Colorado senate's override of a veto by Gov. Jared Polis leads to schism at the State Capitol
Override of a veto by Gov. Jared Polis leads to schism at the Colorado State Capitol
Override of a veto by Gov. Jared Polis leads to schism at the Colorado State Capitol
Override of a veto by Gov. Jared Polis leads to schism at the Colorado State Capitol
For the first time in 14 years, Colorado's state legislature could override a governor's veto.
Gov. Jared Polis at the Colorado State Capitol Building in Denver on April 24, 2025.
AAron Ontiveroz/The Denver Post via Getty Images
Gov. Jared Polis vetoed Senate Bill 85 -- which imposes a host of new regulations on social media companies -- saying the bill is unworkable, erodes privacy and could violate civil rights.
The Senate voted 29-6 to override his veto and repass the bill.
State Sen. Lindsey Daugherty, one of the bill's sponsors, accused the governor of caving to big tech.
"If we fail to act and let this veto stand, we are choosing to represent the business interests of billion-dollar tech companies over the safety of Colorado kids," Daugherty said.
The bill requires social media companies to investigate reports of users selling guns or drugs or sexually exploiting kids and remove those users accounts.
They also must comply with law enforcement warrants within 72 hours and publish annual reports that include data on how kids are using their platform, how many complaints they received and the violations they confirmed.
The governor's office received letters from several groups opposing the measure.
His spokesperson says while he supports strengthening law enforcement's ability to crack down on illegal online activity, the bill "fails to guarantee the safety of minors or adults, erodes privacy, freedom, and innovation, hurts vulnerable people, and potentially subjects all Coloradans to stifling and unwarranted scrutiny of our constitutionally protected speech."
State Sen. Lisa Frizell, co-sponsor of the bill, suggested opponents were using scare tactics.
"We've seen so much dis-information about the bill. It's truly disheartening," Frizell said.
It takes two-thirds of both chambers to override a governor's veto. The House delayed a vote until Monday amid heavy pressure from both sides of the issue.
Daugherty worried some lawmakers would change their original vote in favor of the bill.
"The governor's office is actively lobbying against members vetoing his override. The governor does control what happens the rest of session and people are cognizant of that," Daugherty said.
Bill sponsors asked Attorney General Phil Weiser, who is legal counsel for the governor, to weigh in on the bill's constitutionality. He issued a memo saying the state would be likely to win if it were sued, saying the bill applies to illegal activity not protected by the First Amendment, serves the government's interest in protecting public safety and children and allows users the option to appeal their account's removal or use another platform.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for American babies compare to 529s and custodial Roth IRAs
President Donald Trump and American business leaders this week celebrated a provision in his tax bill that would create and fund investment accounts for babies born in the next few years. The accounts would be allowed to compound and grow tax-deferred, similar to the way some retirement accounts work. 'In addition to the substantial financial benefits of investing early in life, extensive research shows that children with savings accounts are more likely to graduate high school and college, buy a home, start a business and are less likely to be incarcerated,' Trump said. 'Trump accounts will contribute to the lifelong success of millions of newborn babies.' Here's what you should know about these 'baby 401(k)s' and how they compare to other savings plans for children. The so-called Trump accounts are part of Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that passed through the House of Representatives last month. Republicans are aiming to get the bill through the Senate and signed by Trump by July 4th. Here's how the accounts would work: The federal government would contribute $1,000 to an investment account for every American baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. An additional $5,000 in after-tax contributions could be made annually to the accounts by parents, employers or other private entities. The money would be invested in index funds that track the overall U.S. stock market. Accounts would be controlled by a child's legal guardians until age 18. Earnings would grow tax-deferred and qualified withdrawals would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. 'The compounded growth of an initial $1,000 investment at the time of birth, at an average annual return of 8 percent, would amount to nearly $4,000 by age 18, more than $10,000 by age 30, and over $148,000 by age 65,' according to Bankrate Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride. 'The key to achieving this type of growth is leaving the money untouched. As Warren Buffett espouses, 'Never interrupt compounding.'' Several business leaders praised the accounts and said they'd make contributions to their employee's kids' accounts. 'We see … the establishment of these Trump Accounts as a simple yet powerful way to transform lives,' Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell said. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success.' Get started: Match with an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals Trump Accounts have some similarities with 529 savings plans, but there are some notable differences. Funding: Trump accounts would be initially funded by the federal government, while 529 plans are typically funded by parents, grandparents or other relatives. Withdrawals: Withdrawals from 529 plans are tax-free as long as they're used for qualified educational expenses. Withdrawals from Trump accounts would have fewer restrictions on their uses, but are taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Contribution limits: Annual contributions for Trump accounts would be limited to $5,000, while 529 plans allow for much higher limits, from about $235,000 to more than $600,000, depending on the state that sponsors the plan (these are lifetime limits; there's no annual limit for 529s). Many people assume that the maximum 529 plan contribution is $19,000 per child in 2025 — or $38,000 if you file jointly — but that's the maximum amount you can contribute without exceeding the annual gift tax limit. (If you give someone more than that limit in any given year, then you're required to file a gift tax return, though you likely still won't owe taxes on the gift.) Here's what else you should know about using a 529 plan to save for your kids' education. Compare advisors: Bankrate's list of the best financial advisors Custodial Roth IRAs also allow kids to set aside money and have it be invested so it grows over time. Here's how they compare to the proposed Trump accounts. Earned income requirement: Trump accounts would be funded at birth and allow for additional contributions each year, while custodial Roth IRAs require a child to have earned income during the year in order to contribute. Contribution limits: Custodial Roth IRA contributions are limited to $7,000 in 2025, or the total amount of earned income a child has during the year, whichever is less. Trump accounts would allow for annual contributions of $5,000. Taxes on withdrawals: Withdrawals from Roth IRAs during retirement are tax-free, while withdrawals from the proposed Trump accounts would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. Here's more on custodial Roth IRAs. The proposed Trump Accounts would create new investment accounts for every American baby born in the next few years, funded with $1,000 from the federal government. The accounts would be invested in index funds that track the U.S. stock market and could receive additional contributions each year of $5,000 from private entities. The plan is subject to change as the bill makes its way through the legislative process. 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
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Challenge to Tampa Bay Senate seat revisits how it was created in 2022
The federal courthouse in Tampa on June 11, 2025. (Photo by Mitch Perry/Florida Phoenix) Day Three of the federal lawsuit alleging that a Tampa Bay area state Senate district was racially gerrymandered focused in part on how that district was created in 2022. The suit, filed by the ACLU of Florida and the Civil Rights & Racial Justice Clinic at New York University on behalf of three residents of Tampa and St. Petersburg, alleges the Legislature packed Black voters into District 16 to reduce their influence in nearby District 18, in violation of their equal-protection rights. Democrat Darryl Rouson serves in SD 16, while Republican Nick DiCeglie is the incumbent in SD 18. The defendants are Senate President Ben Albritton and Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, and their attorneys began their defense on Wednesday, bringing Jay Ferrin back to the witness stand in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Tampa. Ferrin is now a senior adviser to the Florida Senate, but he served as staff director of the Florida Senate Committee on Reapportionment in the fall of 2021, when the districts lines were created. He discussed how he and his staff went about drawing up the Senate districts that year and the guidelines they followed. The reapportionment process beginning that fall was taking place under the guidance of Ray Rodrigues, who chaired the Senate Reapportionment Committee. Defense attorneys aired several Florida Channel video excerpts on Wednesday showing Rodrigues explaining how 'hard lessons were learned' following the Florida Supreme Court's decision in 2015 to throw out the GOP-controlled Legislature's maps after deeming them unlawful under the Fair Districts constitutional amendments adopted by voters in 2010. Rodrigues was insistent that he wanted the 2022 Legislature to conduct itself in such a fashion that the courts would not reject the maps lawmakers would produce. 'This map will withstand a court challenge,' Rodrigues declared on the floor of the Senate. That's what the trial taking place this week will ultimately determine. Ferrin testified that, after his staff created other Senate districts in the Tampa Bay area, there remained about 100,000 residents in Pinellas County who would have to be inserted into another Senate district. (With the population of Florida in 2021 at 21.5 million people, Ferrin said, his staff were tasked to draw approximately 538,438 voters into each of the 40 Senate districts). The resultant SD 16, which encompasses parts of St. Petersburg and Hillsborough County, is similar to the 'benchmark' map created in 2015 that was then known as Senate District 19. Ferrin denied that he was instructed to maintain that same configuration. He also said that under the rules promulgated by Rodrigues, he and his fellow staffers could speak about any new maps only with either the Senate's general counsel or other Senate members — and not the general public. He was not supposed to review public submissions. Florida senators were allowed to propose amendments during the reapportionment process, to add their own maps. Rodrigues and Democratic Sen. Audrey Gibson had filed such amendments, Ferrin said, but no senator had asked him to directly to create any Senate maps. ACLU attorney Nicholas Warren said at the beginning of the morning that he had sought to depose Rodrigues and fellow Republican and committee member Danny Burgess before the trial, but both had asserted legislative privilege, which shields them having to testify in certain lawsuits. In the afternoon, the defense called two expert witnesses who criticized the expert witness testimony and voting analysis that came from the plaintiffs on Tuesday. Steven Voss is a political science professor at the University of Kentucky. When asked to break down the political partisanship of the Tampa Bay area, he included four counties that make up the Tampa Bay metropolitan statistical area — Hillsborough, Pinellas, Polk and Hernando. Based on population, he said, five Senate districts could be folded into the area, and that three historically were reliably Republican while two would favor Democrats. Currently, that breakdown is four Republican districts and one Democratic — with Senate District 14, which Voss said historically favored Democrats, going to the GOP in 2022. Voss took aim at the alternative voting maps produced for the ACLU by Penn State University professor of statistics Cory McCartan. Those maps showed that a district could have been fairly drawn up exclusively in Hillsborough County while still protecting Tier-1 standards there and in Pinellas County. (That involves the Florida Constitution's Fair District Amendment, which says that districts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice). Voss said that the result of McCartan's work was that he was 'cracking and packing' voters in his maps to ultimately help Democrats at the voting booth. Sean Trende, senior elections analyst for RealClearPolitics, also testified for the defense. He praised the composition of the Senate maps passed by the Legislature in 2022, saying it was 'pretty incompetent racial gerrymandering, if that's what's going on.' The trial is expected to conclude on Thursday. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CO Rep. Jeff Hurd reacts to anti-ICE protests in his district and nationwide
WASHINGTON, D.C. (KREX) – The anti-ICE immigration protests in Los Angeles have inspired pop-up demonstrations of solidarity nationwide, including in Colorado Congressman Jeff Hurd's 3rd district. On the heels of a reportedly peaceful protest last night at Grand Junction's Lilac Park, the republican congressman sat down with WesternSlopeNow from D.C. with a message for protesters in his district and beyond. 'We should not be celebrating lawlessness and destruction of private property,' says Hurd. 'It sows chaos. It hurts families. It hurts communities. Now, by contrast, what we saw in Grand Junction was a peaceful protest. That's an example of the First Amendment properly used.' While the congressman shared support for peaceful protests in his district, he also supports the very thing they are protesting against: President Trump's immigration policies and ICE. 'I stand with the president and with ICE and with law enforcement when it comes to securing our borders and keeping our community safe,' says Hurd. 'When you stop the flow of drugs and crime into our community, that's something that the president campaigned on and something that I campaigned on.' But protesters in his district tell WesternSlopeNow, fighting criminals isn't the whole story. 'There's people getting kidnapped out of their immigration appointments and being told that they shouldn't be here when they're trying to do the right thing,' says protester Stephanie Dedduang. 'They are not just taking criminals. They are trying to arrest around 3,000 people a day in order to make this million-people deportation quota.' Demonstrations against ICE and the administration are scheduled to continue this weekend at the No King's Day protests in Grand Junction. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
