These are all of the legal system bills proposed in the 2020 session. Each bill has its own bill number, please use your browser search feature to find the bill you are interested in. Return to the Colorado home page to pick a different bill category.
None of the text is the opinion of Engage. Each bill's description, arguments for, and arguments against are our best effort at describing what each bill does, arguments for, and arguments against the bill. The long description is hidden by design, you can click on it to expand it if you want to read more detail about the bill. If you believe we are missing something, please contact us with your suggestion. Some of these bills have the notation that they have been sent to the chamber's "kill" committee. This means that the leadership has decided to send the bill to the State committee even though it does not belong there based on its subject matter. This committee, in both chambers, is stacked with members from "safe" districts and the idea is to kill the bill without forcing any less safe members to take a hard vote. It is possible for a bill to survive the kill committee, but it is very rare.
Prime sponsors are given after each bill, with Senate sponsors in () and House sponsors in . They are color-coded by party.
Some bills will have text highlighted in pink or highlighted in orange or highlighted in yellow. Pink highlights mean House amendments to the original bill; orange mean Senate amendments; yellow highlights mean conference committee amendments. The bill will say under the header if it has been amended.
Each bill has been given a "magnitude" category: Mega, Major, Medium, Minor, and Technical. This is a combination of the change the bill would create and the "controversy" level of the bill. Some minor bills that are extending current programs would be major changes if they were introducing something new, but the entire goal here is to allow you to better curate your time. Something uncontroversial likely to pass nearly unanimously that continues a past program may not be worth your time (and please remember, you can still read all of the minor bills!). Technical bills are here to round out the list. They are non-substantive changes.
Click on the House bill title to jump to its section:
Click on the Senate bill title to jump to its section:
HB20-1013 Specify Procedure Ratify Defective Corporate Actions (Lee (D)) [Snyder (D)]
Fiscal Impact: None
Goal: Provide a procedure in law for fixing defective corporate actions.
Creates a procedure for corporations to follow to fix actions taken that we done incorrectly and thus are not valid. This includes improper issuing of stock. This supplements existing common law procedures (procedures worked out by courts over time rather than relying on law). Judicial appeal of a ratification of a defective action is available for 120 days after the fix is made.
To follow this procedure the board of directors of a corporation must state what they need to fix and why, the date of the improper action and that they approve the fix of the improper action. If it relates to the initial selection of the board itself, then the majority of people who held the power at the time the board was chosen must take the same steps. If shareholder approval is required, then a majority of a quorum of shareholders must also approve with appropriate written notice beforehand. If the action involved issuance of stock, then people who received stock in error cannot vote. If shareholder approval is not required, shareholders must still be notified. If any filings were required for the initial erroneous action, they must be redone with an attachment explaining the defective action and fix.
While we do have common law solutions that have built up over time to this problem, it is better to have a legal basis for fixing what generally amounts to administrative errors to provide standardization. This bill does that in a straightforward manner and provides a legal remedy for anyone who believes they would be harmed by the fix.
Our common law approach is fine, we don’t need more hoops for people to jump through.
HB20-1054 Withdraw Plea Agreement If Condition Rejected [Soper (R), Roberts (D)]
Fiscal Impact: None
Goal: Allow prosecutors to withdraw from plea agreements if a judge rejects part of it in the same way defendants can.
Allows prosecutors to withdraw from plea agreements if a judge rejects a specific part of it, in the same way that defendants currently can.
Additional Information: n/a
A plea agreement can be a complicated thing and removing just one aspect of it can make it no longer acceptable. But right now defendants are the only ones that can pull out of an agreement if it no longer works. Prosecutors should have the same leeway.
Prosecutors usually hold most of the cards when it comes to plea deals and if something is going to be rejected by a judge, it will usually be to the defense’s advantage. Allowing prosecutors to then pull out could not only cause more cases clogging up the system but also remove one of the few edges defendants have.