Police officer whistleblowers would get more protection under Colorado bill
State Rep. Jennifer Bacon speaks at an event hosted by Colorado's Black Democratic Legislative Caucus to provide a 2023 legislative preview at Cleo Parker Robinson Dance in Denver, Jan. 25, 2023. (Kevin Mohatt for Colorado Newsline)
A bill that would give Colorado police officers who report misconduct in their office more protection from retaliation passed a House committee on Tuesday, nearly a year after a similar bill failed in the face of law enforcement opposition.
House Bill 25-1031 would allow officers to sue their employers if they face retaliation for reporting a danger to public safety or an alleged crime by another officer. It would clarify that there is whistleblower protection for local law enforcement.
'If someone wants to come forward because there has been a violation of law or policy, they should be protected in doing so,' said Rep. Jennifer Bacon, a Denver Democrat sponsoring the bill.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The bill passed the House Judiciary Committee on a 9-2 vote. Republican Reps. Ryan Armagost of Berthoud and Jarvis Caldwell of Colorado Springs voted against it.
Bacon also ran last year's bill alongside former Rep. Leslie Herod, another Denver Democrat. That bill would have required investigations of reported misconduct and criminalized a failure to report, and was inspired by a former Edgewater police officer who told lawmakers she was retaliated against after she reported a supervising sergeant for sexual assault.
That bill, which was introduced and debated in the final weeks of the legislative session, faced heated opposition from Republicans and law enforcement groups, and failed on its final vote in the House.
Bacon and Rep. Chad Clifford, a Littleton Democrat also on the current bill, leaned on working groups of officers, legislators, legal experts and whistleblowers during the interim to come up with this year's version of legislation. It has the support of the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police.
I'll have a client call. They're aware of something that has happened, but they don't know what to do. They are concerned of the ramifications they will feel if they speak out. Every one of those officers feel that they should speak out.
– Sean McCauley, general counsel for the Colorado Fraternal Order of Police
Some officers have 'very deep, robust civil servant protections from a place like Denver, where they have an entire department to deal with this stuff,' Clifford said. 'Not everybody has a department, so we were able to bring the experts together who understand the right way to do it.'
'Everything that's in the four corners of this bill is related to a police officer having the protections that they need to do their job effectively and not get jammed up in their careers,' he said.
The bill expands the definition of retaliation from discharge and demotion to also include actions like suspension, creation of a hostile work environment, work hour reduction, and issuing a rating that could adversely affect an officer's future employment.
Sean McCauley, general counsel for the CFOP, said the issue of whether to report misconduct comes up 'monthly.'
'I'll have a client call. They're aware of something that has happened, but they don't know what to do. They are concerned of the ramifications they will feel if they speak out. Every one of those officers feel that they should speak out,' he said. 'But if you really value your career and you want to move through the organization, you have to decide if this is something that you want to speak out about.'
Under the bill, whistleblowing officers could be awarded damages for financial loss, emotional pain, mental anguish and inconvenience. They could also be reinstated to their agency with back pay. Caldwell said he might be able to support the bill if there's a cap set on those potential lawsuit payouts.
The bill would set a statute of limitations for whistleblower cases of two years.
It would also create an affirmative defense for law enforcement agencies if their actions are determined to not have been retaliatory.
'Affirmative defense would say 'We did cut your hours, but for a different reason,'' Bacon said. 'We see that in other places in employment law, especially in government.'
The bill now heads to the full House chamber for consideration.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump announces $1,000 government-funded accounts for American babies
Donald Trump unveiled a federal program Monday providing $1,000 government-funded investment accounts for American babies, getting backing from top business leaders who said they plan to contribute billions more to an initiative tied to 'the big beautiful bill'. At a White House roundtable with over a dozen CEOs, including from Uber, Goldman Sachs and Dell Technologies, Trump relayed the details of 'Trump accounts' – tax-deferred investment accounts tracking stock market performance for children born between 2025 and 2029. 'For every US citizen born after December 31, 2024, before January 1, 2029, the federal government will make a one-time contribution of $1,000 into a tax-deferred account that will track the overall stock market,' Trump said. The accounts will be controlled by guardians and allow additional private contributions up to $5,000 annually. Trump called it 'a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation'. Related: Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill is built on falsehoods about low-income families | Brigid Schulte and Haley Swenson CEOs from major companies including Michael Dell, Dara Khosrowshahi of Uber, David Solomon of Goldman Sachs, and Vladimir Tenev of Robinhood committed billions for employees' children's accounts. Trump praised the executives as 'really the greatest business minds we have today' who are 'committed to contributing millions of dollars to the Trump account'. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, also at the roundtable, championed the program, saying: 'It's a bold, transformative policy that gives every eligible American child a financial head start from day one. Republicans are proud to be the party we always have been. It supports life and families, prosperity and opportunity.' The program passed the House as part of a massive budget bill but faces stiffer Senate Republican resistance over the broader package. The accounts cannot be implemented as a standalone program and depend entirely on passage of what Trump calls the 'one big, beautiful bill' that is 'among the most important pieces of legislation in our country's history', claiming it's 'fully funded through targeted reforms' including welfare changes and a proposed remittance tax. However, the congressional budget office last week found the bill would also add $2.4tn to the national debt over the next decade while cutting Medicaid and food assistance programs. The CBO analysis showed the bill, which passed the House by a single vote and no Democratic support, would leave 10.9 million more Americans without healthcare by 2034. The treasury-funded accounts, previously called 'Maga accounts' resemble existing 529 college plans but with lower contribution limits – leading some financial advisers to say the Trump accounts may not offer the best investment incentives. The move is also not without precedent: the United Kingdom operated a similar Child Trust Fund with government seed funding from 2002-2011 before discontinuing the program, while Singapore runs the Baby Bonus Scheme that includes government-matched savings accounts for children. Trump was optimistic about returns, saying beneficiaries would 'really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economies into the future'. Johnson warned that failure to pass the legislation would result in 'the largest tax increase in American history' and pushed for swift congressional action on what he called 'pro-growth legislation' that would 'help every single American'. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Voting rights, access bills stopped in the Alabama Legislature
Rep. Thomas Jackson, D-Thomasville (right, at lectern) raises his hand during a debate in the Alabama House of Representatives on March 6, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. Jackson filed an early voting bill this session, which was not considered by a committee, along with other voting-related bills. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) A collection of bills aimed to enhance voting access in Alabama were never considered by committees during the 2025 legislative session, but advocates say the fight for enhanced voting rights in Alabama is not over HB 59, sponsored by Rep. Thomas Jackson, D-Thomasville, would have required one early voting precinct in each county for one week before Election Day. According to a study by the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), about 70% of the ballots cast nationwide in 2020 were cast before Election Day, and 40% were cast before Election Day in 2016. In 2016, 25% of ballots nationwide were cast through early in-person voting, of the states that offer the option, according to the study. 'Senior citizens really brought it to my attention,' Jackson said in an interview on Monday. 'So I drafted it, and I put it the simplest way that I could do it: a week out before the election, four days prior to the elections, and nobody liked that. Republicans don't like that.' Alabama does not allow early voting and does not have no-excuse absentee voting. Amid the COVID pandemic in 2020, state leaders effectively allowed anyone to cast an absentee ballot, but that was rescinded after the election. The League of Women Voters of Alabama supported the measures. Kim Bailey, president of the league, said in an interview Thursday that the bills would expand access to voting in Alabama, which would increase voter turnout in the state. 'You can make a plan, but if something comes up on voting day, you may not be able to get to the ballot box,' Bailey said. 'Voting as a right and not a privilege. I think that's important that they'd be able to exercise that right.' In 2024, there were 3.7 million people registered to vote in Alabama, according to the Secretary of State's website. But only 2.2 million (59%) people voted in the 2024 Presidential election. That was significantly less than the national voter turnout of 88% in 2024, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and the lowest percentage of Alabama voters to cast ballots in a presidential election since 1988. The bill was assigned to the House Constitution, Campaigns and Elections Committee, but Rep. Bob Fincher, R-Woodland, chair of the committee, said he did not take HB 59 up in his committee because he is not in favor of early voting due to the cost to the state. 'It costs the state extra money when you vote early,' he said. 'If there's a change in the campaign, you cannot go back and change your vote.' The Legislative Services Agency did not provide a fiscal note for any of the election access related bills. Although a total cost is not available, Bailey said early voting would utilize state employees that are already working and would be held at locations that are already staffed. 'That wouldn't require a lot of infrastructure cost in those kinds of things, so depending on what the legislation that passes the cost could be not really very much,' Bailey said. Jackson said the potential cost to the state for a week of early voting would be much less than the cost to the state for unconstitutional bills and the congressional redistricting trial. In the state's General Fund budget, a $300,000 line item was added for 'reapportionment litigation fees.' 'We don't have an idea of the cost to the state. Look at all these lawsuits, these millions of dollars that are being paid to lawyers for these unconstitutional bills. That's a cost to the state,' Jackson said. 'See, they can come up with any excuse when they don't want something.' Jerome Dees, the Alabama policy director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in an interview Thursday that he was not surprised the bills were not considered. He said the state has been regressing in voting access and inclusivity for the last decade. 'This bill is really kind of an effort to try and present a new vision of what democracy can and should be in Alabama, which is kind of the home of the civil rights movement,' Dees said. In fact, Dees said the state's congressional redistricting trial has highlighted the need for more voter protections and access. 'The fact that not a single one of these bills that aimed to expand voter access to create oversight over the redistricting process, whether that's at the municipal level, drawing of city council districts or at the state and federal level,' Dees said. 'According to the federal courts, is obviously a problem, just based on recent rulings. The fact that the Legislature intentionally chose not to touch any of those, I think, is as telling as anything.' In 2021, the Alabama Legislature approved congressional district maps that were later challenged in court and struck down in 2022 by a three-judge panel, which ordered the districts to be redrawn. In 2023, the Legislature redrew the maps, which were again challenged by plaintiffs for not meeting the court's requirement of allowing Black voters to elect a candidate of their choice in a second district. The court struck down the 2023 map passed by the Legislature and appointed a special master to submit three potential remedial maps in time for the 2024 election. The Alabama Attorney General's Office said last month the state may forgo drawing new congressional district maps before 2030 to prevent federal oversight of future redistricting, pausing the redistricting for five years. HB 97, sponsored by Rep. Kenyatté Hassell, D-Montgomery, would have allowed voters to cure their absentee ballot affidavit if they submit them before the election and the absentee election manager finds an error. Currently, the ballots are set aside and not counted if election officials find a defect with the affidavits. Hassell said in an interview on Wednesday that the bill would have given absentee voters a better chance for their ballot to be counted. 'People were making mistakes on their ballots, and even though they didn't know they made mistakes,' he said. 'We might have people who voted on an absentee ballot for the last 20 years, and their vote never counted because they made the same mistake over and over again not knowing they made that mistake.' The bill was assigned to Fincher's committee, but Fincher said he did not take it up because of conversations with Hassell and the Secretary of State Wes Allen. 'I've been very clear, I believe in Election Day, not Election month,' Allen said in a statement Monday. Hassell raised concerns that the executive branch had control over what bills did or did not get taken up in committee. 'When one person in the executive branch has an agenda, that shouldn't dictate if we all feel like this is a good piece of legislation that'll help the citizens,' Hassell said. 'That's why we have a House. That's why we have a Senate.' HB 31, sponsored by Rep. Adline Clarke, D-Mobile, allows people with a disability, or those unable to read or write, to designate someone to assist them with delivering an absentee ballot application or the absentee ballot itself, to the election manager. Messages seeking comment from Clarke were left Wednesday and Monday. Dees and Bailey expect the bills to be filed again for the 2026 Legislative Session. 'We're going to keep filing this year, I'm gonna keep filing until something happens,' Jackson said. 'We just have to keep hitting that rock until they crack. That's why I'm still pushing it, because it's the right thing to do, and the people of the state want it.'
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla could lose billions in revenue as Trump administration weighs eliminating a key regulatory credit loophole
Senate Republicans are proposing the elimination of penalties for not abiding by certain fuel efficiency standards. These penalties would render regulatory credits, an incentive for auto companies to abide by the standards, essentially useless. Tesla relies on these credits for a chunk of its revenue, racking up $2.67 billion from them in 2024. As Tesla stock sputters following CEO Elon Musk's feud with President Donald Trump, the EV maker is facing yet another threat from the administration. Republicans are doubling down on efforts to weaken carbon emission standards for the auto industry, which have provided opportunities for companies producing eco-friendly vehicles, such as Tesla, to receive and sell regulatory credits for profit. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation proposed last week eliminating penalties for companies not meeting certain economy fuel standards set to mitigate carbon emissions. The proposal is included in the committee's portion of Trump's sweeping budget bill. After Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were introduced in 1975 as a means of setting standards for fuel efficiency, a credits program emerged following lobbying efforts from auto companies looking to be paid to produce lower emission vehicles. Auto companies that produce a certain amount of energy-efficient cars are given a number of credits, depending on how eco-friendly their manufactured vehicles are. Companies are required to have a certain number of credits annually. While Tesla is able to easily attain these credits as a producer of cars that don't run on gas, other manufacturers, like Ford and Stellantis, are not. Therefore, they buy credits from Tesla, who can sell those credits for practically 100% profit. The Senate committee's proposal would eliminate certain CAFE penalties, rendering the need to have credits useless, Chris Harto, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, told Fortune in an email. 'It also would essentially turn the CAFE standards into nothing more than a reporting requirement with no consequences for automakers who fail to improve the efficiency of the vehicles they sell,' he said. The committee argued the provision would 'modestly' bring down the cost of cars by eliminating CAFE penalties. These CAFE credits have been a boon for Tesla, which has been battered by CEO Musk's controversial involvement in—and departure from—the Trump administration. The EV-maker made $2.76 billion from regulatory credits in fiscal 2024 and $595 million in the first quarter of 2025, according to earnings reports. Tesla reported $420 million in net income the same quarter, meaning without the regulatory credit, the company would not have been profitable. 'A key element of Tesla's profitability has been its ability to generate credits because it makes zero emissions, and sell those credits to more polluting car companies like GM and Ford and Stellantis—primarily gas-guzzlers that don't really want to make clean cars,' Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Fortune. 'By taking away these credits, they're taking away a key element of Tesla's profitability,' he added. Tesla did not respond to Fortune's request for comment. The Senate committee's proposal is one of several efforts by the Trump administration to cut auto sustainability standards. Last month the Senate passed legislation blocking a California effort to ban gas-powered vehicles and mandate sales of only zero-emission cars and light trucks by 2035. The bill, should it be signed by the president, would take a $2 billion bite out of Tesla's revenue, according to JPMorgan analysts. Also in Trump's massive budget bill is the elimination at the end of this year of tax credits up to $7,500 for buyers of certain Tesla and other EV models, which would cost $1.2 billion of Tesla's full-year profit, the analysts calculated. Tesla's credit headaches extend across the Atlantic Ocean. Regulatory credits are common in Europe and Asia, and the European Union, for example, gives credits to European automakers who sell a certain number of zero-emission cars. But as Tesla sales crater overseas—including falling by 49% in April—the EV maker may not be able to reach the number of sales necessary to gain credits. As of April, Tesla—grouped with Ford and Stellantis in a manufacturing pool to achieve the EU's emission standards—are still short of the target, according to a report from the International Council on Clean Transportation. Poor sales could jeopardize Tesla's ability to rack up credits. 'If things go bad for Tesla and they don't sell enough cars this year, they might not have enough credits for what they promised Stellantis and the others,' ICCT managing director Peter Mock told Politico in March. 'Tesla is under pressure.' This story was originally featured on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
