Colorado House Majority Leader Amy Stephens is feeling the heat – not from sweltering summer temperatures but instead from the sizzling tempers of Republican “anarchists” who think the Monument legislator has violated conservative and constitutional values. They seem bent on anointing a warrior to defeat Stephens in 2012 – the frontrunner appears to be Kanda Calef.

Stephens’ foes are fuming over SB11-200, the “Health Care Exchange” bill that she co-sponsored with Senate President Pro-tem Betty Boyd and the Monument Republican’s vote for HB10-1365, the “Clean Air – Clean Jobs Colorado” bill. Both bills, Stephens said, assert states’ rights over federal mandates.

Rep. Amy Stephens

It would seem logical to assume state Sen. Kent Lambert and former state Sen. Dave Schultheis, Republicans of Colorado Springs, are among those secret supporters. Both have railed against the health exchange bill dubbed “Amycare” by opponents.

“I don’t really know them,” said Calef, who had worked as a legislative aide to Lambert and Sen. Kevin Lundberg of Berthoud.

“What I meant is that I don’t know if they like me,” she said.

Calef said she’d also worked for Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling. She didn’t mention that she was a legislative aide to Stephens as well as Sonnenberg in 2008. When that situation fizzled after three weeks, Calef was reassigned to Lambert and Lundberg.

Lundberg and Lambert serve as chairman and co-chairman, respectively, of the Republican Study Committee of Colorado, a nonprofit organization of legislators registered with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office by Schultheis. Though the former state senator chose not to seek re-election in 2010, he has remained ardently involved in the RSCC.

In an interview earlier this year, Schultheis expressed dissatisfaction and dismay over the RINO legislators – his “Republican in name only” list included House Speaker Frank McNulty of Highlands Ranch and Stephens. The RSCC lost a third of its members in March in part because of its rigid assessments of Republican legislators’ votes and bills.

After the Colorado Independent story about Schultheis and the conservative Republican legislative group and the weekly assessment of bills – noting either “DOES support RSCC principles” or “DOES NOT support RSCC principles” – the RSCC website added a disclaimer.

“The following individuals and organizations have provided inputs, regular feedback, or helped with some or all of analyses of the Project: RSCC Executive Director Rich Bratten; Rich Barnes; Bears Ears Tea Party Patriots, Craig, CO; Amy Oliver; Judith E. Schmalz; Tri-County 9/12 Project for Western Colorado; Western Slope Constitutional Patriots; Colorado Tea Party Alliance; Kenneth R. Clark; Host Grass Roots Radio; Colorado Field Director Freedom Works; Al Maurer, The Patriot Today; Liberty Watch; Michelle Morin; Coalition for a Conservative Majority, Colorado Springs; Robert Rowland, Chairman Elbert Tea Party/912; Ginni Selby, Co-Chair Western Slope Constitutional Patriots; Clem Borkowski, Precinct Leader, Central Committee Member, LibertyEvents.org; Broomfield 912; Colorado Tea Party; Gadsen Society of Colorado; Hear Us Now; Jeff Wright, Pikes Peak Economics Club; Evergreen Tea Party; William M. Banta, Esq.; Tea Party Colorado; Lu Busse, 9-12 Colorado Coalition; Managing Editor of The Patriot Today; Lizabeth Matz Founder, Western Slope Constitutional Patriots, Delta, CO.”

It’s a sampling of what Schultheis and his supporters describe as the GOP grassroots majority. There’s a deep chasm between that GOP wing and mainstream Republicans, who are more often called “elitists” or “old guard” than “grassroots” party members. The fracture is evident in county Republican parties and the looming HD 20 race that potentially pits Stephens against Calef, or another emerging candidate under the watchful eye of Schultheis and Lambert.

In May, Schultheis participated in a rally against the health care exchange at the Classical Academy – a hop-skip from Focus on the Family where Stephens had worked in communications before her election to the House in 2006.

The forum was sponsored by Citizens Legislative Action Committee, We the People, Liberty on the Rocks, El Paso County Tea Party, Coalition for a Conservative Majority and the 9-12 Pikes Peak Patriots.

Lambert took to the stage, Schultheis sat in the audience and Calef talked liberally to reporters and bloggers. It wasn’t a media debut for Calef who most recently appeared on Grassroots Radio Colorado and blasted the El Paso County GOP for a closed meeting of the party’s executive committee on July 7.

The committee considered sanctions against county GOP Secretary Sarah Anderson who had criticized Stephens and the health care exchange bill in a newspaper interview. Interestingly, when Anderson ran for party secretary, she was nominated by Schultheis and Lambert.

Though the executive members reportedly agreed to keep the meeting confidential, Calef went on Grassroots Radio Colorado and dished intimate details culled from committee members sympathetic to Anderson.

“It’s the old guard protectionists who want a stranglehold on the party versus grassroots people like me,” explained Calef. “It wasn’t Sarah Anderson who went off the reservation, it was Amy Stephens… Amy was behind the gag order resolution” to close that portion of the meeting.

“That’s hogwash!” declared Rep. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, a member of the county GOP Executive Committee. “Not one member of the committee objected to the closed session. Amy had nothing to do with that decision – she wasn’t even there.”

Some Republicans say it’s crazy to gamble the GOP’s resources on a race to oust Stephens who has swiftly risen to power in the House. It distracts from winning more state legislative seats or worse, it risks the GOP’s one-seat majority in the state House.

“We have a razor thin majority in the state House,” said Buddy Gilmore, former El Paso County GOP Executive Director and Colorado Springs mayoral candidate. “We need to focus on winning more seats in 2012 and defeating (Democratic President Barack) Obama.”

“The problem is that we’ve got a bunch of antagonists that are pushing to split our party – Schultheis is behind a lot of this friction,” said Gilmore.

Neither Schultheis nor Lambert returned calls for comment.

Stephens said she’s more concerned about winning elections next year than assaults on her character by activists who live in an “echo chamber” – blogging, twittering, emailing to their loosely knit compatriots.

“I have two goals: grow the majority in the state House and defeat Obama in 2012,” said Stephens. “I’m not focused on the ‘Schultheises’ of the world – I’m determined to get Republicans elected, especially strong women. That may shock Dave Schultheis!”

Obviously, Calef isn’t on Stephens’ list of women candidates.

“Amy Stephens feels threatened by me and my supporters, and calls us anarchists,” asserted Calef. “I’m not anti-government. I believe the real role of government is protecting individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Calef is serious about waging a campaign for HD 20, but she said that her house will be located in HD 19 instead of HD 20 on the new reapportionment maps. She wondered if the change was influenced by Republicans who don’t want her to run.

“It shows the fear of Stephens and the old time Republican guard,” declared Calef.

Stephens gasped, “That is ridiculous! It sounds like a conspiracy theory. No one colluded with me.”

Contrary to Calef’s assertion, her home is located in HD 20 on the latest reapportionment map proposal.

The newly launched “noamystephens.com” website, “dedicated to dethroning the queen,” hammered Stephens for the Health Exchange and Clean Air – Clean Jobs bills. Untrue was the claim that she had voted for the FASTER bill that raised car registration fees in 2009 to fund infrastructure improvements.

The website and Facebook page are registered under the alias Sam Adams – a reference to the American Revolution leader or the Boston brewed beer named for him. Facebook friends include Schultheis, county party Secretary Anderson and her boyfriend Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench, Moms4Freedom blogger Michelle Morin, Robin Coran and county party Vice Chair David Williams.

Schultheis wrote on his Facebook wall, “Just discovered this ‘hit’ website on Amy Stephens.” Later he clarified, “I have nothing to do with this site.”

Stephens shrugged off her detractors as a circle of people who spend their time making “echo noise” for hours and hours. She said there seem to be more critics than solution seekers.

“If you’re here for freedom and opportunity and solutions for Colorado, then get on the bus. I’m with you,” said Stephens. “But, if you have no solutions to contribute and you’re just complaining, you’re on the wrong bus.”

The HD20 battle epitomizes the black-and-white snapshot of the El Paso County GOP – splintered between longtime traditional conservatives who favor Stephens versus Calef’s grassroots activists in anti-establishment coalitions – many of whom can be credited for helping deliver Dan Maes for governor in 2010 to the Democratic Party’s glee.

The Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee axed three Republican immigration bills Monday. Like many times this session, the committee, on a party-line vote, turned down legislation that targeted voting accessibility and immigration concerns. Also killed was a bill ridiculed by some as a  “birther bill.” That legislation would have required elected officials to present proof of citizenship upon taking office.

“A lot of people come down here to work on making good government and building a better society,”  Rob DuRay of the progressive leaning New Era Colorado, told the Colorado Independent. “So, to bring forward a ‘birther’ bill is offensive and cynical. We have people working very hard and it is distracting from other problems.”

SCR 003, requiring proof of citizenship

Sen. Kent Lambert

“This will not affect any federal candidates,” Lambert said.

The bill was killed on a quick party-line vote with Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, jokingly saying it came about too late.

Two other pieces of legislation also died in the committee Monday. Each was a bill that had already been shot down earlier this year, but which crept back to life as Republican sponsored Senate concurrent resolutions.

Democrats re-buried legislation initially proposed by Secretary of State Scott Gessler.  The resolution would have required the secretary of state to check voter records with state and national databases to look for discrepancies in legal voting status. Those determined by the secretary of state to likely be on the voting roll illegally would have been asked to provide proof of citizenship within 90 days or lose the ability to vote.

Democrats then closed the coffin lid on SCR 4 but not quite as tightly as the other Lambert sponsored pieces of legislation. The bill would have required all employers to use the E-verify national database system in order to ensure that those applying for jobs were legally allowed to work in the United States. While Democrats voted solidly against the bill after raising concerns that E-verify has been shown to be inaccurate in some cases, some said once those problems were fixed they could be a ‘yes’ vote. Both Senators Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, and Sen. Rollie Heath, D-Boulder, expressed their interest in voting for a more accurate E-verify system later down the road.

“Maybe the time will come before I leave this legislature that I can vote yes on this bill, but not this time,” Boyd said.

After the legislation was killed Lambert charged that Democrats were against curtailing illegal immigration.

“Democrats claim we need to send a message to Washington to deal with illegal immigration, but their solution is to give in-state tuition to ‘undocumented’ aliens. They cannot even agree that voters and elected officials should provide proof of citizenship,” Lambert told the Senate minority office’s “news agency.”

“Senate Democrats continue to thwart the will of the people by refusing to stem the tide of illegal immigration while simultaneously rewarding illegal behavior,” said Lambert. “With 9.2 percent unemployment in Colorado, when will they understand they are killing jobs for American citizens and legal foreign workers?”

The long bill budget plan was introduced Tuesday after the Joint Budget Committee (JBC), under the pressure of a looming Senate budget plan, came to a compromise. Democrats said while they gave up considerable concessions, they gained close to $100 million for schools and removed of an amendment that would have required teachers and local government employees to contribute more to their retirement plans.

After a week of deadlocked negotiations, concessions were made on both sides of the aisle Tuesday, as Democratic members of the JBC told the press after the meeting that securing a reduction in cuts to education was their main priority. They said finding a way to reduce cuts from $332 million to $250 million was their largest success, but other concession will help medicaid patients and public employees.

One of those ancillary concessions was an amendment that many teacher and government employee advocacy groups feared would strike another blow at government workers and teachers.

Sen. Mary Hodge, D-Brighton, said that the negotiations will see an amendment by Rep. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, that would give Colorado school districts and local governments the ability to increase employee contributions to PERA by 2.5 percent dropped.

“It was a big enough cut to our state employees that it would have hurt,” Hodge said.

For their part, Republican members of the JBC said that they got real concessions that would help the Colorado economy and bring back some jobs. All three Republicans pointed to the return of a vendor fee, which allows vendors to keep a portion of the taxes they collect to administer the collection of sales taxes. Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, said it would help employers who have been suffering in wake of the recession.

While Tuesday represented a breakthrough in negotiations for Republicans and Democrats, the reality was time seemed to be running out for them to reach a consensus as both the legislative clock and Senate patience was dwindling. The Senate had said that if the talks, which were influenced far more by legislative members outside the JBC this year, broke down, a bipartisan Senate-sponsored budget would start a public debate about the future spending of the state. The move would have created a political circus far larger than most members wanted and is perhaps one of the reasons the bill never dropped.

Both Lambert and Rep. Jon Becker, R-Fort Morgan, told the Colorado Independent that that while the Senate proposal was part of the discussions they didn’t feel it had considerable affect on the negotiations.

“As far as it being a big pressure on us moving forward, I think that it was a conversation inside of the negotiation as we moved forward. I think it was respectful and I think we got to the point where everyone wanted to be on the JBC,” Becker said.

However, Sen. Pat Steadman, D-Denver, said that the JBC was dangerously close to losing its relevancy as the negotiations at times appeared to be breaking down the day before.

“The path we were about to all embark on yesterday, at 3 and then at 4, would have been a path that undermined the institution of the Joint Budget Committee,” Steadman said. “I hope that we don’t ever have to venture down that path.”

Steadman said that though it has been a good thing that members of the General Assembly took a greater interest in the budget, the best decisions for Colorado had happened at the JBC table.

Lambert, who was also a member of the JBC last year, made news by voting against the budget plan last year. However, he said this year his vote would be aye.

“I think that some of things in the long bill the last couple of years have been objectionable. I didn’t agree.” Lambert said. “But I think this has made it a lot easier for me and many people in the Republican caucus who didn’t go for it in the past, to go forward on a bipartisan basis.”

The budget establishes a 4 percent rainy day fund, transfers $71 million in severance tax funds to balance the General Fund, reinstates the agriculture tax exemption a year early, and suspends the sales tax exemption on tobacco products, which is expected to create $31 million in revenue for the General Fund, and keeps a $100 million balance in the State education fund.

Rep. Cheri Gerou, R-Evergreen, said that the process this year allowed for voices that have not been heard for years when both houses were controlled by one party.

“The wonderful thing about this budget is the equal conversation,” Gerou said. “…there are people in Colorado that have felt silenced.”

If I was doing it myself, would I have come up with the same conclusions? Probably not.” Rep. Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, said. “But that is why we have democracy and that is why we have compromise and give and take by all side.”

Ferrandino said that at the end of the day, the JBC came to a good agreement.

Former Colorado Springs Senator Dave Schultheis is no longer holding forth on bills on the Senate floor in Denver, but he has continued to exert influence this year as the powerful force behind the conservative Republican Study Committee of Colorado. Now that influence may be waning. This week, a third of the RSCC flock quit the committee, rejecting the would-be radical-right revival.

The RSCC claimed 34 Republican members in the state Legislature – 11 in the Senate and 23 in the House – prior to Tuesday. At least 10 legislators quit in the wake of allegations that it was crossing ethics boundaries in influencing lawmaker votes, directing legislative aides and meddling in the race for state GOP chairman.

The committee drew media attention this year for pushing Arizona-style anti-illegal immigration legislation. It held informational hearings that were stacked with anti-immigration witnesses, some with clear ties to white spremacist organizations.

A high-profile surprise rebuke

The committee also took a strong stand in the race to replace Dick Wadhams as head of the Colorado Republican party this month. Schultheis and most conservative study committee members had endorsed RSCC member Senator Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch.

The committee members scrambled on stage last Saturday to nominate Harvey but their “we’ve got it nailed” confidence withered when the Republican Party Central Committee overwhelmingly elected state GOP Legal Counsel Ryan Call on the first ballot with 167.6 votes to Harvey’s 74.4.

As the vote was being read, RSCC Vice Chair Senator Kent Lambert tweeted, “They didn’t buy these ballot boxes at the magic store, did they? ;)”

The committee members and other hard-right Harvey supporters shouldn’t have been so surprised. Wadhams, dogged this year by Tea Partiers as a compromised establishment figure, received an enthusiastic standing ovation at the event. Also, influential RSCC member Senator Shawn Mitchell had seconded Call’s nomination as the kind of leader who could unify a party still reeling from the fractured 2010 Republican primary races for governor and U.S. Senator, offices the GOP lost in the general election.

The rump committee

Gone from the RSCC website membership page are photos and names of House Speaker Frank McNulty, Majority Leader Amy Stephens, Majority Caucus Chair Carole Murray, Majority Whip B.J. Nikkel and Representatives Cindy Acree, Kevin Priola, Ray Scott, Ken Summers, Spencer Swalm and Libby Szabo.

Several legislators recently questioned whether Schultheis and the group had crossed the line between a policy ad-hoc committee and a volunteer lobbyist coalition. They wondered whether the committee compromised a legislative aide who might have breached ethics by disseminating positions on bills and by twittering opinions.

The RSCC produces Senate and House reports – up to 20 pages long – that designate whether a bill “DOES” or “DOES NOT” support conservative values.

For example, an RSCC report evaluated HB 11-1144, which requires health benefit plans to cover medical evaluations of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. The disease is preventable by treating the mother during pregnancy.

The bill, sponsored by Democratic Representatives Judy Solano, Edward Casso, Andy Kerr, Nancy Todd and Democratic Senator Lois Tochtrop, passed in both chambers and was signed into law, despite receiving the thumbs down by the RSCC.

The RSCC said the bill “DOES NOT” support the principles of “constitutional limited government, free markets and personal responsibility.”

That judgment sounded eerily familiar to Schultheis in 2009 citing the need for personal responsibility and less government regulation when he voted against a bill to protect fetuses exposed to the HIV virus. In a Rocky Mountain News interview, he reasoned that as an AIDS-afflicted baby grows up, “the mother will begin to feel guilt… The family will see the negative consequences of that promiscuity.”

The Colorado Springs wing

Earlier in this legislative session, Schultheis candidly discussed his role in monitoring bills and votes for the RSCC with the same eagle-eyed scrutiny he once brought to his search for illegal drug runners and undocumented workers on his treks with the group to the Arizona-Mexico border, most recently in August.

Schultheis appears to be going underground. He claimed “he’s not the brains behind the RSCC” and he blocked public access to his Facebook page.

The RSCC operates under the Legislative Support Group, a nonprofit organization registered with the Secretary of State’s office in June 2006. Schultheis registered the RSCC trade name and designated the entity as an “Other Non-Profit… Social Welfare” located at 1250 Golden Hills Road in Colorado Springs.

The base of operations is Schultheis’ $500,000-plus home perched above the canyon community of Pinecliff, where he rises before daybreak each weekday to assess legislative bills, their sponsors, and the votes cast by members of the Colorado House and Senate.

“It’s frustrating. The Republicans are acting like RINOs,” groaned Schultheis in late February. Among the GOP legislators gone rogue and drawing the ire of Schultheis by defying his version of conservative principles is House Speaker McNulty.

Skewing the initiative process to favor liberal ideology

The source of Schultheis’ anxiety was Senate Concurrent Resolution 11-001, sponsored in the Senate by President Brandon Shaffer and Nancy Spence and in the House by Majority Caucus Chair Murray and Minority Caucus Chair Lois Court. McNulty joined the bill’s numerous co-sponsors.

The resolution aims to tighten requirements to amend the state Constitution. It passed third readings in both chambers, and is pending Senate approval of House amendments. If approved, the measure will go before voters on the 2012 general election ballot.

Schultheis opposed SCR11-001 in a Feb. 23 memo dispatched to House State, Affairs Committee Republican Representatives Randy Baumgardner, Don Coram, Larry Liston, Jim Kerr and Mark Waller. The resolution’s numerous co-sponsors also included Baumgardner, Coram and Liston.

“As conservatives and those who advocate their allegiance for TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights), it seems very apparent to me that should the legislature pass this bill, that two very onerous conditions will result,” wrote Schultheis, who asked that the resolution be killed or at least postponed.

If the resolution passes, Schultheis predicts that TABOR would be repealed and that “more liberal Constitutional amendments will be passed.” He said he had analyzed voter-approved initiatives and amendments over the past two decades, particularly those that passed by at least 60 percent of the vote.

“The shocker is that you will notice that all but one that passed placed liberal ideology in the Constitution,” said Schultheis in a memo. “You can verify that in the initiative summary that I’ve asked Lauri (sic) Bratten to provide you.”

Defining lobbying

Some RSCC members bristled at the notion that Schultheis or the RSCC has lobbied for or against legislation. According to Amendment 41 passed by voters in 2006, statewide elected officials cannot become paid lobbyists until two years after leaving office. Schultheis is free to voice opinions as a citizen or volunteer lobbyist although the latter are supposed to register with the House Clerk.

“I don’t consider the [RSCC] as lobbying,” countered Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, an RSCC member. “They’re just trying to promote Republican ideals and which they stand for. I don’t think they’re lobbying. There’s no difference between the RSCC and Colorado Municipal League or CEA (Colorado Educators Association).”

Both CML and CEA employ registered lobbyists.

More skeptical legislators said Laurie Bratten, referenced in Schultheis’ memo, is dangerously teetering on the ethics line.

Bratten is Director of Communications for RSCC and married to RSCC Executive Director Rich Bratten. She is also the paid legislative aide to RSCC-affiliated Senators Harvey and Scott Renfroe.

The legislators spoke on the condition of anonymity in fear of RSCC members killing their bills or dredging up a primary contender in future re-election bids. They objected to a legislative aide circulating information to influence votes and twittering opinions on bills and politics during committee and floor discussions.

For example, Bratten twittered about Senate Bill 126 that proposed in-state college tuition rates for high school graduates who attended a Colorado school for the three previous years regardless of immigration status. It was introduced and discussed in the Senate on Feb. 2.

On that day, from 1:00 – 1:19 p.m., Bratten pecked several tweets bashing the bill.

“Your kids can’t get a break for tuition in CO but Dems thinks they should give tuition money to illegals,” wrote Bratten.

“CO Dems just CANNOT stay focused on jobs and the economy! Giving an tuition to 4 illegals pressuer NOW.”

“Dem Senator Michael Johnston and the CEA are sponsoring this redistribution to a special class. Be afraid.”

“We have 8.8% unemployment in CO and a 1.5 billion $ deficit & CO Dems want 2 subsidize illegals college degrees?”

The rule governing legislative aides is well known to Schultheis, whose legislative aide Dave Crater testified before the House State Affairs Committee on behalf of the “Dr. Laura” bill in March 2001. The committee rejected Schultheis’ bill to mandate counseling for couples seeking a divorce, and Crater lost his job as a legislative aide.

“We can’t have someone on the state payroll that is advocating for the passage or defeat of a piece of legislation,” then-House Speaker Doug Dean, a conservative Republican, told The Colorado Springs Gazette.

Crater was demoted to an unpaid intern working for Schultheis. The senator, however, admitted that he’d personally padded Crater’s $800-a-month salary to the tune of more than $3,000 a month.

Has Laurie Bratten been inadvertently placed in a similarly compromising position?

“We’re very careful to simply put the legislative analysis in the perspective of whether a bill is consistent or inconsistent with our principles,” said RSCC Executive Director Bratten who refused to comment on his wife’s role. “I suppose that’s a question you will have to ask Senator Harvey.”

“It’s kosher!” laughed Harvey.

Harvey said that the legislative aide’s work on behalf of RSCC is part of her duties for himself and Renfroe, and asserted that other Republican senators’ aides also assist. Legislative aides, he said, follow the directives of their bosses.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

SB-54 would have authorized police officers to arrest without warrant any individual after establishing probable cause that they are illegally in the country.

Lambert said he was not surprised his bill failed.

“We have run many many illegal immigrant bills through the Democrat houses with the same result,” he said.

Lambert said he felt much of the testimony declaring the law unconstitutional was incorrect or focused on other legislation.

Advocates and some Democrats argued that while the bill uses probable cause as the basis to arrest individuals, the initiation of an investigation to determine that standard would likely be race or language based. They said such a practice would be discriminative and likely unconstitutional.

“The only reason that someone could have probable cause short of breaking an already existing state law would be because they happen to be racially profiled,” an Anti-Defamation league spokesperson told the committee. ”They may not speak the language, they might not be able to explain themselves well.”

“The fact is these are already laws. We are not creating new laws. We are just saying the state should enforce existing law, which for the illegal immigrant issue is usually part of what most citizens expect,” Lambert said.

Sen. Kent Lambert presenting his bill before committee (Boven)

U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton issued a preliminary ruling ruling that  found portions of the bill, including one which allowed law enforcement officers to question individuals ‘suspected’ of being illegal immigrants to determine their status, conflicted with federal immigration law. As a result, she issued an injunction against those sections. The law is currently awaiting a decision in the 9th circuit court of appeals about that injunction. The case is likely to move on to the U.S. Supreme Court from there.

Lambert said the federal government had failed in its responsibility and as a result it is up to the states to force its hand, stating that many states are moving in the direction of Arizona and his law.

The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police said it was against the bill on the grounds that police do not have the resources to deal with 250,000 illegal immigrants potentially living in Colorado. Further, they felt that that the law would hinder their ability to work with communities.

A study released earlier this month shows that illegal immigration from Mexico is on a downward trend, with numbers down even more sharply in Colorado, where about 180,000 undocumented immigrants now live.

“We rely on all, I repeat all residents to keep our community safe,” Robert Ticer, Avon chief of police and former Arizona law enforcer, said.  

Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, said he thought the bill was a reasonable first step and that asking Colorado law enforcement agents to enforce immigration status would be similar to enforcing other crimes.

Still, before the final gavel struck on the bill, Heath explained whether unconstitutional or not the bill proposed a Colorado he was unwilling to sanction.

“I just don’t think that is what Colorado is about,” Heath said.

Lambert told The Colorado Independent that similar bills are running in the House. He said there was no tactic behind running the bill in the Senate. Instead, he said that it was his responsibility to run this type of legislation.

He referred to his bill as “a necessary evil”, but pointed to a bill carried by Republican senators as further compounding the problem.

The Colorado Public Employees Retirement Association has come out against bills that would increase contributions while reducing benefits, calling the bills potentially unconstitutional.

Steadman’s bill will compel state employees to continue contributing an extra 2.5 percent of their paychecks into their PERA accounts and allowing the state to reduce its contributions by 2.5 percent in the next fiscal year. Steadman said the general fund savings will be about $19.5 million with individual departments saving additional money. The total savings, he said, add up to $46 million.

The bill will not affect teachers or local government workers.

“There aren’t a lot of good choices to reduce our state budget and reduce the shortfall–there really aren’t. So state employees are going to be asked to continue the sacrifice that began last year,” Steadman said. “This isn’t the best fiscal policy for PERA, and we are going to ask them to hold their nose and be tolerant.”

However, Steadman said a bill sponsored by Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs — also a co-sponsor of Steadman’s bill — would allow local governments to also reduce their contributions to employees’ pension plans while increasing employee contributions. Steadman said he was against Lambert’s bill.

Steadman said there may be a certain amount of hypocrisy in his decision to allow the state to do something that cities, counties and school districts cannot do.

“This isn’t a good policy move. Just because we are forced to do it doesn’t mean that we should compound the problem by letting everyone do it,” Steadman said.

PERA’s Chief Executive Officer Meredith Williams told the Colorado Independent that the board of trustees was against the bills.

“Number one, we like dollars that come from employers. When an employee contributes into PERA it goes into an account. If an employee quits and forfeits their service under the system they get all of the money that they have contributed, they get interest on that money and they get a match on that money to give them something for their contribution.” Williams said. “So an employee dollar coming into PERA is worth about 70 cents as opposed to an employer dollar that is worth a 100 cents.

“The other concern is that we question the constitutionality of the swap. The members essentially have a contract with the employer. And the contract is that the employer will pay in so much and here is the benefit that you ultimately will receive from that. The courts have ruled in some districts that if you are going to change that contract you have to change both sides of that equation… In this case the employee has paid in more and is not receiving any additional benefits.”

Steadman acknowledged both of the problems, but he said his plan was the best of the numerous options he and other Joint Budget Committee members were faced with.

Pointing to furlough days used two years ago to help balance the budget, he said that enacting those both affected total contributions into the fund and in some cases changed the formula used to calculate an employees payout.

“By doing this, every single penny that is supposed to be in the employees benefit account is getting into their account. It is held harmless, and on paper their salary still looks unaffected. Furlough days are with you forever, Steadman said.”

He went on to say the third option was to enact pay cuts across the board for state employees. He said the best option in his mind was to ask individuals to contribute more to their retirement package.

Asked if he thought there would be a lawsuit in response to his bill, Steadman said people can sue anybody anytime for anything in Colorado.

“That risk is always out there. The fact of the matter is that from the perspective of state employees this is a better option than most of the alternatives.”

Current law states that bond agents are exempt from forfeiture of bond money if their client is removed from the country before reaching trial. This bill, HB11-1088 (pdf), removes that exemption.

“The bill requires the bail bond agent to execute a waiver that states he or she understands that if the defendant is removed from the country the bond is forfeited and requires the bond of the bail bond agent to be forfeited if the defendant is removed from the country,” the bill’s summary states.

From the bill:

A defendant or OTHER person, INCLUDING a professional bonding
agent, who posts bond on a felony or a class 1 or class 2 misdemeanor, either pretrial or post-conviction, for a defendant who is illegally present in the country shall not be entitled to recover the posted bond or fees if the defendant is removed from the country, and the bond or fees shall be forfeited.

Law enforcement agencies would be required to inform bond agents of the possibility a client may be deported before the agent issues a bond if there is reasonable grounds they are in the country illegally and are guilty of a class 1 or 2 misdemeanor or a felony.

Barker did not respond to call for comment.

The bill could reduce the number of bail bond agents who are willing to write bonds for people they believe may be in the country illegally.

The bill is headed to the House Judiciary Committee which is chaired by Rep. Bob Gardner, a co-sponsor of the bill.

An Arizona-style immigration bill introduced in Colorado yesterday has met with fierce resistance from immigrant rights groups.

The long expected immigration bill by Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, sparked a firestorm of condemnation from local civil rights groups.

SB11-054 (pdf), which comes on the heals of an announcement of a bill promoted by Democrats to provide in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants, seems almost certain to die in the Democratically controlled Senate.

While the bill states that police officers may arrest individuals for immigration violations where there is probable cause to suspect they have committed a felony or are subject to immigration violation proceedings, the bill creates an overarching allowance for police officers to arrest anyone who is in the country illegally.

“A law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant…if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has willfully failed to register with the federal government pursuant to 8 U.S.C. sec. 1301,” the bill states.

“We are against the bill,” said Steve Rodriguez, Colorado director of SOMOS Republicans, a national organization of Latino Republicans. “If they can arrest people without a warrant just because they think that person may be in the country illegally, then they can go to your house if they suspect you are an illegal immigrant.”

He predicted that if the bill becomes law it would lead to racial profiling and costly litigation. He said it would also undermine community policing efforts.

Rodriguez was bothered by the fact that Lambert and other legislators have been to Arizona to meet with Russell Pearce, one of the authors of that state’s anti-immigration legislation. “They’ve even met with FAIR (the Federation for American Immigration Reform), which has white supremacist leanings. If they want to have an honest debate on the issue, they should have talked to other groups.

“I am extremely concerned that the Republican Party in Colorado is being taken over by these extreme groups. A bill like this would tarnish the state’s reputation at a time when we are trying to attract jobs, which should be the primary job of the legislature right now,” Rodriguez said.

The federal law requires all aliens to register and be fingerprinted by the federal government and carry a certification of alien registration with them at all times.

Assigned to the state veterans and military affairs committee the bill will first face the votes of Democratic Senators Rollie Heath, Bob Bacon, Betty Boyd, and Republican Bill Cadman. Cadman, along with a host of other Republican Senators, is a co-sponsor of the bill.

Sen. Bob Bacon, D-Fort Collins, said that he did not want to commit to a vote before reading the legislation and hearing testimony on the bill.

Bacon did however indicate that it was likely he would vote for the recently introduced tuition equity act that would allow undocumented immigrants access to in-state tuition.

“It depends on the specific language of the bill, but more than likely I am going to vote for it,” Bacon said. “Again I have to see the bill and hear the testimony.”

Gov. John Hickenlooper’s office told the Denver Post yesterday that the law posed troubling constitutional issues that have Arizona residents questioning their resolve on their immigration legislation.

While House Sponsor David Balmer, R-Centennial, said, “Our bill is a serious effort to crack down on dangerous illegal aliens who have committed aggravated felonies. We are trying specifically to go after those illegal aliens who have an ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) order out on them.”

Activists groups also spoke up as the clear Republican charge to more strictly regulate immigration has begun to take shape.

“ Rather than pushing immigrants further into the shadows, as Senate Bill 54 would do, Colorado should embrace policies that build trust and cooperation between immigrant communities and local and state law enforcement. Such community policing is essential to victims and witnesses reporting and helping to solve crimes and ensuring overall public safety,” said Julien Ross, executive director of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition

“We hope and expect this Arizona copycat bill to fail in the Colorado Senate. However, in the hearing process, we Iook forward to having a civil, informed, and constructive dialogue about a vision for responsible immigration enforcement that will preserve family unity, economic wellbeing, and public safety.” Ross said.

Republicans may be off to a horrible start. At a meeting of the Colorado Republican Study Committee in Denver on Monday, Sen.-elect Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, announced his plan to kick off the session in January with an immigration law like Arizona’s SB1070. It’s a proposal for big-government control. It would burden taxpayers while stifling production and trade. It is a bad idea on too many counts to enumerate.

State Rep. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs. (Photo/Bob Spencer, The Colorado Independent)

The Gazette continued:

Our economy needs help. That means we need more trade and production of goods, services and commodities — not less. We cannot fix the economy by impeding the creation of wealth. We do not magically wind up with more production of goods, services and commodities by policing the residential status of professionals and workers with brown skin and broken English who help provide goods, services, commodities and trade. We do not enable prosperity by paying to incarcerate workers, at huge taxpayer expense, for the noncriminal infraction of lacking permission to reside here. We do not facilitate production and trade by placing the mothers and fathers of children in jail because of a suspected civil dispute with the federal government. Sure, immigration is a mess. But the solution will be increased quotas, enhanced border control and other reasonable federal reforms that favor prosperity and order.

When reached by telephone today, Lambert laughed when asked what he thought of the editorial.

He pointed to what he called the “20 pages of comments” the editorial has inspired, and noted that the vast majority were in agreement with him and not with the newspaper’s editorial. “I’ll let the readers who commented speak for themselves,” he said. “The people overwhelming disagree with the Gazette.”

Contrary to the editorial, which argued that an Arizona-type bill would be disastrous for the state’s economy, Lambert said reform is needed so that those businesses who refuse to hire undocumented workers have a level playing field.

“I also want to reduce taxes and help create a better business climate in Colorado,” Lambert said. “I don’t think immigration enforcement is contrary to that.”

The editorial concludes:

The Arizona law is a legislated economic boondoggle. A study by Arizona-based Elliott D. Pollack & Co. found that Arizona has lost $141 million just from the meetings and conventions that went elsewhere, so far, to protest SB1070. During the next two to three years, canceled conventions may cost the state $253 million in economic output and will negatively affect 2,800 jobs. The report estimates the law will cost Arizona $86 million in lost wages over the next two to three years. That will put more workers on state aid, adding to the cost of the law. It is legislated poverty, all about creating expense while reducing production, consumption and trade.

The tangible losses pertaining to meetings and conventions don’t include the loss of leisure tourists, the costs of soured trade relations and the costs of enforcing the new law. Don’t be surprised if Arizonans soon tire of paying for poverty politics and demand a repeal of SB1070.

It’s even worse to propose this law in Colorado. We aren’t overwhelmed with immigration problems, and the voters have spoken. If immigration concerns were paramount, we would have elected Tancredo as governor.

Reports from PBS and other left-leaning media organizations show credible direct links between the passage of SB1070 and private prison corporations. Benson, Ariz., City Manager Glenn Nichols told PBS that two men tried to sell him on hosting a private prison for illegal immigrants before SB1070 became news. How would they fill it? By getting the Legislature to pass a tough new immigration law.

Activist media organizations are hard to trust, but the tie-in to private prisons makes sense. If true, the Arizona immigration law is a government redistribution scheme designed to take money from ordinary taxpayers and channel it to powerful special interests that fund politicians.

Arizona’s immigration mistake is costly and senseless. It’s a ticket to poverty, at a time when politicians should obsess about allowing prosperity. It’s the least conservative idea a Republican could pitch.

Lambert’s final thoughts?

“I am undaunted,” he said.

Links from within the editorial were added by The Colorado Independent.

In addition to FAIR, The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) — which also presented at the meeting — was founded by Tanton.

Jack Martin of the Federation for American Immigration Reform addresses legislators (Photo: Kersgaard)

“My contact with both those organizations can be boiled down to what we heard today,” the meeting’s host, state Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, said after the meeting. “I was quite impressed with both those people, (Jessica Vaughn with CIS and Jack Martin with FAIR). I thought they had their facts before them and that they presented good information.

“If you’re trying to say they have an agenda, well, I don’t know about that, but I do know the Southern Poverty Law Center has an agenda that I have never been impressed with,” Lundberg added.

FAIR has received more than $1 million from The Pioneer Fund, which promotes the genetic superiority of white people.

Monday’s meeting was hosted by the Republican Study Committee of Colorado (RSCC). Legislators heard from eight people, representing several anti-illegal immigration groups and including two business people who told the committee that not hiring illegal immigrants puts them at a competitive disadvantage in the market.

Lundberg, chairman of the RSCC, also chaired the meeting, held at the State Capitol. “The objective for today is to put as many facts on the table as we can,” he said.

He said he was happy with the meeting. “It accomplished what I said it would. It helped us explore a little more deeply the effects of illegal immigration in Colorado. It showed us that the economy in Colorado is affected by the extra load of illegal job seekers,” Lundberg said.

“What part of illegal do we not understand?” he asked.

Even given that the playing field seemed a little slanted, there were some surprises.

Vaughn, director of policy studies at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, told the panel that illegal immigration was decreasing. She said that immigration — legal and illegal — was at record levels in both the 1990s and the 2000s, but that it has slowed down. Coupled with the slowdown, she said was the fact that illegal immigrants have been leaving Colorado at a higher rate recently than in the past.

Nationally, she said illegal immigration has fallen by about 10 percent recently.

The CIS website has this to say about the immigration debate: “Many of us at the Center are animated by a ‘low-immigration, pro-immigrant’ vision of an America that admits fewer immigrants but affords a warmer welcome for those who are admitted.”

She said there have been about 13 million legal immigrants to the U.S. in the last decade and about the same number of illegal immigrants. She said this has occurred while our economy has produced just one million new jobs in the 2000s. “This is in contrast to the 1990s when we experienced similar number of immigrants but we created 21 million new jobs. This tells us immigration does not self-regulate through economic cycles. It continues regardless of the economy. The reason we have this much immigration is because of our policies,” she said.

“Obviously, the United States has a very generous immigration policy,” she said. “What we are experiencing now is not a surge but a continuation of a steady uphill trend that started in the 1940s. We are in the midst of a vast social experiment.”

She said illegal immigrants account for about 10 percent of the country’s population gain in any given recent year.

In Colorado, she said there were about 449,000 immigrant to Colorado in 2000 and about 435,000 immigrants to the state in 2007, the last year for which good numbers were available. Today, she said, there are about 170,000 illegal immigrants in the state.

While the Southern Poverty Law Center does not list CIS as a hate group, it does offer a withering view of its scholarship, saying the group is dedicated to eliminating most immigration.

Martin, from FAIR, said his group worked with Arizona legislators in crafting their landmark anti-immigration legislation (SB 1070) and that they are prepared to help Colorado as well. “We stand ready to work with legislators anywhere such legislation is contemplated,” he said.

He said illegal immigration costs Colorado about $1.5 billion a year, mostly to educate the children of undocumented residents.

El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa talked about the importance of the Secure Communities program, which allows law enforcement agencies to more easily share information. He said Colorado agencies cannot participate until Gov. Bill Ritter authorizes their participation, which has not happened yet.

Not all law enforcement agencies are excited about the program, Here, the Pueblo County Sheriff explains his issues to The Pueblo Chieftain:

Pueblo County Sheriff Kirk Taylor said he is ambivalent about participating in the program.

When local law enforcement learns in the course of an investigation that someone is in the country illegally, that information is reported to the state and is available to ICE, he said. “I don’t see how Secure Communities is so different from what we’re doing now.”

An argument against participation, Kirk said, is that the program places additional costs on counties and municipalities for housing inmates beyond their normal stays in jail.

“Unfunded mandates are what the federal government is infamous for,” he said. “I’m opposed to any unfunded mandate that lands on the taxpayers of Pueblo County. Anything that deals with the population of our jail that is outside of our control, I’m philosophically opposed to.”

Ritter has asked for things that, so far, he has not gotten, again from The Chieftain:

“Gov.-elect Hickenlooper has said all along throughout the campaign that he supports Secure Communities,” spokesman Eric Brown said. But if the decision to join stretches into the Hickenlooper administration, the work and consideration that Ritter put into modifications will not be ignored, Brown said.

“I can’t imagine us starting over completely,” he said. “We’ll wait and see how things shake out between Gov. Ritter’s administration and ICE.”

9News reported Monday that there is some disagreement among Republicans about how to address immigration at the legislative level:

Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, plans to propose a different law that would also target illegal immigrants.

“We aren’t doing anything to solve the problem at the federal level or at the state level,” Harvey said.

He plans to carry a measure requiring all Colorado companies to use a free federal computer program called E-verify that checks Social Security numbers against job applicants.

“Every time we try to do something, the initiatives, the efforts are killed by Republicans and Democrats alike. We’re not taking this issue seriously and it’s continuing to impact our state budget and our economy,” Harvey said.

The Colorado Independent reported last week that state Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, plans to introduce an Arizona-style bill early in the session.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.