2017 Legislative Session Review, 0917 COBJ, Vol. 46, No. 8 Pg. 60
| Author | JEREMY SCHUPBACH, J. |
August, 2017
LEGISLATIVE MATTERS
JEREMY SCHUPBACH, J.
This article reviews the 2017 legislative session, focusing on bills of interest to the CBA.
The 2017 legislative session was another successful and hard-fought one for the CBA. This session saw much politicking and grandstanding, but despite the unusual tenor of the session, the CBA had a remarkably successful year under the gold dome. The CBA both advanced several bills to improve the practice of law and helped kill several dangerous and misguided attempts to harm various practice areas and the judicial branch. In short, it was a busy, involved, exciting, and exhausting session.
As was the case in 2016, the House and Senate again split political control during this session. The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives over the Republicans by 37 to 28 seats. By contrast, the Senate was in Republican hands, but with only a one-vote margin, 18 to 17.
This session again had fewer lawyer legislators than the historical average. This presents both an opportunity and challenge as the CBA works with legislators on complicated measures and technical concerns on matters of law and seeks to educate the legislature about who we are and what we do. This situation is not likely to change much as a result of the November election, though there may be a slight increase in the number of lawyer legislators. In 2017, there were nine lawyers (only one in the Senate), according to the Legislative Drafting Office.
It is important to note that the CBA develops public policy and takes positions on legislation through its Legislative Policy Committee (LPC), a committee of 13 members appointed by the president and representatives of the sections. These 13 members—assisted by liaisons and leadership from each section—consider the merits of bills and decide whether the CBA should adopt a position, and, if so, what that position will be.
The 2017 Session in Brief
This year, 681 bills and resolutions were introduced throughout the session, and 413 have been passed and signed into law. An additional two bills were allowed to become law without the Governor’s signature (SB 17-012 and SB 17-019), and Governor Hickenlooper vetoed two bills (SB 17-111 and SB 17-139). All bills considered during the session can be found on the Colorado General Assembly’s website at http://leg.colorado.gov/bills.
Special Session?
This year, as always, there were rumors around a special session. The Governor has the power to call the legislature back into session to address specific issues for which he sets the agenda and defines the specific issues to be addressed. Funding for both the Governor’s Energy Office and transportation were rumored to be potential topics. The time for the Governor to call a special session has expired for this summer.
CBA Priority Bills
The CBA tracked and worked on 33 bills in the 2017 session. The accompanying table lists each bill by number, title, CBA position on the bill, and outcome. The CBA opposed five bills, supported 19 bills, monitored with no position one bill, and sought amendments to eight bills. We achieved our intended outcome on 32 bills, for an overall success rate of over 90%—an outstanding overall achievement for our LPC and our agenda at the Capitol.
Major Legislation and Hot-Topic Bills
The 2017 session was framed by big issue bills: a construction defects “package” of bills, the hospital provider fee, and late-breaking bills and negotiations on transportation and highway funding. For the most part, the CBA monitored the issues and the bills addressing them without taking a position or weighing in.
Construction defects was a major theme again this session, with many groups working on several bills, including a grand compromise bill, HB 1279. Another earlier bill, SB 45, would have created a unique litigation process for construction defects cases, which was a cause for concern with several CBA sections. The CBA proposed an amendment to SB 45 concerning court procedures, which was accepted, but the bill was ultimately postponed indefinitely after the passage of HB 1279.
The hospital provider fee and the subsequent legislation, SB 267, were hotly negotiated through the session. The final bill was multifaceted and contained many different funding and financing mechanisms and compromises. While the CBA took no position on the issue, the potential impact on TABOR and the state budget was enormous. The hospital provider fee provides for collection of revenue from hospitals and matches it with federal Medicaid dollars. The money is counted as general fund revenue. As such, it affects how the budget and TABOR are calculated. Creating an enterprise out of the fee could generate approximately $500 million to $700 million within the general fund, which is money that could be directed to other spending priorities.
CBA Priority Bills
The legislature passed all the bills sponsored or generated by CBA sections this year. We worked with a very supportive legislature and several new legislators to achieve bills that were a priority for our sections. In addition, we worked with several other stakeholder groups and leadership from both parties to promote and achieve our legislative agenda.
HB 1087: Office of Public Guardianship Pilot Program
HB 1087 creates the Office of Public Guardianship within the judicial department to provide legal guardianship services to indigent and incapacitated adults who have no responsible family members or friends available and appropriate to serve as a guardian and lack adequate resources to compensate a private guardian and pay the costs and fees associated with an appointment proceeding. The office is established as a pilot program to be evaluated and then continued, discontinued, or expanded at the discretion of the General Assembly in 2021.
On or before January 1, 2021, the director of the office must submit a report to the judiciary committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The report, at a minimum, must quantify, to the extent possible, (1) Colorado’s unmet need for public guardianship services for indigent and...
To continue reading
Request your trial