HB25-1301 makes a narrow change to Colorado law governing who may administer oaths and affirmations. It adds voice court reporters who hold a registered professional reporter, certified verbatim reporter, or certified verbatim reporter-stenotype certification or higher to the list of officials authorized to administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses and others in matters pending before a court, and in other lawful settings where oaths, affidavits, or depositions are taken.
The bill amends Colorado Revised Statutes section 24-12-103 to expressly include these court reporters alongside judges, clerks, notaries public, members of the Public Utilities Commission, and certain labor standards officials. It also preserves the existing authority of those other officials and extends the same power to take affidavits and depositions in the circumstances already recognized by law.
Impact
The bill updates state law by expanding the category of professionals authorized to administer oaths and affirmations, which affects court reporting practice, litigation procedures, and the taking of affidavits and depositions in Colorado. It does not create a new program or regulatory scheme, but it does broaden legal authority for a specific class of certified court reporters and may streamline courtroom and deposition processes by allowing more professionals to perform this function.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable and largely noncontroversial. The bill advanced easily through committee and received overwhelming support on third reading in both chambers, with only limited opposition in the House Committee of the Whole amendment vote and a single no vote in the Senate on third reading. The committee referral to the consent calendar in the Senate also suggests the measure was viewed as routine and technical rather than politically divisive.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive controversy in the available record. The only notable point of contention is the House Committee of the Whole amendment vote, which failed, indicating some disagreement over proposed changes rather than the core bill itself. Based on the vote pattern, any disagreement likely centered on procedural or drafting details, while the underlying policy of allowing qualified voice court reporters to administer oaths appears to have broad bipartisan support.