Colorado Civil Justice League

Colorado’s litigation-crazed legislature continues to expand opportunities for billboard lawyers and their plaintiff-clients to file lawsuits against anything that moves.  Still, Colorado Civil Justice League, our members and allies enjoyed measured success in a daunting political environment.

In the recently-adjourned session of the Colorado General Assembly, lawmakers introduced 45 bills that created new private lawsuits or expanded liability under existing laws.  Of those, 26 passed and were either signed into law by Governor Polis or are awaiting his decision to sign or veto.  (That’s right on par with 2024 when 46 such bills were introduced and 26 became law.)

Among the worst of these:

House Bill 1239 which exponentially expands the definition of damages under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, particularly regarding accessibility for the disabled.

Already a magnet for drive-by lawsuits filed by “tester” plaintiffs who have never actually visited the business they’re suing, Colorado will now offer an even bigger incentive by allowing plaintiffs to automatically claim $50,000 in non-economic damages for emotional stress or inconvenience.

As Colorado business owners testified, the lawsuit factories that file these claims often offer to settle for $15,000 with no regard for whether the obstacle to accessibility is resolved.  Under HB 1239, the cost of settlement just skyrocketed by an additional $50,000.

Another provision allows plaintiffs to sue for $5,000 per person per violation, so a group of, say, six people can visit a restaurant, movie theater or convenience store, then file a lawsuit, each claiming five violations and seek $150,000 (6 people x 5 violations each x $5,000 per violation).

This year, proponents even admitted they cared more about the ability to sue than about resolving obstacles accessibility.

HB 1239 was sponsored by Reps. Yara Zokaie (D-Fort Collins) and Andrew Boesenecker (D-Fort Collins) and Sens. Lindsay Daughtery (D-Arvada) and Mike Weissman (D-Aurora).

House Bill 1001 appears based on the faulty premise that Colorado employees have inadequate recourse should an employer fail to page wages due.  That’s simply not true.  A simple mistake can result in penalties of up to 4x wages owed plus $4,000.  A willful violation can result in penalties of 5 ½ times wages owed plus up to $6,000.

This bill, sponsored by House Majority Leader Monica Duran (D-Lakewood), Rep. Meg Froelich (D-Denver), and Senators Jessie Danielson (D-Wheat Ridge) and Chris Kolker (D-Littleton) amounts to little more than creating a bundle of new financial incentives for labor lawyers to bring lawsuits, while nullifying the remaining legal provisions that discourage frivolous lawsuits.

The bill expands the definition of employer to allow litigation not only against the company itself but also against any individual who owns 25% interest.  It also creates new claims for “noneconomic loss” such as emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish and loss of enjoyment of life.

Finally, the bill replaces the time-tested tool that allows employers who successfully defend a wage complaint to recover attorney fees and costs.  The prior test said the employer could recover those costs if the employee rejected a settlement offer but failed to recover more in court.  That’s a simple, bright-line that encouraged the employer to make a good-faith offer and the employee to seriously consider it.

The new language says an employer can recover legal expenses only if the court finds the employee “pursued an action lacking substantial justification” – a vague, subjective criteria that creates a playground for plaintiff’s attorneys.

The third horrible bill, Senate Bill 157, is fortunately not headed to the Governor thanks to a bipartisan coalition of senators who stood courageously for common sense.  This is the latest iteration of the perennial policy pursuit by Sen. Mike Weissman (D-Aurora), himself an attorney, to make it easier for almost every lawsuit to include a consumer protection claim, thereby adding a claim for treble damages, plus attorney fees and costs.

Weissman routinely sponsored similar legislation during his eight years in the Colorado House.  This year’s bill was also sponsored by Sen. Julie Gonzales (D-Denver) and Reps. Javier Mabrey (D-Denver) and Briana Titone (D-Arvada).

Passing SB 157 would amount to pouring gas on the fire of Colorado’s housing affordability crisis, while subjecting all other business to increased threats of litigation in ordinary consumer disputes.  CCJL applauds those lawmakers who recognized this bill as a threat not only to business but to consumers who value choice and convenience in the marketplace over the distant prospect of striking it rich in the litigation lottery.

A few rays of hope

To be fair, the legislature did pass some bills that move in a modestly positive direction.

Most notably, House Bill 1272 creates a voluntary program for builders of multi-family housing that choose to provide a six-year warranty and work with a qualified third-party inspector.

This effort, championed by Rep. Shannon Bird (D-Westminster), along with Rep. Boesenecker (D-Fort Collins) and Senate President James Coleman (D-Denver) and Sen. Dylan Roberts (D-Edwards), limits claims against builders to damage that affects the functionality of the property, actual or unreasonably risk of injury or death, or actual loss of use.  Before a homeowner can file a lawsuit, all available remedies under the warranty must be exhausted.

Median home prices now approach $550,000, making Colorado the fourth most-expensive state to buy a house.  Even with HB 1272, there’s little indication companies that offer construction insurance are willing to return to our state’s litigious market, so builders wanting to participate in the new program may be required to do so without the safety net of insurance.  Only time will tell whether this bill leads to construction of entry-level housing.

Lawmakers also passed two bills with liability protections:

• HB 1053, by Reps. Tisha Maura (D-Pueblo) and Ron Weinberg (R-Loveland) and Sen. Janice Marchman (D-Loveland) and Mark Baisley (R-Woodland Park, provides immunity from landowners who allow emergency access onto their property.
• SB 35, by Sens. Lisa Frizell (R-Castle Rock) and Dafna Michaelson Jenet (D-Commerce City) and Reps. Chad Clifford (D-Denver) and Weinberg (R-Loveland), tightens the time in which a claim may be brought against a real estate appraiser.

For CCJL, a successful year in a climate of adversity

Colorado Civil Justice League strives to represent everday Coloradans who have lives and responsibilities and aren’t usually dialed into to legislation that will make their lives more expensive.  Everyday consumers count on our state’s job creators, housing providers, health care professionals, and those who help manage our financial security.

At CCJL, we know teamwork is a key to success in a legislature which is clearly sympathetic to the arguments of plaintiffs’ lawyers.  Working with our members and allies, we try to amplify the voice of everyday Coloradans in a legislature that always hears from billboard lawyers and their clients.

This year, CCJL saw remarkable success in bills on which we engaged.  Eight of 13 bills which our members voted to oppose ultimately died.  Meanwhile, we supported five bills, four of which passed.  And while making a bad bill “less bad” isn’t glamorous, it nonetheless provides a service to the many Coloradans who have no choice but to live with those laws.

Some key successes produced by the hard work of our lobbying team, Amy Attwood and Jennifer Mello, working with our members and allies:

• Removed the private right of action from the so-called “junk fee bill,” HB 1090. Thanks to members of the Colorado Senate, violations of this bill can only be pursued by the Attorney General, not contingency-fee attorneys who create a cottage industry by filing “junk fee” lawsuits.
• HB 1264 purported to prohibit use of “surveillance data” but also would have interfered with various customer loyalty programs; it died in House Judiciary.
• HB 1277 was one of many bills that defined as a “deceptive trade practice” something that wasn’t deceptive at all – in this case, requiring a “warning label” on gas pumps and fuel-burning products. Senate Transportation & Energy Committee put this bill out of its misery – and spared Colorado yet another punchline.
• One of many bills in the legislature’s “war on landlords,” HB 1235 would have allowed tenants to demand a jury trial in eviction proceedings. While this would make it harder to evict sympathetic tenants, it would also have made it more difficult to eject problem tenants who make life miserable for good tenants. Senators of both parties recognized this conundrum, and the bill was killed at sponsor’s request.
• Perhaps the most difficult issue we’ve faced in recent years is the attempt to promise survivors of childhood sexual abuse they can hold perpetrators accountable by changing the law after the fact to file a civil lawsuit, not against the offender but against his or her employer. SCR 2, by Sen. Danielson (D-Wheat Ridge), again sought to ask voters to allow retrospective legislation, which the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional.  Such laws are also likely unconstitutional on other grounds, most notably that “justice” simply cannot be found when facts or allegations are so old that defendants, like school districts or youth sports organizations, have no records, evidence or witnesses.

By Mark Hillman, from the Denver Post

A bill now under consideration in the Colorado Senate threatens an explosion of drive-by disability lawsuits in Colorado courts.

House Bill 25-1239 was originally presented as a re-organization of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), but the bill doesn’t merely modify or update remedies.  Instead, it creates, through legislative fiat, new “damages” that do not otherwise exist.

For example, the bill (introduced by Reps. Yara Zokaie and Andrew Boesenecker, both D-Fort Collins) entitles a plaintiff with a successful CADA claim to collect $50,000 in damages for pain and suffering, inconvenience or emotional stress.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg.  To further fuel litigation, the bill allows a fine of $5,000 per plaintiff for each violation.

These are damages paid by a local business, usually for a simple oversight.

Colorado has a history of laptop plaintiffs – some from out-of-state – who file drive-by lawsuits against our local businesses.  Court records often show that these plaintiffs never even visited the businesses they’re suing.  Worse still, they file lawsuits by the dozen.

The Denver Post previously criticized “those exploiting this important law for personal gain” and called drive-by lawsuits “predatory.”  If HB 1239 becomes law, many lawsuits, once filed under federal law, will now shift to state courts because damage provisions are more lucrative.

Two years ago, several small-business owners testified to a legislative committee that ADA plaintiffs’ lawyers had filed spurious complaints, alleging what appeared to be a random list of violations in an attempt to frighten and intimidate them.  In these cases, plaintiffs’ lawyer offered to make their complaints go away for $15,000 with little concern about whether the alleged ADA violations were corrected or not.

One of those businesses, a Conifer restaurant, closed as a result, putting all its employees out of a job.

If HB 1239 becomes law, the price of settling these dubious lawsuits won’t be $15,000.  Instead, add $50,000 for “inconvenience” and “emotional stress.”  Then instead of one plaintiff, a group of plaintiffs, each claiming $5,000 per violation, can sue together.  Six plaintiffs, each alleging five violations at $5,000 apiece, could claim $150,000 in additional fines.

Earlier this year, Chief Justice Monica Marquez asked the legislature for 28 new judgeships, citing the courts’ increased workload which she politely attributed, at least in part, to bills passed by the legislature in recent years.

No wonder!

Originally, this bill expanded the period to first bring complaints to the Colorado Civil Rights Division from 60 days to one year.  Legislative analysts said that would cost the state up to $2.2 million a year.  Amazingly, those same analysts ignore the cost of diverting dozens of cases from federal courts into our state court system and creating juicy financial incentives for lawsuits to multiply.

For anyone who scoffs at complaints about frivolous lawsuits, CCRD’s most recent annual report shows that out of 125 public accommodation complaints in 2022-23, only nine were found to show probable cause for further action.

Many business owners and managers believe that when they receive a certificate of occupancy, that means their facility complies with local zoning ordinances and other relevant codes as well.  To their credit, legislators passed HB 1030 (sponsored by Reps. Junie Joseph, D-Boulder, and Rebekah Stewart, D-Arvada) to require local governments to conform their building codes to accessibility standards.

Often, the first time business owners learn of an accessibility problem is when they are notified of a lawsuit.  That’s just crazy.  Someone with a legitimate grievance can surely put themselves in the business owner’s shoes long enough to recognize a much more productive strategy is to first advise the owner of the problem without filing a lawsuit.

Admittedly, a polite letter or phone call won’t always bring about action, but when it does, disability advocates have created a cooperative relationship to the benefit of everyone involved.

Bill sponsors will claim to be giving business a break because the bill purports to give a 50% reduction in damages to a business that makes a good-faith effort to resolve the problem.  But that language in the bill is a garbled mess that appears to apply only to $50,000 in newly-created non-economic damages and is contradicted elsewhere in the bill.

In the last decade, the cost of litigation to Colorado consumers has become one of the worst in the nation, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  House Bill 1239 and others like it, all relentlessly based on a “lawsuit first” mentality, will only make matters worse.

Mark Hillman is executive director of Colorado Civil Justice League.

The annual ritual to make it easier for plaintiffs lawyers to seek treble damages in most lawsuits died yesterday (April 1) in the Colorado Senate on a vote of 16-19.

Thank you to the bipartisan coalition of Senators who recognized Senate Bill 157 as bad public policy that will only drive up the cost of homes, home and auto insurance, and ultimately add a hidden “tort tax” to many of the goods and services Coloradans buy and sell.

Thank you, also, to our members and allies in the business community for their diligent efforts to defeat this bill as in years past.

Voting NO were Senators Judy Amabile (D-Boulder), Mark Baisley (R-Woodland Park), Scott Bright (R-Brighton), John Carson (R-Highlands Ranch), Marc Catlin (R-Montrose), Lindsay Daugherty (D-Arvada), Lisa Frizell (R-Castle Rock), Barbara Kirkmeyer (R-Brighton), Larry Liston (R-Colorado Springs), Paul Lundeen (R-Monument), Janice Marchman (D-Loveland), Dafna Michaelson Jenet (D-Commerce City), Kyle Mullica (R-Thornton), Byron Pelton (R-Sterling), Rod Pelton (R-Cheyenne Wells), Janice Rich (R-Grand Junction), Dylan Roberts (D-Edwards), Cleave Simpson (R-Alamosa), and Marc Snyder (D-Manitou Springs).

By Mark Hillman, Denver Post, January 12, 2025

Everywhere we turn, there’s an ad for a lawyer – on television, streaming services, radio, podcasts, public transportation and, of course, billboards.

Not so long ago, the legal profession observed a self-imposed ban on advertising by law firms, considering such self-promotion unprofessional. In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled such bans to be an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech.

What began as a trickle of unremarkable professional services ads is now a deluge. Lawyers in the U.S. spend an estimated $2.4 billion annually on advertising. One survey finds that in 2023 law firms spent more than $40 million on advertising just in Colorado.

Billboard lawyers don’t spend that kind of money because they are desperate. They advertise because litigation is profitable – especially in Colorado.

For reasons that defy common sense, our lawmakers increasingly choose to make filing a lawsuit the first option for solving disputes. In just the past two years, the legislature passed 53 bills that created new opportunities for Coloradans to file lawsuits.

That’s just crazy!
read more…

Governor Polis vetoed two bills that put employers in the crosshairs for still more lawsuits, improving the product of this year’s Colorado General Assembly.  Still, legislators passed 25 bills that use the threat of litigation for enforcement, either by creating private rights of action (PROA) or defining new “deceptive trade practices” under the Colorado Consumer Code.

To their credit, legislators passed two bills to enhance protections against lawsuits:

Senate Bill 58, sponsored by Sens. Dylan Roberts (D-Avon) and Mark Baisley (R-Woodland Park) and Reps. Shannon Bird (D-Westminster) and Briana Titone (D-Arvada), created protections for property owners to allow limited public access through their property to reach or extend hiking trails, including to some of Colorado’s 14,000-foot mountain peaks.

House Bill 1309, by Reps. Elizabeth Velasco (D-Glenwood Springs) and Rick Taggart (R-Grand Junction) and Sens. Roberts (D-Avon) and Janice Rich (R-Grand Junction), extends immunity from liability for individuals or organizations that assist with search and rescue operations.

Both bills were supported by Colorado Civil Justice League, as was Senate Bill 129, by Sens. Chris Kolker (D-Littleton) and Byron Pelton (R-Sterling) and Reps. Chris Kennedy (D- ) and Lisa Frizell (R-Castle Rock), which prohibits public agencies from requiring nonprofits to disclose data about their members. read more…

From The Denver Post:

By Mark Hillman

Last year’s lawsuit binge by the Colorado legislature is only getting worse.

Rather than use the executive branch to enforce laws (like we learned in school), legislators continue to write bills using private lawsuits for enforcement.  That means our laws are enforced not by an agency with experience handling a specific type of claim.  Instead, enforcement lawsuits encourage anyone who believes she was wronged to file a lawsuit against the supposed offender.

This is poor public policy because billboard lawyers have little accountability and judges are left to sort out all manner of claims from employment disputes to environmental regulations.  While executive branch “bureaucrats” may make mistakes, at least they are accountable to the governor who appointed them and to the legislature that controls their purse strings.

In 2023, a record 25 bills used private lawsuit enforcement, according to Common Sense Institute.  As of March 14, at least 37 such bills have been introduced this year. read more…

Published at ColoradoPolitics.com.

On Feb. 7, a Colorado Senate committee heard heart-rending testimony from people who suffered sexual abuse beginning as minors at the hands of a trusted adult.  These witnesses asked lawmakers to pass SCR 1, offering voters an amendment to the Colorado constitution to allow retrospective lawsuit legislation.

Simply put, it would allow government to change the rules many years after the fact – not to put an abuser in jail but to file a lawsuit though almost never against the actual abuser.

Anyone hearing the horribly scarring experiences of these victims feels a very human desire to punish anyone responsible.  But we must first recognize the difference between prosecuting the actual predator and filing a civil lawsuit.

The ultimate form of accountability is to put predators in prison where they cannot prey on other children.  Currently, there is no limit on criminal charges for any sex offense against a child that occurred prior to 1996.  So, for anyone born after 1981 (now age 42 or younger), the ability to press charges against a child predator remains, although proving those charges many years after the fact and “beyond a reasonable doubt” (the standard for a criminal conviction) can be daunting.

The standard for a civil lawsuit is much lower, “a preponderance of evidence” or more than 50% likely to be true.  That shifts the legal burden in favor of the victim but creates genuine issues of fairness for the accused defendant.

However, the defendant in a civil lawsuit is almost never the person who committed the sexual abuse.  That’s because the perpetrator, if not in jail or deceased, is usually “judgment proof” – i.e., has little income or assets.  A plaintiff’s lawyer will almost never file a lawsuit against a child predator who cannot possibly pay up.

Instead, civil lawsuits are brought against institutions that employed or supervised the perpetrator and do have enough resources to pay the monetary damages a jury might award.  Civil defendants are likely to be schools, municipalities that offer youth activities, organizations like Boy Scouts of America and churches.  Sometimes these institutions were indeed negligent.

In 2021, the legislature entirely eliminated any time limit to bring a lawsuit for childhood sexual abuse after Jan. 1, 2022.  That bill also eliminated the statute of limitation for existing claims.  Because state law allowed these lawsuits to be filed six years after the victim reached age 18, there is now no statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims by any victim born after Jan. 1, 1998.

But just as it’s difficult to prove a criminal case from 20 years ago, it can be virtually impossible for a defendant employer to find records showing how the accused person was supervised 20 years ago.

One defense attorney told the Senate committee, “I’ve addressed claims from the 1940s.”  Witnesses are dead, and all the documents and evidence are long gone.  The people in charge back then are no longer around or even alive.

After legislators passed a retrospective 2021 bill to allow lawsuits for abuse back to 1960, public schools were often targets.  But even if administrators, teachers or coaches were at fault back then, they are long gone today.  If a lawsuit for heinous conduct in 1960 or even 1980 is successful, the punishment won’t be meted out against the people at fault.  Instead, the school ordered to pay, say, $10 million in damages would have no choice but to take that money from classrooms serving students today because you can’t buy insurance for 40-year-old claims.

Is that truly justice?

That’s why just last year the Colorado Supreme Court ruled unanimously that retrospective legislation creating new liability for past actions is prohibited by the Colorado Constitution.  The court’s role as a “truth seeker” requires adversaries to each produce their best evidence to prove their case.  However, truth cannot be found if a claim is so old one party has no evidence to defend itself.

SCR 1 also likely fails two other constitutional tests – due process and takings.  Legislators should recognize these infirmities and not make more political promises that won’t stand up in court.

Bill sponsors want to protect kids.  In fact, current law does protect today’s kids by allowing criminal and civil actions without limitation reaching back 10 years or more.

While SCR 1 seeks to right past wrongs, it does so through selective litigation that doesn’t target sexual predators but instead targets schools and institutions for wrongs committed by people who are no longer around to suffer the consequences.

Originally published in Colorado Politics.

By Mark Hillman

Businesses that fuel Colorado’s economic engine can’t be blamed for cringing at the specter of the Colorado legislature’s return this month.  Plaintiffs lawyers, however, are not cringing.  Instead, the people who pay to put their faces on billboards along our busiest highways are licking their chops.

Last year, lawmakers went on a lawsuit binge, introducing a record 25 bills that used private lawsuits for enforcement, rather than entrusting enforcement to a government agency.  According to the Common Sense Institute, 43 similar bills have been introduced since 2019.

Using litigation for enforcement violates the constitutional separation of powers.  As most of us learned in school, the legislative branch writes the laws, the executive branch enforces the law, and the judicial branch applies or interprets the law.  Enforcement agencies are accountable to our elected officials; that’s why enforcement of state laws is typically their responsibility.  Billboard lawyers, by contrast, are accountable to no one except their clients, and both are given an incentive to sue by this misguided legislation.

Lawsuits should be a last resort, used when all other options are exhausted.  Instead, private lawsuits make litigation a primary means of enforcement.  A business owner’s first formal notification of a complaint shouldn’t be when served with a lawsuit. read more…

Jordan Lipp, a member attorney at Childs McCune, has been selected as 2023 Lawyer of the Year by Colorado Civil Justice League.  He will receive this award at CCJL’s Legislative Awards Luncheon on Oct. 10.

A longtime member of CCJL’s Legal Advisory Board, Jordan has broad experience representing manufacturers, including car, truck, farm and construction machinery, and oil and gas companies.  He also works regularly with companies regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

However, Jordan’s expertise in outdoor recreation has been particularly valuable to CCJL and its members.  Jordan was instrumental in drafting recent amendments to provide liability protection for agri-tourism.  He likewise has practiced extensively in the Ski Safety Act and Equine Activities Act.

When a bill to address landowner liability was introduced in the legislature earlier this year, Jordan was our first call to evaluate the bill and suggest improvements.  He jumped right in and has worked closely with proponents.  He also provided informed and persuasive testimony during the bill’s only hearing.  He has continued to work on behalf of CCJL with the Colorado Recreational Use Coalition during the interim.

Former Justice Rebecca Kourlis will keynote the Oct. 10 awards event, which will also honor legislators with the Common Sense in the Courtroom Award.  The event is sponsored by American Furniture Warehouse, COPIC, Colorado Hospital Association, State Farm, Rocky Mountain Mechanical Contractors Association, Husch Blackwell, Spencer Fane and Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell.

DENVER — Colorado Civil Justice League announced winners of its Common Sense in the Courtroom Awards, given to state legislators who have demonstrated a commitment to curtailing lawsuit abuse and protecting small business and working families from the cost of frivolous litigation.

Awards will be presented at a luncheon on Oct. 10 at the Denver Four Seasons, sponsored by American Furniture Warehouse, COPIC, Colorado Hospital Association, State Farm, Rocky Mountain Mechanical Contractors Association, Husch Blackwell, Spencer Fane and Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell.

CCJL is the only organization in Colorado exclusively dedicated to stopping lawsuit abuse while preserving a system of civil justice that fairly compensates legitimate victims.

“Common Sense in the Courtroom requires justice for those who have been harmed by someone else, balanced by fairness for those who may be wrongfully accused,” said CCJL executive director Mark Hillman.

Unfortunately, the Colorado General Assembly created too many new opportunities for lawsuits – against employers, property owners, and manufactuers – during its 2023 legislative session.

This continues a dismal trend of creating higher costs for Colorado businesses.  A new study by Common Sense Institute shows that in just the past four years, the state legislature has passed at least 43 bills that expand litigation.

However, bipartisan coalitions came together to put the brakes on expansions of lawsuits by creating new opportunities to sue for “emotional damages” or to seek treble damages.

“At CCJL, we are grateful for the bipartisan support of legislators who understand the importance of an efficient and balanced court system to our state’s economic health,” Hillman said.

Common Sense in the Courtroom Award recipients include:

• Representatives Ryan Armagost (Bethoud), Shannon Bird (Westminster), Rod Bockenfeld (Watkins), Scott Bottoms (Colorado Springs), Mary Bradfield (Colorado Springs), Brandi Bradley (Littleton), Marc Catlin (Montrose), Ken DeGraaf (Colorado Springs), Gabe Evans (Fort Lupton), Lisa Frizell (Castle Rock), Anthony Hartsook (Parker), Richard Holtorf (Akron), Stephanie Luck (Penrose), Mike Lynch (Fort Collins), Bob Marshall (Highlands Ranch), Barbara McLachlan (Durango), Rose Pugliese (Colorado Springs), Marc Snyder (Manitou Springs), Matt Soper (Delta), Rick Taggart (Grand Junction), Ron Weinberg (Loveland), Don Wilson (Monument), and Ty Winter (Trinidad).

• Senators Mark Baisley (Woodland Park), Bob Gardner (Colorado Springs), Joann Ginal (Fort Collins), Barbara Kirkmeyer (Brighton), Larry Liston (Colorado Springs), Paul Lundeen (Monument), Kyle Mullica (Thornton), Byron Pelton (Sterling), Rod Pelton (Cheyenne Wells), Kevin Priola (Henderson), Janice Rich (Grand Junction), Dylan Roberts (Eagle), Cleave Simpson (Alamosa), Jim Smallwood (Parker), Kevin Van Winkle (Highlands Ranch), Perry Will (New Castle), and Rachel Zenzinger (Arvada).