Latest news with #JessieDanielson
Axios
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Colorado Democrats gut Uber and transgender bills ahead of adjournment
Colorado lawmakers blared " Final Countdown" from the state Senate's speakers and rushed three dozen bills to the finish line Wednesday before adjourning at 7:22pm. Why it matters: The last day of the legislative session is the most important — the make-or-break moment for hundreds of proposed new laws. State of play: The rush rescued legislation for K-12 school funding and free school meals, but required Democrats to make compromises on other flagship legislation. Case in point: The sponsors of a measure to address safety concerns on ride-sharing platforms, like Uber and Lyft, gutted their own legislation at the behest of the companies that called the new rules unworkable. The version approved along party lines in the final hours no longer requires in-ride audio and video recordings and removes most of the provisions holding the companies legally liable for bad actors. Bill sponsor Sen. Jessie Danielson (D-Wheat Ridge) acknowledged the "drastic changes and compromises" but asked her colleagues "to stand with the survivors … to help regulate these companies in the name of safety, real safety." The bill still would require ride-share companies to prohibit drivers from sharing food or drinks with passengers and force companies to conduct driver background checks every six months. The companies and Gov. Jared Polis are still expressing concerns about the language, making its future uncertain. Friction point: Two bills approved to protect transgender individuals also came down to the wire and survived hours of opposing debate from Republicans. A weakened House Bill 1312 would add gender identity to the current anti-discrimination law and prohibits deadnaming. Other provisions require schools with policies on names to consider transgender students and allow students to choose either option available in a school dress code. The second bill would put a current rule that insurance companies cover gender-affirming care into state law. The move is designed to protect against adverse federal action on the topic. The other side: Republicans argued the transgender bills involve "experimental medicine" and infringe on the role of parents. "We should be uniting families, not driving wedges between them," Sen. Scott Bright (R-Platteville) said during the debate.
CBS News
25-04-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Colorado senator vows to go to ballot after Republicans kill measure to help survivors of child sexual abuse
Colorado senator vows to go to the ballot after republicans kill measure to help survivors of child Colorado senator vows to go to the ballot after republicans kill measure to help survivors of child Colorado senator vows to go to the ballot after republicans kill measure to help survivors of child Colorado Sen. Jessie Danielson said she will launch a signature gathering campaign to put a constitutional amendment before voters after Senate Republicans refused to refer the measure to the ballot. The amendment would allow child sexual abuse survivors to bring civil claims against their abusers and the institutions that cover up the abuse, no matter how long ago it happened. Danielson, a Democrat from Jefferson County, needed one Republican to vote with all Democrats for the amendment to pass, but every Senate Republican opposed it. "We are talking about people who rape children. We are talking about institutions that cover it up, that shield those perpetrators instead of protecting the children that we put in their trusted care," Danielson said in an emotional floor speech. Republican Senator Paul Lundeen, the Senate Minority Leader, said Republicans condemn crimes against children, but the amendment upends constitutional and legally settled rights. "As a matter for my heart, this is a very difficult vote. As a matter of principle and the rule of law, this vote is clear." Danielson said she'll collect signatures to put it on the ballot.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Colorado bill would roll back farmworker protections in response to Supreme Court ruling
Visitors walk around the Colorado Capitol on the first day of the 2025 session of the Legislature on Jan. 8, 2025. (Lindsey Toomer/Colorado Newsline) Colorado lawmakers are moving forward with bipartisan legislation that would roll back a protection in state law for farmworkers after an adverse U.S. Supreme Court ruling, over the objections of some advocates who question whether the repeal is necessary. Members of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee voted 5-2 on Thursday to advance Senate Bill 25-128, with two Democrats, state Sens. Jessie Danielson of Wheat Ridge and Janice Marchman of Loveland, opposed. The bill would repeal a provision in state law guaranteeing access by 'key service providers' — including medical personnel, attorneys, legal advocates and clergy — to farmworkers on private agricultural properties during off hours. That protection was passed by Democratic majorities in the Legislature in 2021 as part of a larger piece of legislation known as the Farmworkers Bill of Rights. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SB-128's Senate sponsors, Democratic Sen. Dylan Roberts of Avon and Republican Sen. Byron Pelton of Sterling, say the 'cleanup bill' is needed after a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which found a similar access provision enacted in California unconstitutional. 'This isn't a fun bill to run,' said Roberts. 'It's not something that Sen. Pelton and I are celebrating as a big, exciting thing to do here at the Legislature. But it's the responsible thing to do, my opinion, to protect the spirit of the larger law, and also honor the oaths we take to the Constitution.' The bill would leave intact the vast majority of the wide-ranging 2021 farmworkers' rights measure, which also guaranteed agricultural employees the right to unionize, mandated meal breaks and rest periods, and much more. But some farmworker advocates argued in Thursday's committee hearing that it's premature to fully strip the key service provider protection from state law. The Supreme Court's ruling in the Cedar Point case specifically concerned access for union organizers, making Colorado's access law meaningfully different, especially given its inclusion of health care providers. 'A lot of these farmworkers are in remote locations and working incredibly long hours, so it simply is not an option to run to the pharmacy on your lunch break or to go to the doctor,' said Valerie Collins, an attorney with progressive group Towards Justice. Instead of repealing the protections, Collins said, lawmakers should direct the state's labor department to craft new rules 'based on the holding in Cedar Point, and based on the need of workers to access health care providers,' and potentially let further litigation play out from there. 'That could address some of the nuances that we're seeing here, and try to shape some of the parameters, rather than just wholesale eliminating all of these options,' said Collins. But Jim Manley, state policy chief at the Pacific Legal Foundation, the conservative property-rights group that challenged the California access law in the Cedar Point case, insisted in testimony before the committee that the Supreme Court's ruling clearly invalidates Colorado's version of the law. 'The holding in Cedar Point is quite broad,' Manley told lawmakers. 'The court held that the access regulation 'appropriates for the enjoyment of third parties … the owners' right to exclude.' So it applies in a broad array of contexts, even though the factual situation there was narrower.' Before advancing the bill, the committee adopted an amendment proposed by Roberts at the request of farmworker advocates, which included language to preserve service providers' access to employer-provided housing. Following the Cedar Point ruling, the Colorado Livestock Association challenged the key service provider law in state court in 2023. That lawsuit is pending, and Roberts argued that a legislative fix now could prevent 'collateral damage' to other parts of the Farmworkers Bill of Rights in the future. 'There is (a) likelihood that at some point a court here in Colorado will hear this case on the merits,' he said. 'It could go all the way up and could result in a decision that strikes (down) more of this law than we're trying to fix here, which would be worse for workers.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
