House Committee on Judiciary (05/03/2012)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Date:	05/03/2012	ATTENDANCE

Time:	01:34 PM to 09:27 PM	Baumgardner	X
		DelGrosso	X
Place:	SupCt	Duran	X
		Kagan	X
This Meeting was called to order by		Lee	X
	Representative Gardner B.	Nikkel	X
		Pabon	*
This Report was prepared by		Ryden	X
	Jessika Shipley	Sonnenberg	X
		Waller	X
		Gardner B.	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
SB12-116 SB12-176 SB12-104 SB12-028 SB12-117 SCR12-001 SB12-002		Amended, Referred to Appropriations Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Referred to Finance Referred to Appropriations Referred to Appropriations Referred to the Committee of the Whole Referred to Finance

01:35 PM -- Senate Bill 12-116

Representative Gardner made an announcement about committee procedures and the schedule for the day.

01:40 PM

Representative Brown, sponsor, returned to the committee to discuss Senate Bill 12-116. Testimony was heard on May 1, 2012, and the bill was laid over for action only.


BILL:	SB12-116
TIME:	01:41:37 PM
MOVED:	Sonnenberg
MOTION:	Adopt prepared amendment L.007 (Attachment A). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Baumgardner
		VOTE
	Baumgardner
	DelGrosso
	Duran
	Kagan
	Lee
	Nikkel
	Pabon
	Ryden
	Sonnenberg
	Waller
	Gardner B.

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	SB12-116
TIME:	01:45:54 PM
MOVED:	Waller
MOTION:	Adopt prepared amendment L.009 (Attachment B). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Sonnenberg
		VOTE
	Baumgardner
	DelGrosso
	Duran
	Kagan
	Lee
	Nikkel
	Pabon
	Ryden
	Sonnenberg
	Waller
	Gardner B.

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	SB12-116
TIME:	01:46:47 PM
MOVED:	Sonnenberg
MOTION:	Refer Senate Bill 12-116, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed on a vote of 11-0.
SECONDED:	Baumgardner
		VOTE
	Baumgardner	Yes
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Duran	Yes
	Kagan	Yes
	Lee	Yes
	Nikkel	Yes
	Pabon	Yes
	Ryden	Yes
	Sonnenberg	Yes
	Waller	Yes
	Gardner B.	Yes

Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

01:48 PM -- Senate Bill 12-176

Representative Labuda, sponsor, presented Senate Bill 12-176. Often referred to as the Revisor's Bill, this bill is recommended by the Committee on Legal Services to amend or repeal obsolete, inconsistent, or conflicting laws. In some instances, it also clarifies statutory language to more accurately reflect legislative intent. The specific reasons for each amendment or repeal are set forth in the bill's appendix.

01:50 PM -- Jennifer Gilroy, representing the Office of Legislative Legal Services, responded to questions from the committee.


BILL:	SB12-176
TIME:	01:55:55 PM
MOVED:	Kagan
MOTION:	Adopt prepared amendment L.001 (Attachment C). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Pabon
		VOTE
	Baumgardner
	DelGrosso
	Duran
	Kagan
	Lee
	Nikkel
	Pabon
	Ryden
	Sonnenberg
	Waller
	Gardner B.

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	SB12-176
TIME:	01:57:00 PM
MOVED:	Kagan
MOTION:	Refer Senate Bill 12-176, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a vote of 9-0, with 2 excused.
SECONDED:	Ryden
		VOTE
	Baumgardner	Yes
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Duran	Yes
	Kagan	Yes
	Lee	Yes
	Nikkel	Excused
	Pabon	Yes
	Ryden	Yes
	Sonnenberg	Yes
	Waller	Yes
	Gardner B.	Excused

Final YES: 9 NO: 0 EXC: 2 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

01:58 PM -- Senate Bill 12-104

Representative DelGrosso, sponsor, presented Senate Bill 12-104 concerning consolidation of drug treatment funding into the Correctional Treatment Fund. This reengrossed bill consolidates funding for substance abuse treatment for adult and juvenile offenders. The bill renames the existing Drug Offender Surcharge Fund to the Correctional Treatment Cash Fund (CTCF). The Drug Offender Treatment Fund is repealed, with its fund balance transferred into the new CTCF.

Beginning in FY 2012-13, a minimum of $2.2 million is required to be deposited into the fund each year from savings generated by Senate Bill 03-318. Under current law, savings from House Bill 10-1352 are deposited into the Drug Offender Surcharge Fund. As amended, this bill redirects these moneys to the CTCF and specifies the minimum amounts to be transferred as $7,656,200 for FY 2012-13 and, beginning in FY 2013-14, $9.5 million per year thereafter.

The bill repeals the existing six-member committee and Interagency Task Force on Treatment and replaces them with a single eight-member Correctional Treatment Board. The new board includes representation from state and local agencies serving adult and juvenile offenders and is tasked with preparing an annual treatment funding plan.

Finally, the bill clarifies requirements and expands the membership of judicial district drug offender treatment boards. Each group is required to submit an annual recommendation to the board for approval of funding of local treatment needs.

02:01 PM -- Jeff Clayton, representing the Judicial Branch, testified in support of the bill.

02:03 PM -- Peg Ackerman, representing the County Sheriffs of Colorado and Sheriff Grayson Robinson, testified in support of the bill.


BILL:	SB12-104
TIME:	02:04:33 PM
MOVED:	DelGrosso
MOTION:	Refer Senate Bill 12-104 to the Committee on Finance. The motion passed on a vote of 10-0, with 1 excused.
SECONDED:	Nikkel
		VOTE
	Baumgardner	Yes
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Duran	Yes
	Kagan	Yes
	Lee	Yes
	Nikkel	Yes
	Pabon	Yes
	Ryden	Yes
	Sonnenberg	Yes
	Waller	Yes
	Gardner B.	Excused

Final YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

02:06 PM -- Senate Bill 12-028

Representative Sonnenberg presented Senate Bill 12-028 for Representative Barker. The bill establishes a 20-year mandatory period of parole for juvenile offenders who are adjudicated as delinquents and sentenced for murder in the first degree. It allows a court to sentence a juvenile adjudicated a delinquent for murder in the first degree or murder in the second degree either consecutively or concurrently.

Under current law, when an aggravated juvenile offender in the custody of the Department of Human Services reaches the age of 20 years and 6 months, the court is required to hold a hearing to determine the continuing jurisdiction of the juvenile. This bill requires a psychological evaluation of the juvenile by a state-employed psychiatrist at the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo. The court is required to consider the following factors, at a minimum, when determining whether to transfer custody of a juvenile to the Department of Corrections:

the psychological evaluation;

the nature of the crimes committed;

the prior criminal history of the juvenile;

the impact of the crimes on the victims;

the likelihood of rehabilitation; and

the interest of the community in assuring that the punishment fits the crime.

02:06 PM -- Dan Schoen, representing the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and the Colorado Juvenile Defender Coalition, and Tamar Wilson, representing the Colorado District Attorneys' Council and the Colorado Attorney General's Office, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Schoen explained the effects of the bill. He and Ms. Wilson responded to questions from the committee about why the bill was not brought to the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.


BILL:	SB12-028
TIME:	02:11:45 PM
MOVED:	Sonnenberg
MOTION:	Refer Senate Bill 12-028 to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed on a vote of 10-0, with 2 excused.
SECONDED:	Kagan
		VOTE
	Baumgardner	Yes
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Duran	Yes
	Kagan	Yes
	Lee	Yes
	Nikkel	Yes
	Pabon	Yes
	Ryden	Yes
	Sonnenberg	Yes
	Waller	Yes
	Gardner B.	Excused

Final YES: 10 NO: 0 EXC: 1 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

02:12 PM -- Senate Bill 12-117

The committee recessed.

02:21 PM

The committee came back to order.

02:22 PM

Representatives Fields and Waller, sponsors, presented Senate Bill 12-117 concerning the penalties for persons who drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Current law specifies that a driver whose blood alcohol content (BAC) is 0.08 or greater while driving or within two hours of driving can be charged with DUI per se in addition to DUI. There is no corresponding DUI per se charge for drivers accused of driving while under the influence of drugs. The reengrossed bill expands the definition of DUI per se to apply to drivers whose blood contains five nanograms or more of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) per milliliter in whole blood while driving or within two hours of driving.

The bill also repeals the law specifying that it is a misdemeanor for a habitual user of any controlled substance to drive a motor vehicle or low-power scooter. Other references to charges of "habitual user" are also repealed.

Representative Waller explained the bill and why he believes it is necessary. He distributed a number of charts illustrating incidents of individuals driving under the influence of drugs (Attachment D). Representative Fields spoke about the dangers of driving while under the influence of marijuana. She walked the committee through the charts. Representatives Waller and Fields responded to questions from the committee.

02:36 PM -- Sarah Urfer, representing Chematox, testified about the bill. Ms. Urfer discussed issues related to toxicology and impairment.

02:41 PM -- Cynthia Burbach, representing the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, testified about the bill. Ms. Burbach stated that the current peer-reviewed literature on impairment in chronic users of marijuana shows that five nanograms is an appropriate level.

02:46 PM

Ms. Urfer and Ms. Burbach responded to questions from the committee.

02:47 PM -- Tom Raynes, representing the Colorado District Attorneys' Council, and Michael Dougherty, representing the Colorado Attorney General's Office, testified in support of the bill.

02:59 PM -- Sheriff Doug Darr, representing the County Sheriffs of Colorado and the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, testified in support of the bill. Sheriff Darr spoke about rising numbers of incidents of drug-related traffic accidents in the United States. He responded to questions from the committee.

03:05 PM -- Laura Spicer, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Spicer spoke about the impact to families of individuals who drive under the influence of marijuana. She expressed her opinion that all drivers should be responsible and accountable and that five nanograms is a reasonable level.

03:09 PM -- Michael Elliott, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Elliott expressed his opinion that the bill unfairly and unnecessarily criminalizes Colorado citizens. He distributed a summary of the findings of a workgroup studying driving under the influence of drugs, of which he was a member (Attachment E). He discussed the information contained in the summary. He stated that the five-nanogram standard is not supported by the science. He responded to questions from the committee and entered a medical marijuana poster into the official record (Attachment F).

03:28 PM -- Mark Belkin, representing the United Food and Commercial Workers' Union-Local 7, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Belkin expressed his opinion that the bill throws out too wide a net and that the science does not support the adoption of a five-nanogram limit. He stated that the bill will result in grotesque, unnecessary, costly, and intrusive blood draws. He indicated that the bill will have a chilling effect on medical marijuana users and on those who work in the medical marijuana industry.

03:35 PM -- Josh Kappel, representing Sensible Colorado, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Kappel stated that this is a public safety issue, but that the bill does not allow individuals to prove in court that they are not impaired. He expressed his opinion that the bill should exempt medical marijuana patients. He responded to questions from the committee.

03:48 PM -- James McVaney, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. McVaney asked why the schedule I and II drugs were removed from the bill if it is about public safety. Representative Waller responded to Mr. McVaney.

03:53 PM -- Robert Chase, representing the Colorado Coalition for Patients and Caregivers, testified against the bill. Mr. Chase stated that there is a technical error on page 3 regarding aerosol and vapors and that the Colorado Drug Task Force agreed to not bring the bill. He expressed his opinion that there is no evidence of danger from drugged driving.

03:58 PM -- William Chengelis, representing the United States Marijuana Party, testified in opposition to the bill. He stated that he is a Vietnam veteran and has been using marijuana since November 23, 1963. Mr. Chengelis indicated that he is under the influence of marijuana at all times and it has not caused any problems in his life.

04:00 PM -- Jessica LeRoux, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. She stated that the bill will require her to have her blood forcibly drawn if a police officer decides that he or she has probable cause because Ms. LeRoux is on the medical marijuana registry. Ms. LeRoux indicated that she is responsible and hard-working and expressed her opinion that the state does not currently have a laboratory that can conclusively determine the difference between active and inactive THC.

04:05 PM -- Kris Custer, representing iCannabisradio.com, testified in opposition to the bill. He described why he uses medical marijuana.

04:08 PM -- Shan Moore, representing his son who is a medical marijuana patient and a Colorado driver, testified in opposition the bill. Mr. Moore stated that his son uses edible marijuana products. He expressed his opinion that edible products test with high THC levels days after use without the psychoactive effect.

04:10 PM -- Mark Slaugh, representing the Colorado Springs Medical Cannabis Council, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Slaugh stated that police officers currently check drivers' medical marijuana registry cards at traffic stops. He expressed his opinion that the science shows that the limit in the bill is too low and needs to be set in double digits instead of at five nanograms. Representative Lee asked if he could support the bill if there was an exemption for cardholders. Mr. Slaugh responded that it depends. He said the limit needs to be higher but he might be aggreeable to an exemption.

04:15 PM -- Gay Ann Ost, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Ost discussed a certain prescription drug used by patients with multiple sclerosis that tests the same as marijuana, which could cause problems for patients using this prescription drug who are stopped by law enforcement officers. Ms. Ost stated that the National Highway Safety Administration tests are validated for alcohol, not marijuana.

04:19 PM -- Miguel Lopez, representing the Denver 420 Rally, testified in opposition to the bill.

04:23 PM -- James Clark, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill.

04:24 PM -- Lucrea Patton, representing herself and the members of the Denver 420 Rally, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Patton stated that she is opposed to the bill because it discriminates against medical marijuana patients and that proponents of the bill continue to contradict themselves.

04:28 PM -- Travis Simpson, representing himself as an attorney, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Simpson distributed two news articles and a letter from Robert Corry, Jr. (Attachments G, H, and I).

04:31 PM -- Ty Link, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill.

04:34 PM -- Allan Bumgartner, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Bumgartner discussed THC-detection methods and the probability of false positives.

04:38 PM -- Robert J. Corry, Jr., representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Corry stated no other medicine is treated the way this bill treats marijuana and that marijuana is regulated as a medicine in Colorado. He responded to questions from Representative Lee and expressed his opinion that the science regarding impairment is unclear. He stated that marijuana is not like alcohol in regards to impairment and that it should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

04:42 PM -- Chris Halsor, representing the Colorado District Attorneys' Council, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Halsor spoke about the science of impairment and about fatal traffic accidents and distributed two publications from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Attachments J and K). He responded to questions from the committee.

04:55 PM -- Justin Warman, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Warman spoke about the science of drug testing. He responded to questions from the committee.

05:03 PM -- Teri Robnett, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Robnett spoke about her experience as a medical marijuana patient. She expressed concern that the bill criminalizes her for doing what her doctor told her to do.

05:08 PM -- Phillip Barton, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Barton expressed concern that he has no way of knowing how many nanograms of THC he has in his blood at any given time. He encouraged the proper labeling of medical marijuana products.


BILL:	SB12-117
TIME:	05:16:57 PM
MOVED:	Lee
MOTION:	Adopt prepared amendment L.016 (Attachment L). The motion failed on a vote of 4-7.
SECONDED:	Kagan
		VOTE
	Baumgardner	No
	DelGrosso	No
	Duran	Yes
	Kagan	Yes
	Lee	Yes
	Nikkel	No
	Pabon	Yes
	Ryden	No
	Sonnenberg	No
	Waller	No
	Gardner B.	No

YES: 4 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	SB12-117
TIME:	05:40:03 PM
MOVED:	Waller
MOTION:	Refer Senate Bill 12-117 to the Committee on Appropriations. Members of the committee commented extensively about their positions on the bill. The motion passed on a vote of 6-5.
SECONDED:	Gardner B.
		VOTE
	Baumgardner	Yes
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Duran	No
	Kagan	No
	Lee	No
	Nikkel	No
	Pabon	Yes
	Ryden	No
	Sonnenberg	Yes
	Waller	Yes
	Gardner B.	Yes

Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:42 PM -- SCR12-001

The committee recessed.

05:52 PM

The committee came back order. Representative Ferrandino, sponsor, presented Senate Concurrent Resolution 12-001. This concurrent resolution refers a constitutional amendment to voters at the 2012 general election that, if approved, will delete language in the Colorado Constitution rendered obsolete as a result of court rulings in 1994 and 2010. Certain campaign finance provisions and certain bill of rights provisions are affected as outlined in the bill.

The concurrent resolution proposes several amendments to Article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution, concerning campaign and political finance, including: 1) the repeal of language that forbids expenditures that expressly advocate for the election of a candidate and that prohibit corporations or labor unions from providing funding for electioneering communication; 2) the repeal of four definitions that appear in Section 2 of the article, and; 3) the repeal of Sections 15, 16, and 17, which primarily deal with sole source government contracts.

Section 30 (b) of Article II, adopted in 1992, is also repealed. This section of the constitution prohibited the state from establishing a protected status based on homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation and was declared unconstitutional in 1994. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this section unconstitutional in 1996.

05:55 PM -- Rich Coolidge, representing the Colorado Secretary of State, testified in support of the resolution.


BILL:	SCR12-001
TIME:	05:57:16 PM
MOVED:	Pabon
MOTION:	Refer Senate Concurrent Resolution 12-001 to the Committee of the Whole. The motion passed on a vote of 9-2.
SECONDED:	Kagan
		VOTE
	Baumgardner	No
	DelGrosso	Yes
	Duran	Yes
	Kagan	Yes
	Lee	Yes
	Nikkel	Yes
	Pabon	Yes
	Ryden	Yes
	Sonnenberg	No
	Waller	Yes
	Gardner B.	Yes

Final YES: 9 NO: 2 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

05:58 PM -- Senate Bill 12-002

Representative Gardner made an announcement about committee proceedings.

06:01 PM

Representative Ferrandino, sponsor, presented Senate Bill 12-002 concerning authorization of civil unions. The bill authorizes civil unions in Colorado and sets forth the rights, responsibilities, and requirements of persons entering a civil union. Two persons, regardless of gender, may enter into a civil union if they are not related by blood, not married to or in a civil union with another person, and are over the age of 18. The bill sets the fees and procedures to obtain a civil union license from a county clerk and to petition the court for the dissolution, invalidation, and legal separation of a civil union. The Department of Public Health and Environment (DPHE) is required to create all necessary forms for civil union licenses and certificates.

The bill grants persons in civil unions the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under law as granted to spouses and specifies that persons in a civil union are covered under the statutory definitions of dependent, spouse, next of kin, family, immediate family, and other terms in law indicating a familial or spousal relationship. The bill applies the laws of domestic relations (i.e., divorce, child custody, property division, child support, etc.) to persons in civil unions.

The bill applies the benefits, protections, and responsibilities of spouses to the parties to a civil unions in several areas, including, among other things:

• estate law;
• workers' compensation benefits;
• torts and causes of action based on spousal status;
• protections from discrimination based on spousal status;
• probate law;
• adoption law;
• group benefit plans for state employees;
• Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) benefits;
• access to domestic abuse programs and protections;
• victim compensation;
• emergency medical care and visitation;
• visitation in correctional and other types of facilities;
• end-of-life care and other issues relating to medical care; and
• access to life and health insurance policies as a dependent.

The bill also outlines the privileged relationship between persons in a civil union and rules for testimony and examination of persons in a civil union against the other person. The bill specifies judicial jurisdiction over civil union cases and recognizes same-sex unions from other states as civil unions in Colorado, regardless of the name used for the relationship in the other state (marriage, domestic partnership, etc.). Under the bill, persons in a civil union cannot file a joint state income tax return.

06:12 PM -- Brad Clark, representing One Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Clark stated that the issue of civil unions is about love and commitment. He discussed his grandmother's recent death and indicated that his grandparents had basic legal protections that are not available to all couples. He responded to questions from the committee about why a designated beneficiary agreement would not allow couples to make major medical decisions for each other.

06:19 PM -- Jack Finlaw, representing the Governor's Office of Legal Counsel, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Finlaw expressed the strong support of Governor Hickenlooper for the bill. He discussed the importance of equal basic legal rights for all people and strong societal support for all committed couples. He spoke about communities of faith that support same-gender couples. He responded to questions from the committee.

06:27 PM -- Mario Nicolais, representing Coloradans for Freedom, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Nicolais spoke about conservative support in Colorado for civil unions and same-sex couples in general. He encouraged the committee to allow the bill to be heard before the entire House of Representatives. He continued to discuss conservative support for civil unions and stated that this is an issue of basic civil rights. He responded to questions from the committee.

06:39 PM

Mr. Nicholais discussed a number of the arguments he believes will be raised by the opponents to the bill.

06:42 PM -- Fran and Anna Simon, representing their family, testified in support of the bill. They spoke about their relationship, their faith, and their son. They discussed the legal process they were required to follow, at great financial cost to themselves, in order to protect their legal rights.

06:51 PM -- Jody Applegate, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Applegate discussed her two daughters, one of whom is gay. She urged the committee to pass the bill to provide a complete legal framework for all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation.

06:54 PM -- Sonrisa Lucero, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Lucero stated that the Colorado Latino Forum supports the bill. She spoke about her faith and her sexual orientation.

07:00 PM -- Jeremy Shaver and Reverend Bonita Bock, representing the Colorado Interfaith Alliance, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Shaver listed many of the members of Colorado Interfaith Alliance and the Faithful Voices for Strong Families Coalition. He stated his appreciation for the protections of religious freedom that are contained in the bill. Reverend Bock discussed the decision-making process undertaken by the Conservative Lutheran Church to allow gay and lesbian individuals to serve as clergy. She stated her opinion that the bill is a way to honor commitments made by loving couples.

07:06 PM -- Marie Moses, representing the Colorado Bar Association, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Moses spoke about her experience as an attorney specializing in domestic relations issues. She discussed the constitutionality of the bill. She indicated that the bill would provide protection and benefits to children of same-sex couples. She commented about protections for economically disadvantaged spouses. She responded to questions from the committee.

07:21 PM -- Jason Cobb, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Cobb spoke about his family and asked the committee to vote in favor of families.

07:25 PM -- Troy Ard, representing the College Republicans of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Ard discussed conservative support for civil unions, especially among young people.

07:28 PM -- Judy Murray, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Murray discussed her experience as the mother of a gay son and expressed her opinion that the bill is about fairness.

07:32 PM -- Mindy Barton, representing the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Barton spoke about the reasons the bill is about fairness and basic legal protections.

07:37 PM -- Courtney McConomy, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. McConomy spoke about the experience she and her partner have had with a designated beneficiary agreement. She expressed her desire to have a common legal recognition for her relationship.

07:41 PM -- Denise Maes, representing the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Maes spoke about legal recognition in other states for same-sex couples.

07:44 PM

Representative Gardner closed proponent testimony, but invited the rest of the supporters who signed up to stand. He indicated that the opponents would be given an hour for testimony.

07:45 PM

The committee recessed.

07:55 PM

The committee returned to order.

07:56 PM -- Byron Babione, representing the Alliance Defense Fund, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Babione distributed a written statement (Attachment M) and read his prepared remarks. He responded to questions from the committee about the legal theories outlined in his statement.

08:15 PM -- Former State Senator Ed Jones, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Senator Jones stated his opinion that diversity is good. He indicated that the bill has nothing to do with civil rights because individuals make a choice to be homosexual, while people of color have no such choice. He discussed his experience as a young black child who was faced with bigotry. He commented that the bill is the same as gay marriage. He responded to questions from the committee.

08:29 PM

The committee continued to discuss civil rights.

08:33 PM -- Father Bill Carmody, representing the Colorado Catholic Conference, testified in opposition to the bill. Father Carmody discussed anti-gay ballot measures from 2006. He indicated that Senate Bill 12-002 is not different from Referendum I. He stated that children need both a mother and a father and the bill is not good for marriage. He responded to questions from the committee about the religious exemption in the bill.

08:38 PM -- Tim Leonard, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Leonard expressed his opinion that the bill is not about love and commitment and it does not remove the government from personal relationships. He stated that the proper role of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of citizens. He discussed natural law. He stated his opinion that the testimony of the proponents is inconsistent and contradictory.

08:43 PM -- David DeJiacomo, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. DeJiacomo spoke about his struggles with homosexuality and a promiscuous homosexual life.

08:46 PM -- David Williams, representing the El Paso County Republican Party, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Williams stated his belief that civil unions are an "end-run around the will of the voters" and that they are akin to marriage. He spoke about his experience as the student body president of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. He expressed his opinion that the bill does not provide legal protections for individuals who oppose the bill. He responded to questions from the committee.

08:57 PM -- Reverend Horace Fears, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Reverend Fears stated that the spirit of homosexuality led to the death of his brothers by AIDS. He indicated that he respects the rule of law and the will of the people. He spoke about his religious faith and about the will of God. He implored the committee to consider future generations.

09:04 PM -- Mike Norton, representing himself, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Norton shared poll numbers from Citizen Link showing that a majority of Coloradans oppose civil unions and same-sex marriage. He discussed designated beneficiary agreements and stated that civil unions are a slippery slope. He spoke about the impact of the bill on religious liberties. He stressed that same-sex relationships are covered under domestic violence statutes in Colorado. He responded to questions from the committee.

09:19 PM

Representative Gardner closed opposition testimony, but invited the rest of the opponents who signed up to stand. Representative Ferrandino provided closing remarks and asked for a favorable recommendation. A petition supporting civil unions was entered into the official record (Attachment N).

09:25 PM

Representative Gardner asked the committee and the audience to observe rules of civility and decorum after the vote.


BILL:	SB12-002
TIME:	09:26:30 PM
MOVED:	Kagan
MOTION:	Refer Senate Bill 12-002 to the Committee on Finance. The motion passed on a vote of 6-5.
SECONDED:	Pabon
		VOTE
	Baumgardner	No
	DelGrosso	No
	Duran	Yes
	Kagan	Yes
	Lee	Yes
	Nikkel	Yes
	Pabon	Yes
	Ryden	Yes
	Sonnenberg	No
	Waller	No
	Gardner B.	No

Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

09:27 PM

The committee adjourned.