Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agricultural Worker Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances narrow rewrite of farmworker access law after split testimony
Summary
The committee voted 10–2 to advance Senate Bill 128, a narrowly crafted amendment meant to reconcile Colorado law with U.S. Supreme Court decisions on property access while preserving agricultural workers’ ability to meet with key service providers, but farmworker advocates warned the changes could increase isolation and create legal uncertainty.
Senate Bill 128, sponsored in committee by Representative McCormick with Representative Winter as a co-sponsor, would amend Colorado’s existing law governing access by key service providers (healthcare, legal aid and similar providers) to agricultural workers on employer property. Sponsors said the changes respond to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid and are intended to preserve property owners’ right to exclude while maintaining workers’ access to services.
Representative McCormick told the committee the bill “protects property rights of employers while also acknowledging the important public health and safety interests that are advanced by safeguarding access” to service providers. Assistant Minority Leader Representative Winter and several agricultural organizations testified in support, calling the measure a narrow “cleanup” to avoid broader constitutional exposure after Cedar Point.
Witnesses who work directly with farmworkers urged caution. Jesus Loiza, a former enforcement officer with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment who testified on his own behalf, said mobile clinics and key service providers are often the only accessible sources of medical care and legal counsel for isolated, largely immigrant laborers living in employer‑provided housing. “This is an incredibly isolated population of workers,” Loiza said, and he warned that restricting access could “further isolate” them and impede medical and legal assistance.
Jennifer Rodriguez of Colorado Legal Services, Farmworker Rights Division, said she was not taking a position for or against the bill but urged care with the bill’s legislative preamble language. Rodriguez noted that no Colorado or federal court has definitively ruled the state statute unconstitutional and warned that the bill’s “whereas” clauses could increase the state’s financial liability by implying a retroactive taking; she also noted a case brought by the Colorado Livestock Association is pending at the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Dan Waldvogel, representing Western States Ranch and several statewide agricultural associations, urged support and said Office of Legislative Legal Services (OLLS) reviewed the matter and advised that a narrow statutory fix was appropriate to address the constitutional concern.
Committee members asked whether rulemaking authority in the bill would preserve access for range and shepherding situations that involve unclear public/private boundaries; sponsors said the bill allows rulemaking to address practical situations. No committee amendments were offered. Representative McCormick moved the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; the motion was seconded and passed 10–2.
The committee’s debate split along stakeholder lines: agricultural organizations and property‑rights advocates favored the amendment as necessary to avoid constitutional exposure, while farmworker advocates and legal services representatives urged caution about potential chilling effects on visits to employer‑provided housing and about language that could affect state liability or practical access for range workers.
The committee record shows the bill will proceed to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration.
