More quiet rewiring of the state, this time on citizen led initiatives. “How do you hold the Colorado PUC accountable? Sunset bill is an opportunity”. Heads up Lakewood, a special election is coming.
More quiet rewiring of the state, this time on citizen led initiatives.
There are a couple bills that I wanted to share. Both are linked at bottom. Both change up the way citizen-led initiatives are done, another small quiet change to the rules for how our state runs.
Let’s go in order. HB26-1320 is linked first below. Screenshot 1 attached shows the summary from that bill’s fiscal note.
Because both of these bills are tightly related (see the last sentence in the picture), let’s pop over to the second bill before discussing either.
Screenshot 2 attached shows the summary from HB26-1084, the bill referenced in HB26-1320.
As some quick added context on fiscal estimates etc. for ballot measures, see screenshot 3 from further down on that same fiscal note.
In both cases these bills make changes to what is called the ballot title, sometimes also the ballot question. To provide you an example, I took a screenshot (see #4 attached) from 2025’s Blue Book for Prop MM.
The ballot title or question is something that needs to be single subject and a question that can be answered yes or no. If you want more on that, you will find it in the third link below.
There are some other things that must be in a ballot title, specific language about taxes, increasing taxes, etc. For example, the following must appear in the ballot title for something that would reduce tax revenue to the state through a revenue change, the following (quoted from HB26-1320’s bill language): “Shall there be a reduction to the (description of tax) by (the percentage by which the tax is reduced in the first full fiscal year that the measure reduces revenue) thereby reducing state revenue, which will likely reduce funding for state expenditures that include but are not limited to (the three largest areas of program expenditure) by an estimated (projected dollar figure of revenue reduction to the state in the first full fiscal year that the measure reduces revenue) in tax revenue...?”
These two proposed bills make some small changes to that.
HB26-1320 spends quite a bit of time on “plain language” which is defined in the bill. I don’t know that I see a problem there. The changes that are of note in this bill are that the language can be moved around at will by the Title Board (the unelected triumvirate that decides on ballot titles).
Go revisit the ballot title for Prop MM I attached. Think about the last print advertisement you last read. Where was the text they wanted you to pay attention to? Where was the text they didn’t?
As things stand now, there is a definite order and definite language. There’s no guarantee of a problem or malfeasance, but do we want the Title Board to decide on their own? You have to remember that the Title Board is made up of someone from the Secretary of State’s office, the AG’s office, and someone from the Office of Legislative Legal Services (the legislature’s attorney). Given who’s been in those offices up til now and who’s likely to be there after the next election, do you trust them enough to increase their discretion?
In reading HB26-1084 I was reminded of a 2021 bill (linked fourth if you want to revisit it). Both bills require additional language to the ballot question. Both require language that makes claims about what the initiative would do long before it becomes law.
For the 2021 bill, the added language was there as a scare tactic (”if you lower taxes your children won’t get a good education and old people will die without medical care”).
For the current bill, HB26-1084, it’s not quite a scare tactic, but you do have to talk about cuts. Quoting the fiscal note: “...specifying reductions in public services or programs, the ballot title must include language identifying the top three areas of state expenditures that will be reduced if the measure passes.”
Speculative language for both. Decisions not yet made because ultimately they are decisions the legislature and governor make. No context required to orient readers to this fact.
And none of that changes a problem inherent with these statements, namely that the nature of state financial forecasts is to be (at times) wildly inaccurate. The loss (or gain) of revenue can be big, small, or zero.**
This is what quiet rewiring looks like. It’s changing, not any one particular move, but the rulebook for the game, slowly and incrementally. It’s giving discretion to unelected boards, boards that they know will be controlled by friendly people.
**A great example here being how the Big Beautiful Bill made it such that Props MM and LL might not have been necessary in the first place because of the changing financial environment at the Federal level. See “Related” below for more.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB26-1320
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB26-1084
https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/guide/2-BallotTitle.html
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1321
Related:
Re. the speculative nature of financial forecasts for the state, Nash Herman's (of Independence Institute) op ed about how the Big Beautiful Bill actually seemed to increase funding for our state's "free" lunch program.
Something policymakers knew at the time they put Prop MM and LL on the ballot asking for more money (and to keep existing).
https://completecolorado.com/2025/11/20/voters-sold-false-bill-of-goods-props-ll-mm/
“How do you hold the Colorado PUC accountable? Sunset bill is an opportunity”
The quote above is the title of the commentary piece linked at bottom.
I’ve bemoaned the lack of accountability for unelected boards like the PUC for a while now. Would that our state, esp after the Democrat takeover starting in 2019, did not invest so much authority and power in the hands of unelected boards. I mean, electeds are sometimes no guarantee, but at least there’s the chance of firing them if you don’t like what they do; at least they have some incentive to bother listening to your thoughts.
The Colorado PUC is one of the worst examples of an unelected board I can think of because it’s only three appointees for the entire state, and they were all Polis appointees (with Polis not giving a tinker’s damn about appointing people from a variety of places/perspectives/backgrounds). It, along with CPW, is the quintessential example of stuffing a board with advocates.
When you have a chance to speak up about these things, when you have a chance to push back, you should take it. That is the essence of the op ed linked at bottom: you have a chance this year. You should take it.
The PUC will be undergoing its sunset review this legislative term,** with the Democrats trying to make it even worse than it already is in a number of ways. If you want to see the bill, that’s linked second below.
Cracking open the PUC leaves it open to change, but on the flip side, it provides a chance for you to go on record. You can follow the sunset legislation in the usual manner.
I want to end with the author’s ending words from the op ed. Quoting:
“Our legislature is debating the PUC Sunset Legislation. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission is not going away. I have asked several folks familiar with the issue ‘is there any accountability today for the Commission?’ The answer has been ‘none’. Let’s hope accountability, even shared accountability, is part of the debate.”
I agree, but I urge you to join me in doing more than idly hoping. I urge you to take your opportunity to speak up when this hits the Senate and/or write to your state senator about it.
**I am watching the bill but it seems, as of this writing, to be stalled and in limbo. I will update. If you hear and don’t see something from me, give me a heads up!
https://club20foundation.org/2026/03/how-do-you-hold-the-colorado-puc-accountable-sunset-bill-is-an-opportunity/
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/HB26-1326
Heads up Lakewood, a special election is coming.
If you live in Lakewood or know someone who does, there's a special election coming tomorrow (Tuesday) to decide whether to repeal the actions of your city council.
Don't forget to vote and/or encourage someone you know to do so.
Be careful too! Remember that the voting language is often backwards to what you might think.
Per the 9News article below (with a brief summary of each measure): "A YES vote on any of the four questions is a vote AGAINST the zoning ordinance, repealing Council’s decision. A NO vote is FOR the ordinance, keeping the council decisions in place."
So that's YES I want them repealed or NO I do not want them repealed.
More on the measures below.
Speak up and let your voice be heard!
https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/local-politics/lakewood-special-election-tuesday-ballot-issues-explained/73-4362fb00-d84c-4a21-b9cf-e1673422ab36?tbref=hp