Colorado is a sanctuary state, 2 Bills to Watch, and a Deep Dive into CO Media.
Yes Jared, Colorado is a sanctuary state, and your actions helped make it that way.
Every time Polis gets called out on some policy he either helped create or signed into law in this state, the response is the same. It's always some version of "oh, stop with the petty politics, I'm focused on [fill in the blank], oh and let's all look at this shiny object over here [furiously waves shiny object]".
Vis. see the statement he gave to the reporter in answer to the question "Is Colorado a 'sanctuary' state?" quoted from the article below.
"'Colorado is not and has never been a sanctuary state and the governor is not focused on buzzwords but on ensuring our law enforcement resources go toward fighting actual crimes to help make Coloradans safer,' a spokesperson for Gov. Jared Polis told Colorado Politics."
Gov Polis, whatever label you put to it, your policies or ones you supported (detailed in the article below), directly contribute to incentivizing migrants to come up here.
Call it what you want, but if it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck ...
it's a duck.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/colorado-in-dc/is-colorado-a-sanctuary-state/article_25215d90-95d8-11ed-8829-6f11739039ea.html
Two bills to watch--one on non-disclosures and one allowing challenges to contempt of court based on the First Amendment.
I saw the article linked first below and it lead me to searching Sen Kirkmeyer's legislator page (I know nothing of the case in the article and didn't do any looking--not the point for me here). When I did I saw the bills linked second and third below that Sen Kirkmeyer is sponsoring.
Those are of interest to me and I've added them to the list of my bills to watch so I can either write an email or (better yet) testify remotely.
I'll give a quick rundown on each bill.
--SB23-053 is a bill that Kirkmeyer runs every year that I've been watching. It is also a bill that gets a quick and firm "NO" from the Democrats running the state. I am not sure why. You may not recall an earlier post I did about non-disclosure agreements following an article I read (see the fourth link below), but I believe they're being abused and we taxpayers are getting to foot the bill.
Given that this one has been assigned to the Senate's kill committee, my guess is that the Democrats this year are going to give it yet another "NO", but I plan to testify regardless if I can. The folks on that committee need to hear from someone paying the bills and wanting transparency.
--SB23-024 is one that allows people to challenge a contempt of court order based on First Amendment grounds. I thought the context in the fiscal note was pretty well put so I did a screenshot of it and attached.
In essence, you can't hardly challenge contempt orders in this state. This bill would allow one on First Amendment grounds so that an important right in our Constitution is protected.
This one is assigned to Judiciary, so it's not an automatic death. I plan to try and testify if I can (or email if I can't). No one person, judge or no, should have power to take away your rights.
https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/kalea-aine-jailed-violating-unconstitutional-gag-order-colorado-mother-child-custody-case/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-053
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-024
https://denvergazette.com/premium/colorados-extensive-use-of-confidentiality-agreements-costs-millions-silences-whistleblowers/article_17b5df0a-606d-11ed-9339-57b3c0d5de77.html
A deep dive into the state of media in Colorado.
If you are deeply interested in media in this state, the link below goes into a lot of detail about changes to the (mostly mainstream and liberal--that's what Mr. Hutchins focuses on) media landscape in Colorado.
Of particular interest to me has been the move to move newspapers into nonprofit status.
The move is not entirely unprecedented: PBS, NPR, CPR are examples of same. Still, as entities move into things like 501 (c) (3) status (see e.g. The Colorado Independent below), I find myself concerned.
I am concerned because I already know quite a few 501 (c) (3)'s; Sixteen Thirty Fund being one of them. These organizations are non profits, do not pay certain taxes, and are not required to share the names of those who donate to them.
In other words, they can get lots of money and not have to disclose who it is from. In other words, I subsidize their editorial stance with extra taxes that they don't pay.
Newspapers should have a voice and, God knows, they have a perspective. I don't care about that. What I do care about is that they're not a front, and that I don't get to subsidize what they do (whether we agree or no).
At any rate, you can at least see some of the moves in that direction in the article below (among other things.
