Colorado committee advances bill letting voters and election workers sue over intimidation

House members on the House State, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee moved House Bill 12 25 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation after several hours of testimony and two adopted amendments.

The bill, introduced by Representative Leslie Woodrow and co-prime Representative Velasco, allows a voter or election worker who has experienced intimidation in election activities to request a restraining order in state court and to seek money damages. "If a voter or election worker has experienced intimidation in election activities, they can request a restraining order in state court," Woodrow told the committee. The measure also creates a rebuttable presumption that a person carrying a visible firearm at the time of an incident has engaged in intimidation; a defendant could rebut that presumption in court, Woodrow said.

Why it matters: sponsors and supporting organizations said the measure fills a gap left by criminal statutes by giving victims a civil remedy and could help retain election administrators who have left their posts after threats. Ally Belknap of Colorado Common Cause urged the committee to "vote yes on this bill," saying election workers "should not feel unsafe while doing their jobs." Hillary Rudy, testifying for the Secretary of State's office, said the department supports the bill because "protecting our election workers and officials, we safeguard our democracy."

What the bill does: it preserves existing criminal penalties but adds civil enforcement options — restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and potential damages — for election-related intimidation, harassment or coercion. Sponsors said enforcement requires going before a judge and showing irreparable harm and that the presumption tied to visible firearms is rebuttable. Representative Velasco said the bill "strengthens our existing protections for election workers...the state can bring criminal charges for election intimidation but individuals have no civil recourse."

Testimony and debate: dozens of witnesses and committee members spoke. Supporters included the Brennan Center, League of Women Voters, Everytown for Gun Safety, the Colorado AFL-CIO, Giffords Law Center, the Colorado Education Association and several county clerks who described threats and the effect on staffing. Opponents, including Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and several private citizens, called the measure an overreach that could chill lawful gun owners and First Amendment activity. "This is a gun bill," said Keith Emerson (testifying in opposition), and Candy Boyer, an election judge, warned the bill could create a presumption of guilt. Several members pressed sponsors for data tying firearms specifically to the examples in the bill; witnesses and sponsors said comprehensive, centralized reporting of such incidents is limited and that much evidence is anecdotal or collected by nonprofits.

Amendments and committee action: two sponsor amendments were adopted in committee. Amendment L001 clarifies the firearm presumption does not apply to law-enforcement officers or uniformed contracted security acting within the scope of their duties; the amendment was approved on a roll-call vote recorded as 7 to 3. Amendment L002 clarifies that enforcement action taken against an election judge for violating state law or a rule promulgated under the Secretary of State or a judge's oath is not actionable under the act; it was adopted without recorded objection. The committee then advanced HB 12 25 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation on a recorded vote of 8 to 3. Those voting no in the final roll call included Representatives Bottoms, Bradley and Luck; the motion carried.

Limits and open questions: sponsors repeatedly said the bill does not increase criminal penalties and emphasized courts would determine relief. Multiple committee members asked for more granular data — for example, how many of the cited intimidation incidents involved firearms and how many election officials left for reasons other than intimidation — and witnesses said that level of detail was not immediately available in a centralized, public database. Several stakeholders requested clarifications addressing practical enforcement and the scope of covered activities; the sponsor amendments responded to some of those concerns.

What happens next: HB 12 25, as amended, goes to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration. If approved there, it would proceed to the House floor for debate and a final vote.

Ending: Supporters framed the bill as a tool to deter threats and retain election professionals; opponents called it unnecessary and constitutionally problematic. The committee’s action means the measure will advance for further consideration in the House.