Connect with us

Colorado

The Bennet-Hickenlooper Court: How 2 senators left their mark on Colorado’s federal bench | COVER STORY

Published

on

The Bennet-Hickenlooper Court: How 2 senators left their mark on Colorado’s federal bench | COVER STORY


One month before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, Dana Remus, the incoming White House counsel, sent a letter to senators outlining the new administration’s philosophy for filling certain presidentially appointed roles, including federal trial judgeships.

“With respect to U.S. District Court positions,” she wrote, “we are particularly focused on nominating individuals whose legal experiences have been historically underrepresented on the federal bench, including those who are public defenders, civil rights and legal aid attorneys, and those who represent Americans in every walk of life.”

Colorado’s two Democratic U.S. senators, who, like their colleagues, play an outsize role in judicial nominations from their home state, said the Remus letter struck a chord.

Advertisement

“I was very sympathetic to the memo in that I do think, historically, there has been a tendency to appoint lawyers that have served in large firms to federal judgeships,” recalled Sen. Michael Bennet. “But it’s not the only experience that’s valuable. I think that the Remus memo and the Biden administration’s approach gave all of us the chance to reconsider the scope of what an applicant pool would look like.”

“Anytime the White House tells me something, I take it seriously,” added Sen. John Hickenlooper. “So, I assumed it was very serious.”







Colorado Senators Bennet Hickenlooper

In this file photo, U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet, left, and John Hickenlooper, both Colorado Democrats, speak at an event on June 18, 2021, in Aurora.






The last three years have been transformative for Colorado’s federal district court, with Biden appointing five members to the seven-judge bench. In line with the Remus letter, many of the appointees touted underrepresented backgrounds: a workers’ rights attorney, a resident of the Western Slope and the first magistrate judge to be elevated to a district judgeship.

Advertisement

In interviews with Colorado Politics, Bennet and Hickenlooper spoke about their role in filling vacancies after multiple Barack Obama and George W. Bush appointees, in rapid succession, announced they would take a form of retirement known as “senior status,” opening up seats for new judges. 

With no current or pending district judge vacancies for the first time in several years, Colorado is no longer a “judicial emergency” state with an exceedingly high ratio of cases to judges.

“Sens. Bennet and Hickenlooper continue to engage thoroughly and meaningfully with the White House and our committee to identify and support nominees to federal judgeships in Colorado,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, D-Ill. “Their work is paying off for Coloradans with five highly qualified, diverse judges confirmed to the District of Colorado under President Biden. I thank them for their partnership to help fill these vacancies.”







Charlotte Sweeney with Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper

U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper pose with U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney at her ceremonial swearing-in in October 2022. Photo courtesy of Hickenlooper’s office.

Advertisement



Getting down to work

As of mid-April, the Biden administration has won confirmation for more than 190 judges. Progressives, however, have raised concerns about a lopsided aspect of the appointments. While states with two Democratic senators have generally made quick work of addressing vacancies — including filling seven out of seven seats on the Seattle-based trial court with Biden appointees — the majority of outstanding vacancies are from states with at least one GOP senator. 

District court vacancies still require senators to return “blue slips,” which effectively give them individual veto power over nominees from their home states. Bennet agreed in principle with the idea that senators, “in a functional system,” should have substantial input on judicial nominees. He called the Remus letter a “delicate dance” between the executive and legislative branches of government.

“I don’t think they felt like they were gonna overrule the prerogatives of the senators and the senators weren’t gonna overrule the prerogatives of the Biden administration,” he said. “I wouldn’t say they were insistent on enforcing the message of the letter. I think they were clear that that was the priority.”







Michael Bennet Senate

In this file photo, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., arrives for the vote to confirm former Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti as the next ambassador to India at the Capitol in Washington on March 15, 2023. 

Advertisement






Hickenlooper, who defeated Republican Sen. Cory Gardner in 2020 and joined the Senate at the outset of the Biden administration, had been involved in judicial selection for almost two decades. As Denver’s mayor, he had the responsibility of selecting Denver County Court judges and then appointed scores of trial and appellate judges during his eight years as Colorado’s governor.

“It’s funny. So, my first appointment was a county judge as mayor of Denver,” he said. “At that time, my chief of staff was Michael Bennet.”

Hickenlooper said his goal has been to appoint the best possible candidates, while also taking time to ensure diversity in the candidate pool. Upon joining Bennet in the Senate, Hickenlooper suggested refreshing the membership of an advisory committee Bennet had used to screen judicial candidates previously.

“I wanted to have a couple people there that I knew well and trusted their opinions within my sense of priorities,” he said.

The committee, whose members had varying degrees of experience with the district court, worked to screen applicants and forward candidates to the senators. Although the first appointee, Regina M. Rodriguez, did not go through the regular committee process, the members engaged with the next four vacancies that arose over the course of two years. In doing so, the committee discussed the Remus letter.

Advertisement

“The directive was to look for candidates who met the directives from the White House. That was important and that was a factor when we were looking at candidates, that we honored that,” said April Jones, the committee’s co-chair. “Not followed it, but it was in our minds.”

Although some Democrats viewed Biden’s presidency as an opportunity to “rebalance” the federal judiciary after the Trump administration’s installment of 234 judges in just four years, Colorado’s senators and the leaders of their advisory committee distanced themselves from the idea that putting progressives on the bench locally was a priority.

“I was motivated to fill the vacancies that occurred because justice delayed is justice denied and I really believe that,” Bennet said.

“I think we were in some way balancing the court just because in a lot of our appointments, there weren’t people with similar backgrounds on the bench,” said Hickenlooper. “But there was never politics. Again, we didn’t ask about how you stand on a woman’s right to choose or how do you stand on issues around how to deal with protesters.”



Advertisement




042823-cp-news-Hickenlooper_13.jpg

U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper says he’s been surprised how work in the Senate has aligned with his strengths. 







‘The door is now open’: Charlotte Sweeney officially sworn in to history-making judgeship

Diversity in mind

Bennet, a former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal who joined the Senate in 2009, helped confirm four judges to Colorado’s district court under the Obama and Trump administrations. All were men. In contrast, the first three appointments under Biden were all women.

“We were being intentional about getting women on the court,” he said. “And we were intentional about trying to diversify the court, both in terms of experience and in terms of perspective.”

Bennet added the senators were similarly intentional about recommending magistrate judges, who are hired by the district court to assist with the workload and handle many of the same tasks as their presidentially appointed counterparts. Until the Biden administration, no magistrate judge in Colorado had ever been confirmed to a district judgeship.

“The magistrates were applying regularly to become district court judges and they were getting shut out. And the people in the bar, both inside the court and outside the court, said to me, ‘Look, that’s valuable experience these guys have and you’re losing it by not having magistrate judges,’” Bennet said. “Now, we have three.”

Advertisement

One of the magistrate judges confirmed last year, Gordon P. Gallagher, worked out of Grand Junction. During Gallagher’s Senate confirmation hearing, Bennet touted the geographic diversity Gallagher would bring to the trial court, whose district judges were all stationed in Denver. Shortly after Gallagher’s confirmation, the court announced Gallagher would remain on the Western Slope as the first district judge to ever sit outside of Denver.

Asked whether he recommended Gallagher for a judgeship with the hope Gallagher would remain in Grand Junction, Bennet said yes.







Gordon Gallagher 2 (copy)

U.S. Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher appears before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Dec. 13, 2022 for his confirmation hearing.

Colorado Politics file

Advertisement




‘More than a symbol’: Western Slope’s Gordon Gallagher ceremonially sworn in to federal judgeship

Hickenlooper maintained the objective in the selection process was to recommend “the best person.” At the same time, he acknowledged the demographic needs of the court were evident.

“We were certainly aware there had been a significant lapse since a woman had been appointed from Colorado. But that didn’t mean we were gonna compromise our standards,” he said.

Hickenlooper said he and Bennet shared the job of getting support in the Senate for Colorado’s judicial nominees and determining what features of a candidate’s background might cause concern with which senators. As a first-term senator, though, Hickenlooper said he sometimes used judicial nominations as an inroad to forming relationships to advance other policy issues.

“By starting and doing judicial appointments right off the bat, it helps us break the ice with not just Democrats, but Republicans, as well, and helps us on things like making sure that we had bipartisan support to keep Space Command in Colorado,” he said. “Space Command doesn’t have anything to do with judicial appointments, but building relationships with other senators is relative to everything that’s important.”

The familiar face

Although the majority of the nominees kept relatively low profiles, two candidates attracted scrutiny from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Advertisement

During Obama’s last year in office, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., famously blocked the president from filling a Supreme Court vacancy and shifting the court leftward. But the Senate also declined to act on other nominations — including Rodriguez, who had the backing of Bennet and Gardner to become a trial judge.

At the outset of the Biden administration five years later, the president faced an immediate vacancy on Colorado’s district court.

“I was very familiar with the way Gina Rodriguez was left high and dry in the process that we had gone through,” Bennet said. He and Hickenlooper turned to their advisory committee to ask what members thought about renaming Rodriguez as the sole candidate for the seat — despite the Remus letter’s request that senators provide at least three finalists to the White House.







Regina Rodriguez Senate Biden Judges

In this file photo, Regina M. Rodriguez, nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado, testifies during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, April 28, 2021. Rodriguez was confirmed to the bench by the full Senate on Tuesday, June 8, 2021.

Advertisement






“We didn’t feel the need to redo the process, given how robust it was sending her name up before,” recalled Michelle Lucero, co-chair of the committee. “And it was fairly close in time. … The nice thing about her is that she had bipartisan support from, at that time, Sen. Gardner within the state. So, we felt pretty comfortable.”

Rodriguez’s nomination generated complaints from progressives who noted Rodriguez, as a corporate attorney, did not fit the Remus letter’s request for judges from underrepresented backgrounds.

“Why Is Michael Bennet Defying Joe Biden’s Call for Non-Corporate Judges?” asked an article in The American Prospect.

Still, notwithstanding their knowledge of the Remus letter, the committee gave the senators a thumbs-up on Rodriguez.

“Not only did they think she would be an excellent judge, but I think they thought she had taken a real beating in the process before,” said Bennet. “Maybe I shouldn’t say ‘real beating.’ She had taken a long time in the process. And they thought it was appropriate that she’d go first.”

Advertisement

Biden included Rodriguez in his first batch of judicial nominations and she wound up being confirmed by the largest margin of any Biden appointee in Colorado: 72-28.


‘Judge Gina’ dons robes in ceremony featuring family, judges, senators

The gaffe

Biden’s most recent appointee, S. Kato Crews, was confirmed in January by a narrow 51-48 vote. Crews had been a magistrate judge for five years and, like other nominees, came with a roster of home state endorsements, including from Justice Monica M. Márquez of the Colorado Supreme Court.

But at Crews’ confirmation hearing in March 2023, he flubbed a question from Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. about Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court case requiring prosecutors to disclose certain evidence favorable to defendants.

“Do you know what a Brady motion is?” Kennedy asked. Crews, in the moment, did not immediately recall.

Lawyers who practice in Colorado’s federal courts were largely unbothered by the memory lapse. But Crews generated social media criticism and McConnell, speaking on the Senate floor, pointed to him as a nominee “not on track to get bipartisan support.”

Advertisement

“I had conversations with Republican colleagues,” said Bennet about Crews’ nomination. “It’s not surprising to me that that could be a difficult moment, and I thought Judge Crews’ entire record needed to be considered here.”

“With Judge Crews,” added Hickenlooper, “because he misunderstood the question around the Brady motion, that was very easy for me to talk about with other senators because I didn’t know exactly what the Brady motion was.”

As a non-attorney — and someone with his own history of making eyebrow-raising comments publicly — Hickenlooper said he was able to make the case to colleagues that Crews’ flub was understandable.

“Pretty much everyone agreed: That sounds like a misunderstanding that certainly shouldn’t be something that in any way would disqualify him from being appointed,” Hickenlooper said. “You know, those are the type of conversations by which you change people’s opinions.”

The Senate confirmed Crews 11 months after his nomination, the longest gap of any Biden appointee in Colorado. Two Republicans voted in favor.  Asked whether they had any serious concerns Crews would need to withdraw his nomination, Bennet and Hickenlooper immediately responded: No.

Advertisement






U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews

U.S. Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews testifies at his confirmation hearing to be a district court judge on March 22, 2023.



Into the lull

Colorado’s district court bench is likely stable for the foreseeable future. The only member eligible to take senior status, George W. Bush appointee Philip A. Brimmer, has two years left in his term as chief judge. Bennet said he usually receives a heads-up from judges who have decided to step down, but Brimmer has not indicated he will do so.


‘An American success story’: Nina Wang formally sworn in as history-making federal judge

The gap between vacancies also gives an opportunity for legal groups in Colorado to think about their engagement with the process of nominating federal judges. Although bar associations are routinely involved with appointments of state judges, they had to adjust to Bennet and Hickenlooper’s system.

“Because federal judicial vacancies are so rare, APABA’s judicial nominations committee does not have a defined process for weighing in as we do for state judicial vacancies,” said Christine Lyman and Kevin Chen, co-chairs of the judicial nominations committee for the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Colorado. They added that their association sent endorsement letters to the senators’ advisory committee and the White House on behalf of certain candidates, and also wrote a letter of support for Crews to the Senate Judiciary Committee at his request.

Advertisement

Amber R. Gonzales, president of the Colorado Hispanic Bar Association, added that the group endorsed multiple candidates and was disappointed the judicial nominees did not include more Latino lawyers. However, Gonzales said, the bar association would continue to build a more robust pipeline to the bench and “regrow a lot of those (political) connections, especially outside of just the core legal community.”

Apart from the public and private advocacy on behalf of Colorado’s judicial nominees, Hickenlooper disclosed another factor that, in his view, made the process unfold smoothly.

“What also helps Colorado is the fact that Michael Bennet is recognized as a consummate, someone who really understands the law at a deep level,” Hickenlooper said. “So, when he and I are both going out there to make sure we get enough votes to confirm any of these appointments, my voice carries a little more authority because he’s my senior senator.”





Source link

Advertisement

Colorado

Deen: Avalanche Solve Roster Needs. What’s Next? | Colorado Hockey Now

Published

on

Deen: Avalanche Solve Roster Needs. What’s Next? | Colorado Hockey Now


The trade deadline is less than 24 hours away and the Avalanche have already made the three moves that had been clear-cuts needs for the team.

They needed to improve their third pair. They did that by swapping Samuel Girard for Brett Kulak.

They needed to replace the recently departed Ilya Solovyov with a more capable No. 7 option on the blueline. That was accomplished with Wednesday’s trade for Nick Blankenburg.

Most importantly, the Avs needed a third-line center. On Thursday, they paid a hefty price to acquire Nicolas Roy from the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Advertisement

These are all things that had to be done. Now? They have nearly $7 million in available cap space (with Logan O’Connor on LTIR), with an opportunity to improve on the roster they have. This is the part of the trade deadline where general manager Chris MacFarland can bolster the team, find those luxury additions, and maximize his team’s chances and winning a Stanley Cup.

So what could that look like?

Most of the season has seen Ross Colton, Victor Olofsson, and even Gavin Brindley occupy the wings on the third line. With Roy expected to settle into that 3C role, there’s an opportunity to build on the wing. Elliotte Friedman mentioned last week that the Avs could move on from Colton. If so, that would give them a lot more cap space and a valuable asset they can use on the trade market to bring in a solid middle-six winger. Perhaps someone like Blake Coleman.

Olofsson has chemistry with Roy dating back to last season with Vegas, but you have to wonder if they’d be looking to upgrade on his position, too.

That leaves Jack Drury on the fourth line, centering Parker Kelly and Joel Kiviranta. Brindley slots down to the No. 13 forward (when everyone is healthy), while Zakhar Bardakov is the 14th option.

Advertisement

If O’Connor returns before the postseason, he instantly rejoins the fourth line. That would push Kiviranta out, and he’d be the 13th forward just like he was last year. Even in that scenario, I do wonder if the Avs decide to improve on Bardakov. He’s a young centerman who has impressed in limited minutes but has struggled to gain the full trust of the coaching staff.

There’s also the option to add another depth defenseman. Right now, an injury to Kulak or Devon Toews would again force Colorado to have five right-shot defensemen in the lineup. Blankenburg, who also shoots right, would be an ideal fill-in if an injury were to strike on the right side.

But what about another depth option? Colorado won the Cup in 2022 with both Ryan Murray and Jack Johnson on the outside looking in. After Girard’s injury, Johnson stepped in. But it didnd’t hurt to have multiple depth options just in case.

Could the Avs target another depth blueliner? If so, will they go for a bigger body? I’ve seen the name Urho Vaakanainen floated around. He would be the type of left-shot defenseman who could fill that role as an extra. Albeit his $1.55 million cap hit might be too large to take on without retention for such a limited role.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Colorado Parks and Wildlife advances controversial fur ban petition during packed meeting

Published

on

Colorado Parks and Wildlife advances controversial fur ban petition during packed meeting


A contentious fight over fur stole the show at day one of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission March meeting. The drama centered around a citizen petition to prohibit the sale of some wild animals furs.

The public meeting was packed with hunting advocates and animal rights groups. A total of 120 people signed up to speak during public comment at the hours-long meeting, not including those who submitted written or virtual comments.

An image from the heavily-attended meeting at the DoubleTree Denver-Westminster on Wednesday

Advertisement

CBS


The turnout was so big that Colorado Parks and Wildlife increased security. The meeting was held at the DoubleTree Denver-Westminster. CPW said they conducted security checks at the entrance at the hotel’s request to enforce the venue’s ban on weapons.

Ultimately, the commission voted 6-4 to move a proposed fur ban into the rulemaking phase.

It’s a win for the animal rights groups that submitted the petition.

While the commission did not all-out adopt the petition as it was submitted. They chose to initiate a rulemaking process for a potential ban to be approved down the line.

Advertisement

When the motion was advanced, it was met by jeers and some cheers from an audience full of hunters, trappers and advocates.

“We were hoping that there would be an opposition to moving the petition forward for the variety of reasons,” said Dan Gates, executive director of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management. “It’s kind of frustrating that you sit there that long and you go through that much back and forth. On so many different levels. So it’s kind of disappointing.”

“This is a win. So it’s a good day,” said Samantha Miller, the senior carnivore campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity.

Miller submitted the petition, which sought to ban the for-profit sale of fur from Colorado wildlife known as furbearers.

Those are 17 species including fox, bobcat, beaver, raccoon and coyote.

Advertisement

fox.jpg

CBS


“Right now, furbearers are hunted and trapped in unlimited numbers in the state of Colorado, they also don’t enjoy the same protections against commercial markets that other big game species do enjoy, and in a time of biodiversity crisis and climate change, it’s critical that we up our management levels, modernize them, to reflect the crises we’re facing at the time, and ally for align for rare management with other species,” Miller said.

Colorado law already bans the commercial sale of big game.

As submitted, the petition would not limit the trapping or hunting of furbearers, just the sale of their furs and other parts, including hides, pelts, skins, claws and similar items. The sale of furs from farmed animals or wild animals killed outside Colorado would not be impacted.

Advertisement

The petition proposes exceptions, including fishing flies, western hats and scientific or educational materials.

The petition argues that commercial wildlife markets historically contributed to severe wildlife declines in North America and that modern conservation under the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation calls for eliminating markets for wildlife products.

“So what we’re saying is, let’s at least take this commercial piece off the table. We don’t allow this for any other wild animals, and let’s move forward with this petition,” Miller said.

Public comment speakers who supported the petition urged CPW to put compassion for animals ahead of commercial profits.
While the majority of speakers spoke against the proposed ban, saying the existing science-based wildlife management is working, and pointing out the Coloradans who rely on this industry for their livelihood.

Many pointed out that Denver voters rejected a similar fur ban in 2024.

Advertisement

“As a personal furbearer harvester over the course of the last 50 years, and a wildlife control operator and the president for the Colorado Trappers and Predator Hunters Association as well. We can adamantly say that we are for science-based wildlife management, and there’s been no indication whatsoever from the science-based wildlife managers that there’s a problem with any one of the 17 furbearers in the state of Colorado,” Gates said.

CPW staff recommended denial of the petition, saying the division does not have solid evidence that commercial fur sales are leading to unsustainable harvest levels of these animals.

Staff also worried about potential enforcement issues with proposed exemptions, and that the petition contradicts a state law allowing landowners to hunt, trap, and sell furs from furbearers causing damage to property.

“Colorado Parks and Wildlife laid a very good synopsis down when they were putting that recommendation for denial together, and some of these things will play out, and we’ll just have to see how it does,” Gates said.

The commission’s vote to initiate rulemaking leaves the door open for those concerns to be addressed.

Advertisement

“Rulemaking will clear up all of those misalignments that they have found or identified and make sure that it goes forward to the letter of the law and honoring the intent of the visit of the petition,” Miller said. “It’s a good day, I think, for wildlife to bring our regulations consistent and to start modernizing our furbearer management.”

“It seemed today that the vote was more social minded, more personal preference or ideological minded, as opposed to looking at the science and the data that was given by the agency,” Gates said.

See the petition below:



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Colorado breweries warn new tax hike bills could lead to more small business closures, job losses

Published

on

Colorado breweries warn new tax hike bills could lead to more small business closures, job losses


A bartender pours a beer at a bar in Summit County on Thursday, Feb. 29, 2024. A new bill intended to provide funds for alcohol-related addiction prevention, treatment and recovery programs could cost small breweries and wineries up to 160% in taxes and fees.
Andrew Maciejewski/Summit Daily News

Colorado brewers are raising red flags over new bills that could increase taxes and fees on small alcohol businesses, many of which are already struggling to keep their doors open.

House Bill 1271, known as the Alcohol Impact & Recovery Enterprises bill, creates three government-run enterprises designed to fund programs for alcohol-related addiction prevention, treatment and recovery programs — all funded through fees imposed on alcoholic beverages. The bill is sponsored by four Democratic lawmakers.

Colorado per capita alcohol consumption is higher than the national average. The state also has one of the higher alcohol-related death rates in the country, with around 24 deaths per 100,000 residents as of 2023, according to data from Trust for America’s Health. 



Data from the Colorado Health Institute shows not everyone who could benefit from treatment for alcohol use disorders currently receives it, largely due to factors like cost, accessibility and stigma.

Advertisement

Were the bill to pass, manufacturers and wholesale distributors would have to pay five cents in fees per gallon of beer, cider and apple wine, seven cents per liter of wine and 35 cents per liter of spirits to be used toward alcohol-related treatment and recovery programs. As state lawmakers plan cuts to balance a $850 million budget deficit, advocates for these programs argue the funding from the bill could help offset any potential losses.



For local breweries and wineries in the mountains, however, this would be a significant financial blow to an already struggling industry.

“This is not the time for us to be implementing new taxes on an industry that is hurting right now,” said Carlin Walsh, owner of Elevation Beer Company and chair of the Colorado Brewers Guild. “As a brewer, I feel like the state is looking a gift horse in the mouth.”

Beer, wine, cider and spirits generate around $22 billion in economic activity for Colorado, according to the Colorado Beverage Coalition. The state is home to nearly 420 breweries, 145 wineries, nearly 20 cideries and 100 distilleries. 

Faced with rising costs and waning appetites, however, over 100 Colorado breweries have shuttered their doors since 2024, marking the first time since 2005 that more breweries closed than opened. Meanwhile, national surveys confirmed alcohol consumption in the U.S. is at a 90-year low.

Advertisement

Walsh said breweries already pay eight cents per gallon in taxes, which for a company like Elevation translates to roughly $30,000 in taxes annually. Fees from the new bill would add another $12,000 to its yearly expenses.

“The alcohol industry at large is one of the most regulated industries in the United States, period. We already pay a very heavy tax,” Walsh said, adding that breweries provide tens of millions of dollars to Colorado’s general fund. “Our position is that there’s already money available. Those dollars go to the general fund, and it’s really up to the state to manage what we already provide and to decide what is their priority. We don’t feel like it should be on our shoulders to increase the amount that we pay to the state just because the state wants to endeavour on new programs.”

The Colorado Beverage Coalition said the imposed fees would be a 60% cost increase on alcohol businesses. Paired with an estimated 100% increase in taxes from a referred ballot measure proposed last week — House Bill 1301 — the impacts would be disastrous for the industry, Walsh said.

House Bill 1301 would refer a measure to the November ballot that would increase excise taxes on alcohol and increase sales and excise taxes on marijuana in order to fund a mental health hospital in Aurora.

“Our brewery and so many other breweries, we just don’t have capacity for that. We’re already a low margin business to begin with,” Walsh said. “If this happens, this is going to drive further consolidation amongst our members. It’s going to drive further closures.”

Advertisement

Larger alcohol companies may be in a better position to absorb some of the costs from increased fees, said Shawnee Adelson, executive director for the Colorado Brewers Guild. Small businesses in rural resort markets, on the other hand, are not in that position.

“At a certain point when costs just keep going up and up and up, there’s no more place to cut,” Adelson said.

Colorado jobs, tourism could see ripple effects

The Colorado Beverage Coalition estimates House Bill 1271 could impact several of the 131,000 brewery, winery and distillery jobs in the state.

The Colorado Beverage Coalition estimates House Bill 1271 would jeopardize 131,000 brewery, winery and distillery jobs in the state, in addition to “greatly increasing cost on consumers.” Walsh said an average brewery would “no doubt” have to cut jobs if either, or both, bills were to pass.

“Depending on the size of a brewery, it could be the cost of a full-time staff or multiple full-time staff to cover the cost of these (fees), so there is a real concern about job losses due to increased costs,” Adelson added.

The Colorado Distillers Guild also argues the bill would be a blow to the tourism industry, as visitors could be deterred by increased consumer costs and a dwindling beer culture.

“A lot of (breweries) will either have to absorb that cost or pass it on to the consumer. And right now, in the current state of the economy, we understand that a lot of consumers are price conscious right now, which is also contributing to lower consumption,” Adelson said. “Passing on that price is going to be really hard for consumers to swallow as well.”

Advertisement

The bill is not entirely new, as similar legislation by the same name was proposed in 2024. The original bill, which died in committee, received significant pushback from Gov. Jared Polis due to concerns that it would end up raising prices for consumers. Polis also requested that sponsors exempt beer companies from the fees.

Aside from a stakeholder meeting ahead of the bill’s introduction, Adelson said the Colorado Brewers Guild had not been contacted by lawmakers about the plan for an excise fee increase.

“We’ve had two years to sit down and have discussions with lawmakers about this. Nobody has reached out. Nobody has sat down with us to say, ‘Hey, this is our goal. We wanna get this done. How can you guys meet us halfway?’” Walsh said.

Being an enterprise fee rather than a tax, House Bill 1271 would not go to voters for approval. Instead, the change would be implemented through legislation only and automatically go live in July 2027. Because the bill would create three separate enterprise fees for beer, wine and spirits — each capped at $20 million annually per state law — the state could collect up to $60 million from all three.

The bill would also create a new 11-member board appointed by the governor to oversee the three enterprises, which would be made up of alcohol industry representatives, behavioral health professionals, public health experts and individuals in recovery.

Advertisement

On top of feeling that a financial change of that magnitude should be left up to voters, Walsh said he’s heard from businesses that are concerned about the potential for the board to increase fees in the future.

“There are very few guard rails around how this enterprise can operate, including the ability for them to raise the tax price that we’re currently paying. There’s very few restrictions within this bill that control how much they can increase that tax,” Walsh said. “In two years they could come back and say, ‘Oh we’re going to increase it another five cents or 10 cents.’”

For Adelson, the fees would impact more than just manufacturing facilities and business  operations.

“They’re community gathering spaces and they’re third places,” Adelson said. “They give back a lot and so I think I just want to make sure that the consumer realizes that we’re not just talking about production facilities, but your local neighborhood brewery that’s down the street and that your neighbours own or your friends work at.”

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending