The Colorado Supreme Court In Denver

The Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center in downtown Denver, home of the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling Monday, decided that Senate Democrats had violated the state Constitution in allowing a 2,023-page bill to be read at length by a bank of computer automated-reading programs. But the Court also ruled that a 2019 decision by a Denver District Court judge that set a methodology for reading bills "went too far."

The case stems from a reading of House Bill 1172 on March 11, 2019. Sen. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, in a move designed to delay legislative action and force Democrats to the table, asked that the bill, which he sponsored, be read at length. At first, Senate Reading Clerk Andrew Carpenter, who was ill with a cold at the time, read for about two hours. Senate Democrats then decided to set up a bank of computers, all loaded with automated-reading software. The computers all took a separate section of the bill and read them simultaneously, at around 650 words per minute. The reading took a total of seven hours.

The state's highest court said the simultaneous reading of the bill by the computers did not comply with the state Constitution's reading requirement. "There are unquestionably different ways by which the legislature may comply with the reading requirement. But the cacophony generated by the computers here isn't one of them," in the opinion authored by Justice Carlos Samour, and in which Chief Justice Brian Boatright, Justices Richard Gabriel and Maria Berkenkotter agreed. Justices Monica Marquez, Melissa* Hart and William Hood signed onto two dissenting opinions.

Although "it is the judiciary's prerogative and responsibility to declare that the legislature did not comply" with the reading requirement, the majority opinion stated that the judiciary "has no business" dictating the specifics of how the General Assembly complies with the reading requirement, and in doing so the district court "trespassed upon the separation-of-powers tenet so essential to our constitutional system of government." 

Denver District Court Judge David Goldberg ruled on March 19, 2019, that the reading had to be at an understandable speed, although he didn't define what that would be. In his ruling, Goldberg said that the Senate had to "employ a methodology that is designed to read legislation in an intelligible and comprehensive manner, and at an understandable speed."

The original lawsuit was filed against Senate President Leroy Garcia Jr. and Cindi Markwell, secretary of the Senate. The plaintiffs were Gardner, Sen. John Cooke, R-Greeley, and Senate Minority Leader Chris Holbert, R-Douglas County.

The Court, while struggling to define "reading" as it is expressed in the Constitution, nonetheless found that "the unintelligible computer sounds did not conform with any of the proffered definitions." The bill's words were not uttered or pronounced in their proper order, the opinion stated. "Instead, the computers combined to create a noisy mishmash."

The Court's opinion agreed with the District Court's view that unintelligible computer sounds did not constitute reading. But the lower court also told the legislature how to comply, and that was a mistake, the High Court's opinion said.

That error stems from directing Markwell (and her staff) to read the legislation "in an intelligible and comprehensive manner, and at an understandable speed." That's problematic, the opinion stated, because "it imposes parameters around the form or manner by which the legislature" complies with the reading requirement.

In her dissent, Marquez said the Court's majority opinion did not interpret the section of the state Constitution at issue: Article V, Section 22. The majority's opinion only said that the legislature violated the Constitutional provision, but not why, Marquez wrote. 

Marquez raised a number of questions around the "why," such as should words be read in their proper order, or should listeners be able to comprehend the text of the bill? "In my view, the plain language" of the Constitution "simply requires that bills be 'read,' or uttered aloud. Nothing more." The Constitution does not require bills be read by a human voice, she wrote, or slowly enough to be intelligible.  The bill was read aloud, she said.

The Court has a duty "to interpret the Constitution and say what the law is," she wrote.

Justice Hood, in his dissent, said the injunction granted by Goldberg was not justified. 

Attorney Christopher Jackson of Holland & Hart told Colorado Politics that the Court didn't give a lot of additional guidance to the General Assembly on what's allowed and what isn't. "If this comes up again, they don't know what's OK going forward, and they'd like to avoid a lawsuit if possible."

Holbert told Colorado Politics on Monday that the decision confirmed the Senate Republicans' understanding of the Constitution. "I think we've always looked at it as reading in a way human beings could understand."

He said he respected the Court's determination that the Denver District Court had exceeded its authority.

Given the consistency in the leadership of the Senate, Holbert said, "we are in a much better place now than we were in March, 2019. We are much more apt to say 'hey, let's sit down and talk this through,'" rather than being in a position of having bills read at length, one of the only tools the minority party has.

The necessity to use that tool is much less today than it was back then, Holbert said. Reading bills at length is actually quite rare, he added. In the 2019 session, out of 598 bills, Senate Republicans asked that 11 be read at length, including HB 1172. 

Bills are required to be read at length twice, unless dismissed by unanimous consent, which is how things most often take place. 

Gardner told Colorado Politics on Monday that the Court vindicated the opposition, that the majority party is bound by the Constitution. "They've made a lot of assertion that the reading [at length] is just a tactic by us to obstruct. But it's in the Constitution to ensure that important legislation gets full consideration by the people's elected representative. It's an important mechanism. We don't use it very often, but when we do, it's because our constitutional forebears intended us to have some leverage. We're gratified that the Supreme Court decided in our favor. It makes a difference for the minority party." It is the right thing for protecting the rights of the minority, he said. 

He suggested that the next step could be to propose a rule to define what it means to read a bill at length. Under that rule, a bill could be read at length by humans, he said, or if it's a machine, the reading wouldn't be any faster than 250 words per minute and in sequence. "It would help a lot to have a rule," he added.

Garcia, in a statement, said they were disappointed by the ruling but he agreed that the use of such delaying tactics are far less than they were a few years ago, and that there is more collaboration with the minority party.

"We are obviously disappointed and disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling, be we certainly intend to honor it," Garcia said. 

"Partisan games and delay tactics frequent Washington's playbook, not Colorado's," he added. "And though we've sadly seen our fair share of wrench-throwing, I am encouraged by how far we've come over the last few years. Bipartisan collaboration has only gotten stronger through the hardship we have faced, and I am confident that we will continue to work together on behalf of all Coloradans — leaving the need for such methods behind."

Correction: Justice Hart was misidentified in a previous version.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.