The Denver Gazette reports that a new ballot initiative aims to put a “fundamental right to know” into Colorado’s Constitution, specifically to stop lawmakers from hiding government business behind closed doors and private message threads. Reporter Marianne Goodland writes that the measure, filed as Initiative No. 237, is designed to overturn a 2024 law that let legislators largely exempt themselves from Colorado’s open meetings requirements.
What makes this story interesting is not just the substance, it is the lineup. The coalition behind the initiative includes groups that rarely share oxygen without arguing, from the Colorado Press Association and Colorado Public Radio to the ACLU, the Independence Institute, Common Cause, and the League of Women Voters. When that many people agree the public is getting boxed out, it is usually because the public is getting boxed out.
The initiative would add a new section to the state Constitution’s Bill of Rights declaring that the public’s right to know applies to all public records and meetings across state and local government, and that conflicting laws or rules would be “inapplicable.” In plain English: the politicians do not get to write themselves a special exemption anymore.
The Bullet Point Brief
- Initiative No. 237 is a direct reaction to a 2024 law that let Colorado lawmakers shield their activity from open meetings rules. They got sued, they lost, and then they changed the rules. Classy.
- The proposal would constitutionalize the public’s “fundamental right to know” government business, covering both public records and public meetings at all levels of state and local government.
- The coalition is a political unicorn: press groups, civil liberties advocates, good-government orgs, and Jon Caldara’s Independence Institute all in the same boat, all pointing at the same iceberg.
- The article explains how the 2024 law narrowed what counts as “public business” and allowed lawmakers to discuss bills and policy via texts and emails without triggering open meetings requirements, while still making records theoretically accessible if you already know who said what, and when. Sure. Let me just hop into my time machine and my crystal ball.
- Meanwhile, lawmakers are also pushing SB26-107 to slow down open records timelines and add a 30-day response window for requests deemed to be for “pecuniary gain,” with the records custodian deciding if that is true. Nothing says “transparent” like making the gatekeeper the judge.
My Bottom Line
This one makes sense. If you have to pass a law to hide what you are doing, that is your sign you should not be doing it. Colorado’s open meetings and open records laws exist for one reason: this government belongs to the people, not to the temporary occupants of the Capitol.
And when you see a coalition this broad, you should not assume it is a publicity stunt. You should assume the problem is real. The press wants access because sunlight keeps corruption in check. Civil liberties groups want access because power loves secrecy. Conservatives want access because unelected bureaucrats and political insiders do not get to run a shadow government. Different motivations, same conclusion: secrecy is a disease.
Let’s also be honest about the instinct that got us here. Too many under the Gold Dome treat accountability like a nuisance, and public scrutiny like a problem to manage. That is backwards. Scrutiny is the job. If you are making decisions that impact taxes, regulations, budgets, schools, and public safety, you should be doing it where the people can see it.
Colorado does not need more clever carveouts, longer timelines, and loopholes disguised as “process.” We need a culture in government that remembers who it works for. If Initiative 237 forces that reminder into the Constitution, then good. The people should not have to file a scavenger-hunt request to learn what their elected officials are doing.
Source: The Denver Gazette
Share your thoughts...