach consensus, at long last, and get to a place where we can offer consumers meaningful protections and avenues for redress without hampering innovation for developers of AI,” Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez, who sponsored SB-189, said before the bill signing.

The new law marks a significant rewrite, and weakening, of the initial AI regulations signed into law two years ago. Among other things, the previous rules — which, after multiple unsuccessful modification attempts, were finally set to take effect next month — required companies to undertake preemptive risk assessments to limit artificial intelligence’s potential to facilitate discrimination.

What Colorado bills are becoming laws?

Still, the bill's passage into law means Colorado is one of the few states in the nation to enact regulations addressing the potentially discriminatory use of AI in consequential application decisions. It also ends a 24-month saga of delays and failed negotiations.

To end that deadlock, SB-189's terms were hammered out by a Polis-convened task force of tech companies, business groups, and progressive and labor organizations, among others -- work that began late last year and continued well into the legislative session.

Once that task force reached a fragile peace, its members pleaded with the legislature not to change any key points of their agreement. The legislature largely acquiesced, and SB-189 sailed through the legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support.

"This year, we finally got there," Rodriguez said. "We got a bill across the finish line that nobody's happy with, but everyone can live with."

The rewrite also appears to render moot an April lawsuit brought by billionaire Elon Musk's company xAI, which challenged the now-previous version of the AI rules. The U.S. Department of Justice had also joined that lawsuit.

SB-189 was one of several AI-related bills passed by the legislature this year. Lawmakers have said that this year's measures are not the end of their interest in regulating an enormous and still-emerging technology, the effects of which may have seismic effects across Coloradans' social, personal and professional lives.

"We have much more to do," Rep. Jennifer Bacon, a Denver Democrat and another SB-189 sponsor, said. "We have many more conversations to have, but hopefully this bill will serve as an example of what's possible moving forward in a new technological society."

The DOJ is now suing Denver over its ban on weapons that can hold more than 15 bullets, and it is suing the state of Colorado over a similar ban on magazines that hold more than 15 bullets. These long-delayed federal challenges against common-sense gun laws are silly, given that both laws have already withstood numerous legal challenges and predate the common circulation in America of weapons intended for war.

Denver’s ban predates even the 1994 federal assault weapons ban that Congressmembers foolishly let expire in 2004. The state-wide ban on magazines came in 2013, just a year after the Aurora Theater shooting, where, in a matter of seconds, an assailant with a 100-round magazine was able to kill 12 people and injure 70 more. Incident reports said the attack only stopped when the gun jammed.

But we only have to go back less than a year for a reminder of why these laws exist. Just last month, police released hundreds of pages of documents from the Evergreen High School shooting.

We learned from the reports that the shooter — a disturbed teenager — was intent on killing as many people as possible when he entered Evergreen High School on Sept. 10. He roved through the school’s halls for almost 9 minutes, emptying and reloading his parents’ Smith and Wesson .38 Special revolver at least once, possibly more.

The attack was limited by the fact that the revolver only held 5 bullets and had to be reloaded one bullet at a time, as opposed to assault rifles that often have large detachable magazines that can be clipped in and out rapidly. Based on the reports, we can tell the shooter used his bullets sparingly despite having extra ammunition with him, and that reloading bought time for students and teachers to run, hide, and warn others.

First, the shooter aimed at a 14-year-old student, who survived being shot twice by fleeing up the stairwell and seeking medical aid from teachers in another part of the school campus. Bullets one and two.

Next, as teachers in one hallway urged students to take cover, the gunman hid the gun inside a pocket or bag to get closer to his targets. Once close to the teachers, he drew and fired. Mercifully, he didn’t hit anyone, and the teachers escaped to warn other students or hide in a nearby classroom. Bullet three.

Next, he fired into a classroom where the Gay-Straight Alliance club met, but didn’t strike anyone. Bullet four.

Then he targeted the band room with an unsuccessful attack through a small window on the door. Bullet five. The report says investigators found five casings outside the room, indicating this is one place the assailant stopped and reloaded. He may have reloaded earlier, using more bullets in each attack, as well, but it is unclear whether more casings were found.

All this time, the assailant was limited by his gun’s capacity and the slower rate at which it could fire compared to an assault rifle. Lives were saved because the shooter was only able to take a revolver from his parents’ gun safe. It’s unclear what other weapons were in the safe because the would-be killer’s parents refused to speak to police in the days, weeks and months following the attack.

The attack ended outside the school when Matthew Silverstone, 18, confronted the shooter. Silverstone was shot twice and critically injured, but miraculously survived. Police then encircled the shooter, who used one more bullet on himself.

The U.S. Department of Justice wants us to believe that because millions of semi-automatic, high-capacity weapons are in circulation, gun bans like the one in Denver are ineffective and unconstitutional. But we know that the type of gun used makes a drastic difference in the outcome of the mass shooting. Every time laws keep an assault rifle out of the hands of someone intent on killing as many people as possible, lives are saved.

If the U.S. Department of Justice wants to protect the Second Amendment, then it would best serve law-abiding, patriotic gun owners by aggressively rooting out the extremist pockets of activity that are fueling mass shootings. The attacker at Evergreen High School was inspired by a radical misogynist movement online that glorified the Isla Vista, Calif., shooter who went on a killing spree because he was angry at women, because he had not had sex, and called himself involuntarily celibate.

The FBI was tracking the Evergreen shooter’s online activity. Federal law enforcement said they were working to identify the anonymous user when the shooting occurred. The DOJ should be spending its time building cases against known threats, so it can move quickly with warrants when intelligence indicates an imminent attack.

Local law enforcement cannot work preventively alone, and our federal partners have a much clearer picture of online extremism. We need their help in keeping students safe, not their assault on our laws.

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

The new lawsuit alleges that Colorado’s ban on ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds violates the Second Amendment’s right for citizens to keep and bear arms. It argues that such magazines are standard for many weapons.

“Law-abiding Americans own and use for lawful purposes literally hundreds of millions of magazines such as those banned by the State,” the complaint reads. “A detachable magazine is an integral part of most semi-automatic firearms, including the AR-15 rifle. As such, they are covered by the Second Amendment����ap right to keep and bear arms.”

Attorney General Phil Weiser vowed to defend the ban in a statement Wednesday, reiterating a stance he and other state and local officials took when the DOJ first threatened the lawsuits against Denver and the state earlier this week.

“Using federal civil rights law to put Coloradans at greater risk of gun violence is a dangerous overreach by the Justice Department, and this lawsuit turns the mission of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division on its head,” Weiser said in the statement. “Large-capacity magazine laws are responsible policies that satisfy Second Amendment protections, decrease the deadly impacts of mass shootings, and save lives.”

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines in 2020, finding that the prohibition did not violate residents’ right to bear arms as guaranteed by the state Constitution. The decision did not consider whether the ban violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

State lawmakers passed the ban in 2013 in the wake of the Aurora movie theater shooting the prior year, in which the gunman used a large-capacity magazine to fire more than 60 rounds in less than a minute, killing 12 and wounding dozens.

City officials responded to the Trump administration’s threat to sue with defiance Monday, vowing to defend the city’s 37-year-old ordinance. The city law prohibits the sale or possession of assault weapons, defined as semiautomatic pistols or centerfire rifles with a fixed or detachable magazine that can carry more than 15 rounds, as well as any semiautomatic shotgun with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of six or more rounds.

The Justice Department lawsuit argues that the city’s ban is unconstitutional and runs afoul of the Second Amendment’s right to bear and keep arms.

“The Constitution is not a suggestion and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a news release. “Denver’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles directly violates the right to bear arms. This Department of Justice will vigorously defend the liberties of law-abiding citizens nationwide.”

The Justice Department filed the lawsuit a day after city officials stood on the steps of the Denver City and County Building and vowed to defend the ban after receiving the demands and threat of a lawsuit last week.

“There are too many Coloradans we’ve had to say goodbye to in too many places because of the impact of assault weapons,” Denver Mayor Mike Johnston said during Monday’s news conference. “…We’ve actually refused to accept the status quo and made significant changes that made the state safer.”

The Justice Department also demanded Colorado officials end the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines or face a lawsuit. No complaint had been filed against the state by mid-afternoon Tuesday.

Dudley Brown, president of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, welcomed the lawsuit.

“Denver politicians have spent decades pretending the Second Amendment stops at the city limits,” he said in a news release. “Today, the Department of Justice has put them on notice. You do not get to shred the Constitution, criminalize peaceable gun owners and call it public safety. Denver’s gun ban is unconstitutional, immoral and long overdue for the ash heap of history.”

The Second Amendment protects the right of “law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes,” the Justice Department complaint reads.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners sued over Colorado’s large-capacity magazine ban in 2022, but withdrew the case in 2024 after they could not about the “common use” of large-capacity magazines, city attorney Miko Brown wrote in Denver’s on Monday.

The former chief counsel for the Colorado gun rights organization, Barry Arrington, is now the acting chief of the Department of Justice’s Second Amendment Section, according to the complaint, which lists him among several attorneys on the case.

“We’re here today to let them know that our answer is ‘Hell no,'” Denver Mayor Mike Johnston said during a news conference Monday. “No, we will not roll back a common-sense policy that has kept weapons of war off of these city streets for 37 years.”

Since 1989, Denver has restricted the possession and sale of guns with magazines carrying more than 15 rounds — which includes AR-15-style rifles as well as other types of guns. State law has restricted the possession or sale of large-capacity magazines since 2013, the law passing in the wake of the 2012 Aurora theater shooting in which one attacker killed 12 people and injured another 70.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser vowed Monday to defend the state’s ban, and noted that the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the law in 2020.

“I believe the law has reasonable limitations that satisfy Second Amendment protections,” Weiser said in a statement. “Large-capacity magazine laws are responsible policies that decrease the deadly impacts of mass shootings and save lives. The state has a duty to protect Colorado residents from gun violence, and I will vigorously defend our state large-magazine limit law from this attack by the Trump Justice Department.”

In April 28 letters to city and state officials, demanded that both Denver and Colorado stop enforcing the bans, acknowledge the laws are unconstitutional, and enter into consent decrees to ensure the bans are not enforced.

Should the city and state fail to take those steps, the Justice Department will sue to protect Denver and Colorado residents’ Second Amendment right to bear and keep arms, Dhillon wrote in the very similar two-page letters, which both gave a 5 p.m. Tuesday deadline for the city and state to respond before the federal government filed the lawsuit.

“The Ordinance bans many weapons, including AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles,” the letter to Denver officials reads. “Law-abiding Americans own and use for lawful purposes literally tens of millions of AR-15 style rifles. Indeed, it is the most popular rifle in America. The city has banned an arm in common use for lawful purposes by law-abiding citizens. Therefore, the Ordinance violates the Second Amendment.”

Denver officials wholly rejected the DOJ’s stance in a response letter Monday.

“Your request is baseless, irresponsible and a clear overreach of the federal government’s power,” City Attorney Miko Brown wrote in the response.

She noted that six different federal courts have upheld bans on assault weapons or large-capacity magazine bans and that other legal challenges to Denver’s ban have failed.

Denver police Chief Ron Thomas spoke in favor of the ban during a news conference at the Denver City and County Building on Monday. Denver police seized 2,100 guns last year, and fewer than 40 were assault-style weapons, he said.

“That’s less than 2%,” he said. “What that says to me is that there are many fewer weapons that could fall into the wrong hands and be used to harm members of this community.”

Weiser’s office has not yet responded to the Justice Department’s letter, spokesman Lawrence Pacheco said.

City officials and advocates framed the Justice Department’s demand as part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to widely weaken gun control efforts. Reversing the bans would make city and state residents less safe, Denver City Councilwoman Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez said.

“When our president attacks policies like Denver’s assault weapons ban, he isn’t just challenging a law,” she said. “He’s challenging our rights to decide what keeps our neighborhoods safe.”

The federal government’s stance that the bans are unconstitutional goes against what courts have found, said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at , an organization focused on advancing gun control measures.

“The DOJ’s current position is not just an attack on Denver, it is an outlier that ignores the clear and growing consensus in the American judiciary,” she said.