Committee advances amended bill letting people 72 and older opt out of jury service; DAs warn of rural impact

Representative Baron reintroduced House Bill 10 22 to allow an optional opt-out from jury service for people age 72 and older. Baron said the measure is voluntary and intended to respect seniors who face mobility, hearing and caregiving barriers. “This is an option. It’s not a mandate,” he said.

The bill drew sharp questioning about whether it duplicates existing statutory opt-out provisions and what effect it would have on rural jurisdictions. Office of Legislative Legal Services counsel Jacob Bass explained that, as drafted, the temporary opt-out period had language leaving duration “as determined by the court,” but sponsors later offered an amendment to set the temporary opt-out at one year. Bass also explained a drafting choice to use subsection numbering that leaves room for future provisions.

Jessica Dotter, senior chief for legislative policy at the Colorado District Attorney’s Council, testified on behalf of the 23 elected district attorneys in opposition. She warned the proposal would “limit” a critical demographic for juries in low-population counties and cited a fiscal-note estimate that the change could result in about 23,724 fewer jury summonses. “It’s a limiting piece of policy to a very important and able demographic,” Dotter said, urging members to vote no.

Other district attorneys from rural districts (testifying in person or via proxy) echoed concerns that an age-based opt-out would worsen the longstanding difficulty of impaneling juries in small counties. Supporters, including an 80‑year‑old testifier and a victim‑services advocate, described practical barriers for older people and urged implementation that reduces administrative hurdles (doctor’s notes, scanning paperwork) and treats the change as an option.

The sponsors offered two committee amendments: a technical drafting fix (L001) and L002, which changed the temporary opt-out language to make it one year from the date of request rather than leaving duration to the court. L001 passed 7–4; L002 was adopted. After extended debate weighing dignity and administrative relief for seniors against access to justice and the fair‑cross‑section statutory standard, Vice Chair Clifford moved the bill to the Committee on Appropriations with a favorable recommendation. The motion passed 6–5 (yeas: Duran, Gray, Wynne, Rex, Clifford, Madam Chair; nays: Bottoms, Bradley, Carter, Espinosa, Luck).