Colorado
Colorado Democrats spar over legislation as party seeks direction in Trump era
In late February, the second-ranking Democrat in the Colorado House sat before a group of her colleagues and prepared to do something she had rarely done: voluntarily kill one of her own bills.
House Bill 1020 would have put initial regulations on earned-wage services — companies that let employees access part of their paychecks early in exchange for a fee. Majority Leader Monica Duran and her co-sponsor, Denver Democratic Rep. Sean Camacho, had pitched the measure as a way to put guardrails on a financial product vital for lower-income people in a financial bind.
But Democratic critics alleged it was an attempt by financial companies, who were backing it, to draft their own regulations, and those legislators argued that the service was just a different kind of payday loan. After the bill passed its first committee, progressive Democratic lawmakers worked with a liberal think-tank, the Bell Policy Center, to draft amendments that would have imposed tighter regulations on the services.
Duran and Camacho — who denied the services were a loan — were open to the changes. But Duran said that as she reviewed the amendments, she felt the bill had slipped away from the one she’d introduced. The industry groups supporting the bill balked, and one formally filed to oppose it.
So when the bill came up for a vote, Duran and Camacho voluntarily — and acrimoniously — killed it.
House Bill 1020 was not the first business-friendly bill to be decried as anti-worker, and it hasn’t been the last to be scuttled by other Democratic lawmakers. Another — to help struggling restaurants by clipping tipped workers’ minimum wage — has been delayed until later this month because of that opposition. A third — a draft proposal to audit recent environmental, labor and health care regulations — is undergoing a full rewrite amid backlash from both Democratic lawmakers and the union and environmental groups allied with them. Its sponsors say the idea may be tabled altogether.
It’s not unusual for House Democrats — whose 43 members span the left-of-center spectrum — to disagree on policy, even to the point of semi-public conflict. Nor are the contested bills unique or particularly startling. Lawmakers of both parties often run legislation in coordination with businesses or trade groups, and this year’s bills, sponsors contend, set out to address real problems: a sagging restaurant industry, a popular but unregulated financial service, and debates over the state’s regulatory framework.
“Doing the right thing matters. How we show up to this building matters,” Duran told colleagues on the House’s Finance Committee before asking that they vote to table it. She defended the legislation as pro-worker: “This bill was for working people, to support working people, and as a fierce advocate for working families, I know firsthand how supportive this bill would have been. It is frustrating when misinformation is spread saying this bill is anti-worker.”
But the debate swirling around the direction of the Democratic Party and the chaotic uncertainty springing from the Trump administration have elevated opposition from more liberal members of the party. While some lawmakers have worked to legislate this year like any other, others have sought to close ranks and defend what they see as Democratic priorities in a tumultuous political environment, both for the party and the country.
That tone was set, in part, two weeks after the election, when Democratic lawmakers gathered in the Capitol to unveil pro-labor reforms. Near the end of their news conference, one of the bill’s sponsors called out, “Which side are you on, Democratic Party?”
“We are facing a reckoning of what type of party we want to be,” said Rep. Yara Zokaie, a Fort Collins freshman who opposed both the tipped-wage measure and Duran’s paycheck bill. “I also think that everybody wants to represent their own districts to the best of their ability. I ran on standing up for workers.”
Trying to help struggling restaurants
The debate around all three bills has been heated. During testimony Monday night, Denver City Councilwoman Shontel Lewis said that it was “appalling” that Democrats were proposing to cut the tipped minimum wage while “the federal government is in chaos.”
Rep. Alex Valdez, a Denver Democrat backing the tipped wage bill, said the rhetoric surrounding it has been “vile,” referring to crude flyers depicting another lawmaker and negative reviews left for restaurants whose owners had testified in support of the bill.
The measure — which now faces a critical and potentially fatal vote in mid-March — is intended to help struggling restaurants reeling from high costs. As written now, it would lower the specific minimum wage paid to workers who also received tips in Denver and elsewhere that exceed the state minimum.
Another sign of the tricky political dynamics: It’s backed by Denver Mayor Mike Johnston but opposed by Lewis and other City Council members, as well as lawmakers from both parties who disparage it as a pay cut and a violation of cities’ ability to set their own wage laws.
Valdez said lawmakers’ desire to respond to actions and posturing from the Trump administration had further strained an already difficult debate, which he said fundamentally turned on helping restaurants stay afloat.
“I think that’s where we see an exacerbation by the Trump administration. It’s just, ‘What can I do?’ But that isn’t always the best way to do things,” he said. “I think at least with the tipped wage (bill) — this is the culmination of a five-year process. We didn’t catch this overnight. It’s five years of conversation, and we’re still having it.”
But for other lawmakers, debate in the legislature is a statement on the uncertainty from Washington, D.C., and internal arguments over how the Democratic Party reacts to its November losses.
“I do think we are trying to figure ourselves out in this moment. Are we a party for working people or not?” said Rep. Javier Mabrey, a Denver Democrat and among the more left-wing legislators.
Even though he and labor unions are pushing a contentious effort to reform the state’s labor law, Mabrey said he felt that “labor groups, progressive advocacy groups, consumer rights’ groups are playing defense this year in a way that they did not have to play defense in my first two years.”
“It is not a DOGE bill”
The audit proposal — to have the state auditor review 10 years’ worth of environmental, labor and health regulations — fits into that feeling of defensiveness because it’s backed by business groups, legislative leadership and Gov. Jared Polis. When details of the audit bill were revealed last month, several Democrats responded with a profane, three-word response.
That reaction — further fueled by fears of deregulation at a federal level — has helped put the brakes on the proposal. Speaker Julie McCluskie, a Dillon Democrat sponsoring it, said Wednesday that the idea was about promoting good governance. But it’s now being reworked fundamentally, and it may not come at all this year, she said.
Some Democratic lawmakers had taken to calling the proposal the “DOGE bill,” referring to billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk’s so-called “Department of Government Efficiency,” which has set about dismantling a succession of federal agencies in recent weeks.
“To be frank, we had not had enough of an initial conversation before we released the draft,” McCluskie said. “In large part because of what’s happening with the Trump administration … I think people are drawing a parallel there that is not the same. I would push back. We are trying to just, again, focus on good governance.”
“It is not a DOGE bill,” she added, emphatically.
McCluskie argued that the party can find a path forward that helps both workers and businesses. While Colorado Democrats largely held serve in November, the party’s national losses were “a moment for all of us to recognize that a lot of folks are unhappy,” the speaker said.
“I would lift up that we also have to think about the entire … ecosystem: businesses, workers, consumers, right?” she said. “You have to think about that globally, and I have always believed you can be pro-business and pro-worker at the same time.”
Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.
Colorado
US Fish and Wildlife backed Colorado plan to get wolves from Canada before new threats to take over program, documents show
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service backed Colorado’s plan to obtain wolves from Canada nearly two years before the federal agency lambasted the move as a violation of its rules, newly obtained documents show.
In a letter dated Feb. 14, 2024, the federal agency told Colorado state wildlife officials they were in the clear to proceed with a plan to source wolves from British Columbia without further permission.
“Because Canadian gray wolves aren’t listed under the Endangered Species Act,” no ESA authorization or federal authorization was needed for the state to capture or import them in the Canadian province, according to the letter sent to Eric Odell, CPW’s wolf conservation program manager.
The letter, obtained by The Colorado Sun from state Parks and Wildlife through an open records request, appears to be part of the permissions the state received before sourcing 15 wolves. The agency also received sign-offs from the British Columbia Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna.
In mid-December, however, the Fish and Wildlife Service pivoted sharply from that position, criticizing the plan and threatening to take control over Colorado’s reintroduction.
In a letter dated Dec. 18, Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik put CPW on alert when he told acting CPW Director Laura Clellan that the agency violated requirements in a federal rule that dictates how CPW manages its reintroduction.
Colorado voters in 2020 directed CPW to reestablish gray wolves west of the Continental Divide, a process that has included bringing wolves from Oregon in 2023 and British Columbia in 2025.
The federal rule Nesvik claims CPW violated is the 10(j). It gives Colorado management flexibility over wolves by classifying them as a nonessential experimental population within the state of Colorado. Nesvik said CPW violated the 10(j) by capturing wolves from Canada instead of the northern Rocky Mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington, eastern Oregon and north-central Utah “with no warning or notice to its own citizens.”
CPW publicly announced sourcing from British Columbia on Sept. 13, 2024, however, and held a meeting with county commissioners in Rio Blanco, Garfield, Pitkin and Eagle counties ahead of the planned releases last January. The agency also issued press releases when the operations began and at the conclusion of operations, and they held a press conference less than 48 hours later.
Nesvik’s December letter doubled down on one he sent CPW on Oct. 10, after Greg Lopez, a former Colorado congressman and 2026 gubernatorial candidate, contacted him claiming the agency violated the Endangered Species Act when it imported wolves from Canada, because they lacked permits proving the federal government authorized the imports.
That letter told CPW to “cease and desist” going back to British Columbia for a second round of wolves, after the agency had obtained the necessary permits to complete the operation. Nesvik’s reasoning was that CPW had no authority to capture wolves from British Columbia because they aren’t part of the northern Rocky Mountain region population.
But as regulations within the 10(j) show, the northern Rocky Mountain population of wolves “is part of a larger metapopulation of wolves that encompasses all of Western Canada.”
And “given the demonstrated resilience and recovery trajectory of the NRM population and limited number of animals that will be captured for translocations,” the agencies that developed the rule – Fish and Wildlife with Colorado Parks and Wildlife – expected “negative impacts to the donor population to be negligible.”
So despite what Nesvik and Lopez claim, “neither identified any specific provision of any law – federal, state or otherwise – that CPW or anyone else supposedly violated by capturing and releasing wolves from British Columbia,” said Tom Delehanty, senior attorney for Earthjustice. “They’ve pointed only to the 10(j) rule, which is purely about post-release wolf management, and applies only in Colorado.”
More experts weigh in
In addition to the 2024 letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service, documents obtained by The Sun include copies of permits given to CPW by the Ministry of British Columbia to export 15 wolves to the United States between Jan. 12 and Jan. 16, 2025.
These permits track everything from live animals and pets to products made from protected wildlife including ivory.
The permit system is the backbone of the regulation of trade in specimens of species included in the three Appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, also called CITES. A CITES permit is the confirmation by an issuing authority that the conditions for authorizing the trade are fulfilled, meaning the trade is legal, sustainable and traceable in accordance with articles contained within the Convention.

Gary Mowad, a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife agent and expert on Endangered Species Act policies, said “obtaining a CITES certificate is unrelated to the 10j rule” and that in his estimation, CPW did violate both the terms of the 10(j) and the memorandum of agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service, because “the 10(j) specifically limited the populations from where wolves could be obtained, and Canada was not authorized.”
Mike Phillips, a Montana legislator who was instrumental in Yellowstone’s wolf reintroduction that began in 1995, thinks “the posturing about a takeover seems like just casually considered bravado from Interior officials.”
And Delahanty says “Nesvik and Lopez are making up legal requirements that don’t exist for political leverage in an effort that serves no one. It’s unclear what FWS hopes to accomplish with its threatening letter,” but if they rescind the memorandum of agreement, “it would cast numerous elements of Colorado’s wolf management program into uncertainty.”
Looking forward
If Fish and Wildlife does as Nesvik’s letter threatens and revokes all of CPW’s authority over grey wolves in its jurisdiction, “the service would assume all gray wolf management activities, including relocation and lethal removal, as determined necessary,” it says.
But Phillips says “if Fish and Wildlife succeeds in the agency’s longstanding goal of delisting gray wolves nationwide,” a proposition that is currently moving through Congress, with U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert’s Pet and Livestock Protection Act bill, the agency couldn’t take over Colorado’s wolf program. That’s because “wolf conservation falls back to Colorado with (its voter-approved) restoration mandate.” And “the species is listed as endangered/nongame under state law,” he adds.
If the feds did take over, Phillips said in an email “USFWS does not have staff for any meaningful boots-on-the-ground work.” Under Fish and Wildlife Service control, future translocations would probably be “a firm nonstarter,” he added, “but that seems to be the case now.”
A big threat should Fish and Wildlife take over is that lethal removal of wolves “in the presence of real or imagined conflicts might be more quickly applied,” Phillips said.

But it would all be tied up in legal constraints, given that gray wolves are still considered an endangered species in Colorado, and requirements of the 10(j) and state law say CPW must advance their recovery.
So for now, it’s wait and see if CPW can answer Fish and Wildlife’s demand that accompanies Nesvik’s latest letter.
Nesvik told the agency they must report “all gray wolf conservation and management activities that occurred from Dec. 12, 2023, until present,” as well as provide a narrative summary and all associated documents describing both the January 2025 British Columbia release and other releases by Jan. 18., or 30 days after the date on his letter. If they don’t, he said, Fish and Wildlife “will pursue all legal remedies,” including “the immediate revocation of all CPW authority over gray wolves in its jurisdiction.”
Shelby Wieman, a spokesperson for Gov. Jared Polis’ office, said Colorado disagrees with the premise of Nesvik’s letter and remains “fully committed to fulfilling the will of Colorado voters and successfully reintroducing the gray wolf population in Colorado.”
And CPW maintains it “has coordinated with USFWS throughout the gray wolf reintroduction effort and has complied with all applicable federal and state laws. This includes translocations in January of 2025 which were planned and performed in consultation with USFWS.”
Colorado
Avalanche To Play Mammoth in 2027 Discover Winter Classic in Salt Lake City | Colorado Avalanche
NEW YORK – The National Hockey League announced today that the Colorado Avalanche will be the visiting team in the 2027 Discover Winter Classic and play the Utah Mammoth at the University of Utah’s Rice-Eccles Stadium in Salt Lake City. Additional details for the game, including ticketing information, date and start time, will be announced at a later date.
The 2027 Winter Classic marks the first time the Avalanche will play in the event and will be the fourth ever outdoor game the franchise plays in and the first one they’ll compete as the visiting team. Colorado hosted the Detroit Red Wings at Coors Field in the Stadium Series on Feb. 27, 2016, the Los Angeles Kings for the 2020 Stadium Series at Air Force Academy’s Falcon Stadium on Feb. 15, and the Vegas Golden Knights at Edgewood Tahoe Resort for the NHL Outdoors at Lake Tahoe event on Feb. 20, 2021.
“We’re excited and honored that the League selected us for the Winter Classic,” said Avalanche President of Hockey Operations Joe Sakic. “The Avalanche organization is always proud to be in consideration for marquee events like this. We’re looking forward to being matched up with a great team and represent the Rocky Mountain region in a game that appeals to these two markets in this part of the country.”
The Avalanche are 1-2-0 all-time in outdoor games but captured the most recent one at Lake Tahoe by a 3-2 score.
Colorado has faced the Mammoth six times since their inception ahead of the 2024-25 campaign, and the Avalanche have posted a 4-1-1 record. The club also owns a 2-0-1 record against Utah this season, which includes beating them in the home opener when Nathan MacKinnon became the first player in NHL history to record a game-winning goal against 32 franchises.
Colorado
Colorado Parks and Wildlife building ‘bison roster’ for new potential hunting
-
Detroit, MI5 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology2 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX3 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health4 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska1 day agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Nebraska2 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Iowa2 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Entertainment1 day agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios