The month of April has started with economic uncertainty.

Confidence among Colorado business leaders has dropped a big time for varying reasons, including the tariffs, which Governor Polis says he is saddened by.

In fact, on Wednesday, Liberation Day polls referred to it as Recession Day and at the state capitol as lawmakers are trying to figure out the budget for the new fiscal year, some Democrats are calling for an end to our TABOR refunds.

We have a lot to discuss.

This week we went to our top legislative reporters here at the table and varying viewpoints.

So let's get started with this week's Colorado Inside-Out Hi, everyone.

I'm Kyle Dyer.

Let's get started by introducing to you this week's insider panel.

We have Krista Kafer, columnist with The Denver Post, Jessi Paul, reporter with the Colorado Sun and Thomas Tafoya, community leader and a former candidate for mayor of Denver.

And Kristy Burton Brown, the executive vice president at Advanced Colorado and former chairperson of the Republican Party.

Okay, let's start with TABOR, the taxpayer bill of Rights.

Tabor limits the revenue Colorado can retain and spend and requires any extra revenue to be refunded to us, the taxpayers.

Voters approved this 30 plus years ago, but this year, with the state budget needing a lot of cuts to meet that $1.2 billion shortfall, some Democratic lawmakers are saying the state has to do away with this.

Now, Krista, this is not the first time we have heard this, but here we go again.

They see it pretty much every year.

At least they see it up here.

I they're not going to get rid of Tabor.

People love Tabor.

People loved it when they voted for it to begin with and they voted for it ever since.

The idea of getting rid of it.

All I could say is good luck, because it's not going to happen.

It's not going to happen.

Jesse, what are you hearing at the state capitol?

So one of the key aspects of this attempt to unwind TABOR is a lawsuit that Democratic state lawmakers want to force the legislature's attorneys to file against the state.

And we wrote about it this morning in our unaffiliated newsletter that came out.

But one of the interesting things about this is it's kind of like that Spiderman meme where a bunch of different Spider-Man's are pointing their fingers at each other because what effectively this would do is force taxpayers to foot the bill twice.

They'd have to pay for the legislature to hire attorneys to sue the state, and then the attorney general's office would be in charge of having to defend against the lawsuit.

So effectively, everybody would be kind of suing themselves.

And as you mentioned, you know, it's this isn't the first time that Democrats have tried to do away with TABOR.

There was a lawsuit, took about ten years to play out in the courts, and it eventually it failed.

And the folks I'm talking to, legal experts I'm talking to, including Democrats, say that even now bringing this lawsuit, they don't feel confident about its ability to pass.

But what's interesting about the money side of things, you know, going back to this idea of taxpayers having to foot the bill twice, is that, you know, this is something the Democrats could put on the ballot if they chose to.

Christie knows how expensive it can be to gather signatures.

It's about two and a half million dollars or so, too, to gather enough signatures to put this on the ballot.

And instead, you know, taxpayers are going to be footing the bill because of this lawsuit.

Assuming that the resolution passes to make that happen.

Ian, your thoughts?

Well, there's a rather complex scheme that I read about in the paper, multiple bills that are trying to attack different portions of this, trying to take certain things out of the cap.

I had some other questions this morning.

I was asking some people who are presenting about the bill.

Is there a legal briefing about this, in particular bringing a lawsuit?

I will say there are a whole lot more people here in Colorado now that weren't voters or didn't live in Colorado in 1998 when this was voted for and seeing what those implications are.

I do recall many years ago when we were in recession, voting to lift some of the TABOR pieces.

And there are a lot of localities that have voted to get themselves out of that, too.

And so I think there probably is a temperature check that could be had by sending it to the voters.

I think there are a lot of people are committed to go fight for it on both sides.

But I am unsure at this moment whether or not it's unconstitutional.

What I will say is I work with a lot of people who feel like Tabor is holding them back from being able to deliver the American dream through these kinds of programs that our communities need, the roads that need to be built, the infrastructure that is lacking.

There are still people in our communities that have let in their water, among other things, Right?

And so do we have enough resources?

I don't think so.

So they would be okay with Tabor going away so that money would free up?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Christine.

All right.

Well, speaking of temperature checks on Tabor, we actually had one of those in 2023.

It was called Prop 88.

She went to the ballot and voters shot it down by 18 points.

So we see that voters actually are motivated to protect TABOR.

It enjoys 70% popularity across the political spectrum.

That means unaffiliated Democrats.

Republicans in Colorado love the taxpayers Bill of Rights.

Like if you can put a check on government and say you can only spend this much, and when you want to cross that line, you have to go to voters and ask their permission.

Colorado is actually the only state in the whole nation that has a taxpayer's Bill of Rights, and it's here to stay in Colorado.

It fits the Colorado mindset.

We know how to spend our money better than the government.

And I think when you look at the lawsuit, it's going to fail if it goes to court.

I was reviewing the decision in the 10th Circuit when they struck down the other lawsuit that attempted to say Tabor was unconstitutional.

The argument is that a Republican form of government guaranteed to us by the Constitution means that representatives should have the most power.

It actually criticizes direct democracy.

If you read this resolution the Democrats are proposing in the legislature, it literally criticizes direct democracy, the power of the people, which is kind of odd coming from the Democrat Party, but that's what they want to do in this lawsuit.

And they're really making the same arguments again.

It's going to fail.

The courts have already said Republican form of government guaranteed in the Constitution includes the power of the people to limit politicians and limit their spending ability.

Okay.

So I'm curious, we hear there's going to be a lawsuit.

How long is this going to linger on for.

The last 1 to 10 years.

It took ten years.

I mean, look, this is so and it's very unusual for a, you know, state government body to sue basically itself over its powers.

And I could only find one example of it happened in Arizona last decade where there was questions about the redistricting commission.

And that state legislature sued basically to say that the redistricting commission didn't have the rights or the power to to change or draw congressional maps, went all the way to the Supreme Court and was rejected.

So similar questions about the Republican form of government government, and I'll say right, I mean, Christie's right.

Voters twice have have upheld Tabor in the past, you know, since 2019.

CC and eight.

And additionally, the legal experts I talked to said Colorado courts are really reticent to kind of walk back voter decision.

So and again, you do have voters who have said they like it and polling shows that it's popular.

So I think that's part of the political reason why they're going the lawsuit route.

Okay.

All right.

While Colorado lawmakers are in overdrive right now, leaders in Congress stop voting on a House bills in the latter part of this week following a big yet temporary win for a Colorado congresswoman, Brittany Peterson.

On Tuesday, the mother of a newborn, along with other new parents who are members of Congress, really want to have allowed proxy voting.

All right.

The mother of this newborn is really become kind of the poster child, if I could use that word of this.

And let's talk about this, because, Jesse, this has become such a political issue and really is cause.

But it I wouldn't say chaos, but turmoil inside the house.

It's actually interesting because this isn't the first time that Representative Peterson has been kind of in a similar situation.

She used to be a state senator and she actually delivered a child during a session a few years ago.

And I remember she was like only the second state lawmaker to give birth during session.

And so there were a lot of discussions about how to make accommodations for her.

And she missed a decent part of the session, you know, while she was recovering and taking care of her child.

So, you know, I think it's really fascinating to see her kind of at the center of this.

You know, people go to Congress and oftentimes they're kind of you know, the focus on them is about their policy making or or something else that's going on.

But she's really making a big name for herself on this.

And as somebody who might be up for a U.S. Senate appointment, should Michael Bennet run for governor, I think this is an interesting moment for her.

And with her Sam on holding her, you know, on Tuesday when she was speaking, she had Sam, you know, with her and talked about how hard it was for her to fly back and forth when she was when he was younger.

He's only, I think, nine weeks now.

Yeah, I was I was supposed to talk to her actually, just before we filmed this.

And she was busy flying back.

She couldn't really couldn't travel.

She had her.

Baby with her.

Wow.

Okay.

In Wyoming, I think it's pretty ridiculous that this is even if people have babies, we should let them vote.

People have other problems that come up.

We should let them vote.

I think the fact is that Congress has been dominated by a bunch of old men.

And so that's why it's even harder for them to get it through their head that women need time to recover, that people need time with their families.

It's ridiculous.

I will say that, like I can just think back to pre-COVID when we weren't even allowing people to testify or give public comment remote.

Right.

And my vibe is like, if the DMV can text you when it's your turn and you can show up and get your services needed, why can't we have a government that works and understands that people are in different places?

Now, does that mean someone should vote all the time?

Remote?

Certainly not.

There's a point for you to be there in person when you can be.

We figured out at our own state legislature for how people can participate and vote remotely.

It just seems to me like this is really not motivated about her.

It's motivated about not allowing right now one party to be able to vote when they already outnumber the Democratic Party.

So it just doesn't make sense to me.

And, you know, this has bipartisan support.

I mean, and there are many things right now that have people from both sides agreeing like, yeah, this is a good idea.

Right?

Well, I actually like a lot of what Ian just said.

And I and I think as a young mother myself, and I've almost always brought my kids with me when I've been involved in politics, I think it's something that women should be able to do.

If you want to bring your child with you, you should be able to.

But if you've just given birth to a child, what this bill says is you have 12 weeks where you can vote by proxy, or if you're the dad of a child and you need to help care for your mother or your wife or a newborn and you should be able to do it, I think that's highly reasonable.

It's very limited.

This isn't broad based proxy voting.

That's a completely different conversation.

So I think, you know, as a Republican who's very pro-life, very pro-family, I think these are the kind of things that should be an easy yes for other Republicans.

I like that.

Congresswoman Luna from Florida is on this bill with Congressman Peterson.

She also had a child while she was in Congress.

And she knows you can actually raise your children, take care of them and represent your people.

But we should be giving them some accommodations to do that.

That's how a district is best represented.

If they wanted to elect a young mother, they should let that young mother represent them.

So I do support Congresswoman Peterson in this.

I think she's right on and I think she's going to win.

Christa, I also support her in this.

I think it's important that new moms have this option that and new dads to to be able to take be able to use a proxy vote for the weeks after having given birth or having had their wife give birth.

I also think it's should be extended for for illnesses as well.

Somebody who's in the middle of battling cancer, you know, it's going to be having to get chemo, being able to give some flexibility there I think is important.

So life happens and people, you know, they treat those.

They treat their position with respect, but at times they need flexibility.

And so Ms.. Pederson, what she did in pushing this, I, I think she's.

Terrific.

I just don't understand why is that the push back and why they canceled all the rest of the votes this week just because this is the way that she got this small victory on Tuesday.

I mean, it's about what could happen in the future.

Like I was saying, like their party is in power now.

Or what if the vote is tight and all of a sudden you allow somebody to come in and vote?

But I would agree.

I like we elected people in the space they are in their life to represent our voices.

We should give them the tools to do that.

Okay.

All right.

There aren't many other states that are as aggressive on cutting emissions and growing renewable energy as Colorado is.

And Governor Polis is staying focused on those areas despite some changes to climate and energy policies at the federal level in you are very tapped into all the what ifs.

I will start with you.

Well, I mean, first of all, on the federal level, I think what's really just so disheartening is watching people who are already contracted maybe halfway through dealing with the terms of their contract immediately being frozen by what the federal actions have been taken, an executive order.

To me, that is the same kind of scheme we heard about as the president was running for president of not paying vendors and not paying people who had delivered work for them.

That is harming our communities now, right?

Like there are people who are having layoffs now.

And I find that to be incredibly inappropriate.

And I hope that the lawsuits play out in the end to help make sure that those moneys are delivered if you want to change policy in the future.

That's your prerogative.

And I tell you does not feel like government efficiency is relitigating the same rules over and over and over again and then moving on to the next one.

And meanwhile, new chemicals are coming out and new things aren't protecting us.

This is also impacting here in state of Colorado, because the Department of Energy, for example, was delivering nearly $1,000,000,000 to tri state energy, which is co-ops all throughout rural Colorado.

These are projects now that are putting those plans in danger.

Governor Polis is also advancing a whole host of energy legislation around improving our transmission to protect from wildfires allow us to interconnect our transmission lines more effectively.

And there's been a kind of controversial bill around 100% renewable energy by 2040.

And these energy plans, I, I probably don't have enough time to dig into all the nuance of why it's been a jam up.

But for years it's been the environmental team that's been blocking it.

And this year it's more the utilities.

And so whether a compromise will be brokered this year or in the last year of policies, administration deliver on his campaign promise, it remains to be seen.

Okay.

All right, So I think whenever we look at energy, one thing that's important to acknowledge is that everyone wants clean water and clean air for our kids, for our families, for our state.

Sometimes the devil's in the details, so to speak.

It's like, how do we get there?

And so when we look at changes the Trump administration is making, for one thing, I find it interesting that the people opposing the removal of certain tax credits are typically the people who oppose tax cuts and tax credits, but they want them on environmental issues because it's their pet issue.

So I think it'd be great if they looked at it and said, we actually are arguing that tax credits make business better, make the economy better and help people out.

Maybe we should apply that across the spectrum so that that's sort of a side note.

But I think when you look at energy issues in Colorado, if we're talking about cleaning up Suncor, someone who's had a history of violations.

That's an important work that I think everyone can agree on.

Instead, we're talking about making all school districts have electric school busses.

I'm on the State Board of Education representing a lot of rural school districts.

That's not what these districts need.

So it's are we really zeroing in on the energy policies that give us clean air, that give us clean water, that protect our communities and our families?

Or are we imposing an agenda on people that creates its own host of problems?

And I think that's what we're seeing being contended with right now.

All right.

Well, those are the different tax credits that we have.

They're they're popular on both sides.

Democrats like them.

Republicans like them.

I think there's an agreement that when it comes to things like improving our our environment and and using energy in a way that's efficient, that that's a good place to be using those those tax credits.

So I would say let's keep them since we all support them, stay behind them and make sure that they continue.

Jesse.

I think what's interesting is, you know, Democrats, the Democratic base, wants, you know, their representatives to do so much more to push back against the Trump administration.

And this is one of those areas that kind of highlights how limited Democrats are in terms of what they can do.

So Ian kind of talked about that.

This bill that's floating out there and it may come out by the time this actually airs, but it basically would move up Colorado's emissions reductions deadlines by a decade.

And utilities have, as you mentioned, have come out and said, look, we can't just snap our fingers and do that overnight.

And I think a lot of this is is in response to the Trump administration.

This is the governor's office saying, we'd like to go faster on this and lead on climate change.

But, you know, it's limited.

There's only so much they can do.

And again, it just it highlights that that the disconnect here.

You know, we've been hearing so much from voters that they want they want Democrats to do more to push back against the Trump administration on energy, on immigration, on the economy.

But, you know, as long as Democrats aren't in power, they're pretty much powerless.

And it's paying a lot of lip service to those requests.

When you say fight back, Republicans, there are some Republican districts that have a lot of clean energy businesses and could they be then subject to some losing some federal money?

And it'll be interesting what happens with Hurd, his district and also gave Evans district because they have a lot of wind energy businesses so.

They have manufacturing in both as well.

So it isn't just users, it's it's the manufacturer of those of those of that equipment.

And so keeping those tax credits around is good for them.

It's good for everybody.

Yeah, I would say interestingly, Evans, he's a sponsor of a bill that would roll back these new regulations that stop wasteful emissions of methane.

And I've seen a document just yesterday that nearly $1,000,000,000 worth of natural gas is escaping from old technology in Texas alone.

Right.

And this is the kind of legislation that have been advanced by Diana DeGette and some of the Democrats who are saying not only are there benefits for public health by doing this, there's also economic benefits about not wasting a resource that can go away.

I would say it's kind of weird from the Republicans.

And, you know, I've I've worked on some queer issues because I come from that community.

I've never seen a Republican vote Yes.

On a bill that would rein in Suncor.

And I certainly haven't seen any mandates that say, yes, you have to have an electric school bus.

I have seen financial incentives be provided and resources for technical assistance, but never a mandate.

Well, I think when you talk to the school districts that are affected, though, they're going to tell you that it is being pushed down on them.

And so it's always a matter of perspective.

Do you feel like you're being forced by the government?

Do you feel like you're being incentivized by the government?

And, you know, I think there are always bipartisan things that can be agreed on when it comes to the environment, when it comes to energy, clean up the bad actors and don't force people to adopt things that doesn't work for their community.

Okay.

We'll see how it all shakes out.

Let's talk about the filling of leadership positions when people move on from their jobs.

A bill was introduced this week to make lawmakers who got their job through being appointed by a vacancy committee to then have to run for that office after a year of serving and if they want to keep their job.

And the Colorado Republican Party now has a new chairperson.

Berta Horn from Routt County was selected as the new head of the GOP.

Last weekend, Christi, you once had that job for two years.

And you actually said last time you were on that you thought it would be the best person for the position.

So I'll start with you.

Sure.

I mean, obviously, voters agreed at our assembly.

I was there on Colorado Springs last Saturday.

Really great showing almost everyone showed up.

Lots of elected officials, three congressmen were there.

People were really invested in the future of our party.

And I think it's because you have seen some things just not be normal at our party over the last two years and not represent the majority of Republicans here in Colorado who want to focus on issues, don't want to fight each other, want to actually win seats and criticize the other party.

Like that's the goal of the Republican Party.

When you're the chairman, you're supposed to focus on beating Democrats, not beating up on fellow Republicans.

I think that's what Brett will do a really great job doing.

She's a respectful, competent person.

She's going to lead the party on issues and I think take us into a good future here in Colorado.

Okay.

I also think it's good that she's from the western part of the state.

Usually it's people that come from the Denver metro area or the Colorado Springs metro area.

So the fact that that representation we've got that with with Britta also, she's just she's friendly, she's hard working, She's she's nice.

She knows the issues.

She really is a terrific person.

So I'm just really happy that she that she won the election.

And I know that's going to be a great term.

All right.

And Jesse, regarding this vacancy, chair filling of positions.

Talk about what's going on.

Were you surprised to see that come up this week?

I'm surprised that they found a solution just because it's such a complicated issue.

So back in 2018, the sun started looking at how many lawmakers in the Capitol were vacancy appointed.

And we've been tracking it ever since.

And it's kind of started this interesting statewide conversation about whether or not this is the right way to go about filling these seats when when folks die or resign or leave office for whatever reason.

And, you know, it's been proved really elusive.

It's it's difficult to manage, you know, how to fill a seat quickly in 120 day legislative session like we have in Colorado.

But, you know, the chair of the Democratic Party, Shannon Marie, teamed up with some Republican leaders at the Capitol, as well as some Democratic leaders, and came up with this solution that's kind of modeled after what they do in Tennessee.

Whether or not it works, I think that'll be interesting to see how that plays out in practice.

There's still a lot of questions about, you know, timelines and whether or not the advantage of incumbency still comes into play.

But effectively, it would, you know, keep the vacancy process in place.

But folks would have to run for election after a year at the Capitol.

I'm actually curious what Kristi thinks because the GOP was not included in the conversations about it because of kind of the party turmoil.

But I'm curious to hear what your views are.

Yeah, I actually like the bill.

I think it's a good idea to elect people.

You have to appoint them immediately to fill the vacancy.

But we have we do have a percentage of appointed legislators instead of elected.

So I think it's a great step in the right direction.

I think it sounds like a good idea to in your thoughts.

This is an issue that I think people were talking about long before the papers covered it.

I think a lot of people are very frustrated and it seems like it's already an insider game politics and it's already about who you're connected to with the money.

And when you only have to go to 150 people and then what you see is a game where a lot of times people will sneakily on their on their signs, but like reelected, like you've never been elected before.

Right.

They get the lists of the people who are now doing outreach for complaints and constituent services.

So you're already inherently getting an advantage.

The longer you let that stew, two years, you're almost certain to not have somebody run against you.

It's not that it never happens.

I will say, though, like as a person who has been involved in the party and the Democratic Party and works in these spheres, I actually didn't hear much stake holding.

And I think that continues to be a problem of people just sitting in a room drawing lines or making decisions of what's best when perhaps maybe they should have done some stake holding with the people within the party to decide what works best for ourselves.

Jesse, I'm curious, have you talked to anyone who got their job through a vacancy committee and how they feel about it?

I have not.

I'm curious.

Yeah, I mean, look, even the folks who are appointed by vacancy committee don't like the current process.

I haven't asked them about this bill because it's still kind of it just came out and the contours are being drawn.

But I think folks were looking for some kind of solution.

I don't know if the like this one, but it is something.

It's an idea.

Okay.

All right.

Now let's go down the line and talk about some of the highs and lows of this week.

We'll start on the low points.

So again, in a high note.

And Krista, you get to go first and a.

Low I'm going to give it to taxes.

I mean, tariffs, they're basically the same thing when you've got somebody at the president's office deciding that that we all need to pay a little higher taxes and then raising tariffs on on a variety of things that are manufactured outside of the country.

Prices are going to go up, and I'm not too happy about that.

Okay.

Kristi mentioned that the caller GOP held its reelection or organization last weekend and reporters were actually barred from attending that.

So we were forced to watch it online, which actually was nice because I didn't have to spend 12 hours in a church in Colder Springs.

But at the same time, you know, press access is important.

If you want us to cover your events accurately and responsibly, we like to talk to folks.

So please let us in.

Okay.

And my low of the week is just the continued Brown cloud.

This is a cover of the Denver Post.

This the state of Colorado is seeking to downgrade voluntarily for severe non attainment for including now north and to north Weld County all the way to Wyoming for our our inability to hit our ozone goals.

There is no excuse for this about whether or the mountains it really comes down to what we burn and what we extract.

And if we want our air quality to improve and we want people to not have to spend so much on inhalers and having these attacks and what we're spending in Medicaid, which is a huge part, we need to rename this air pollution problem and it's real.

And our science is showing us we're not going to hit our goals.

And so the EPA is going to continue to put more regulations on our industry unless we can figure this out ourselves.

Okay.

All right, Christy.

So mine would be a comment from the speaker of the House here in Colorado this week.

We are looking at a bill that would force taxpayers to help fund abortion through Medicaid in Colorado.

And her argument for this bill was that abortions cost less than births.

So the state will save money if people choose not to have their children instead of helping them be born.

And I just think from the government, that's a really difficult and and disturbing perspective to say, let's fund not having a child and actually ending the life of a child because it costs us less than letting that child be born, I think should be welcoming all children and helping more mothers have the children that that they can give birth to.

Okay.

All right.

Let's talk about something good.

Something good.

Well, we're finally coming into spring and we're starting to see some flowers.

And I'm rather happy.

I know it's not public policy, but I'm just happy that it's spring.

It's okay.

You have a huge garden at your house.

If you started working, cleaning it.

Up a little bit.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

Good.

I expect nothing less.

Okay.

Like, I was going to talk about the Rockies home opener today.

I'm excited for baseball to be back, but some people from some different political perspectives agreeing on the Brett Pederson situation I think is pretty cool.

So that is good.

That is good.

We've been celebrating, you know, Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta and the power of the United Farm Workers.

I was in Grand Junction just this last Saturday for a big event.

And if you're tuning in, the march was canceled due to the weather, but you can go inside.

So look at the peace and justice march on Facebook and for their website to get all the details.

If you want to celebrate here in Denver.

Okay, good.

All right.

Well, get some gardening advice from Krista.

That's good.

But I think I think for me, it would be that fentanyl, I think, as an issue in Colorado, is getting even more attention from people that I think can make a difference on it.

I think we're going to see, even if the legislature doesn't want to deal with that, we're going to see people really fix the fentanyl situation, mandate treatment for people who are users.

And there's actually a really exciting bipartisan bill being sponsored right now that would require school districts to educate children on overdose risk with fentanyl.

So we'll see if it passes.

It passed a committee, but great bipartisan work being done, I think, to lessen the risk for our children, which, again, I think we should all be invested in protecting our kids.

All right.

My high.

Well, I have to first I speaking for Patti.

Well, she doesn't know I'm speaking for her, but she's with her mom right now.

And you may recall a couple of months ago in Westword, she wrote an article about things to make Denver feel safer.

And she talked about bringing the mounted police back.

Well, this week we heard that the horses are coming back to downtown.

And speaking of returns, I'll go with Jesse.

Baseball is back in LoDo.

Of course, the weather isn't the greatest for this opening weekend, but next week the Brewers in town is going to be really nice next week.

So things are looking up for downtown, we hope.

Go Rockies for them too.

Thanks to our insiders.

Thanks to each of you for coming in this week.

We appreciate it.

Thanks to you for watching or listening to our podcast.

I am Kyle Dyer.

I will see you next week right here on PBS 12.

PBS's 12 believes in the power of original local programing.

Help us bring more shows like the one you just watched by donating at PBS's 12 Dawgs program Support today.