House adopts bill creating legislative security liaison, limits some online publication of officials’ personal information

The Colorado House on May 7 passed HB 14-22, a multipart measure the sponsor said is intended to improve security for elected officials and the judiciary while limiting the online publication of personally identifying information that could be used to harass public servants. The bill creates a liaison role to coordinate legislative security, authorizes limited changes to how certain official contact information is distributed, and moves the court security cash fund into a special‑purpose authority to support longer‑term capital and technology security projects.

Sponsor Representative Jonathan Clifford described the bill as a response to an increase in credible threats and said the legislation draws on work with the Colorado State Patrol. “We will just start keeping a list at the secretary of state’s office for the people who have requested it,” Clifford said, noting the bill would require requesters to certify lawful use and give law enforcement a breadcrumb trail if harassment began. Clifford added that the measure also creates a liaison post modeled on a position in the judicial branch: “We are not creating a police force for the capitol. We have one of those. It’s called the Colorado State Patrol.”

The bill prompted heated floor debate over where the line should be drawn between protecting safety and protecting speech. Representative Luck repeatedly asked the sponsor to clarify what would constitute an “imminent and serious threat,” expressing concern about criminalizing fervent political rhetoric. Clifford said the mens rea would require a knowing attempt to cause bodily harm or similar conduct and stressed that ordinary political speech is protected: “You wanna post some horrible **** about me on the Internet… I am completely fine with that. You come and threaten my family, we’re gonna charge you with a crime.”

A separate strand of the debate focused on a potential conflict of interest. Representative Bottoms raised concerns about the sponsor’s business background after Clifford described prior work providing security systems to members, saying: “I think that’s a direct conflict of interest.” Clifford told the House he leads a custom protection division and said he has never profited from providing security systems to members: “I earn no money, have never and will never as a result of members that serve in the general assembly.”

Members also disputed parts of the bill that change judicial security funding and shift certain court fees into a board‑managed special authority. Representative Marshall said he opposed combining multiple distinct policy changes in a single bill and warned the measure doubles a docket fee that could raise civil litigation costs for Coloradans.

The bill’s sponsors ran and secured adoption of several amendments that narrowed some provisions and added implementation guardrails. The House adopted HB 14-22 as amended; the official floor record notes the measure was adopted and placed on the calendar for further action. The measure now proceeds to the Senate (or other next step per chamber rules) as the legislature continues to reconcile implementation details and oversight responsibilities.

Supporters described the bill as a pragmatic step to protect officials and judicial staff; opponents said some provisions risk chilling speech or saddling citizens with higher fees. Several members urged continued stakeholder discussions about how the new liaison will coordinate with the Colorado State Patrol and with media and advocacy groups.

What’s next: sponsors and staff said they will work with the secretary of state and the Colorado State Patrol to finalize forms and processes for restricted access to certain data, and legislative leaders expect further stakeholder follow‑up as implementing rules and duties are developed.