Concerning a correction to a citation for bond forfeiture money deposited in the judicial stabilization cash fund.
Summary
HB26-1379 is a narrow technical correction bill. It amends Colorado Revised Statutes section 16-4-111, which governs the disposition of security deposits upon forfeiture or termination of bond, to fix a statutory citation describing where money collected from a judgment entered for the state must be transmitted. The bill changes the reference from paragraph (b) of subsection (1) to subsection (3), aligning the statute with the correct provision.
The measure does not create a new program, change the underlying policy on bond forfeiture, or alter who owes or receives money. Instead, it clarifies the existing statutory direction that these funds are deposited with the state treasurer into the judicial stabilization cash fund created in section 13-32-101(6). The bill also includes a safety clause, indicating it was treated as immediately necessary legislation.
Impact
The bill makes a targeted amendment to Colorado’s bond forfeiture statute by correcting an internal citation in section 16-4-111(7). Its practical effect is to remove ambiguity in the statutory cross-reference governing the deposit of money collected from judgments related to bond forfeitures, ensuring the funds continue to be directed to the judicial stabilization cash fund. The affected parties are the courts, the state treasurer, and the judicial branch fund structure, rather than private individuals or regulated industries.
Sentiment
The available context suggests the bill was noncontroversial and technical in nature. It moved through the Appropriations committees and was ultimately signed by the Governor, with no recorded votes or committee transcript indicating opposition. The absence of recorded debate, combined with its narrow corrective purpose, points to broad agreement that the citation should be fixed for accuracy and administrative clarity.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention around the bill. The only likely point of interest is the correction itself: whether the statute should reference subsection (3) rather than paragraph (b) of subsection (1). Because the bill is a technical cleanup measure affecting a funding citation rather than policy, no opposing stakeholder positions are reflected in the available record.