HB26-1422 makes a broad set of security-related changes for Colorado’s legislative, judicial, and executive branches, with a particular focus on the state capitol complex, courthouses, and the governor’s residence. On the legislative side, it creates an Administrator of Legislative Safety to serve as the main contact for lawmakers and other designated covered individuals on safety matters, coordinate with the Colorado State Patrol, and help manage security planning, home security systems, and event protection. It also renames the current chief security officer positions in each chamber as sergeants at arms and clarifies their peace officer status and relationship to the new administrator.
For the executive branch, the bill clarifies that the Colorado State Patrol has jurisdiction over law enforcement services at the governor’s mansion/executive residence. It also expands and refines security and privacy protections for public officials by allowing campaign committees to use a mailing address, reducing public posting of candidate disclosure and financial disclosure information, and limiting the amount of personal property information that must be disclosed. The bill broadens the definition of protected persons to include judicial employees, elected officials, and staff of the General Assembly, and it creates new remedies and notice-and-removal procedures for personal information published online by non-government actors.
The bill’s largest structural change is in court security funding and administration. It phases out the existing $5 court security surcharge and court security cash fund, then creates a new Court Security Authority and board to administer a $10 surcharge beginning July 1, 2027. The new authority will award grants to counties for courthouse staffing, equipment, training, emergency needs, and broader system-wide security needs, including support for judges and judicial staff outside courthouses when necessary. The bill also creates a Judicial Security Task Force to develop recommended standards for courthouse and probation-facility security, incident reporting, and local security committees, and it requires county sheriffs to follow those standards when providing court security.
The bill also strengthens criminal penalties and courthouse safety rules. It expands the retaliation statute to cover judicial employees, makes retaliation against a judicial employee a class 6 felony, and requires sheriffs to verify firearm-carry authorization and keep logs for courthouse firearm entry. In addition, it updates numerous fee statutes so that, starting July 1, 2027, a new $10 court security surcharge is collected across a wide range of civil, probate, criminal, traffic, and infraction filings, with conforming changes to fee distributions and repeal dates for the old surcharge structure.
Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed as a security and protection measure for public servants and court users, with no recorded committee transcript or vote data indicating significant public disagreement in the available record. The final status shows the bill was signed by the governor, suggesting it advanced with sufficient support. The main points of potential contention inherent in the text are the expansion of law enforcement and security authority, the creation of a new surcharge on court filings, and the increased restrictions on public access to certain official disclosure information, all of which balance privacy and safety against transparency and cost concerns.
HB26-1422 amends multiple titles of Colorado law to create new security offices and authorities, expand peace officer and jurisdictional provisions for the Colorado State Patrol and legislative security personnel, and revise court fee and surcharge statutes. It repeals the existing court security cash fund framework and replaces it with a Court Security Authority funded by a new $10 surcharge on specified filings, while also adding new privacy, retaliation, and courthouse-security requirements affecting elected officials, judicial employees, counties, sheriffs, courts, and the Secretary of State.
The available context suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, as it ultimately passed and was signed by the governor. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, there is no direct evidence of floor debate or organized opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s framing as a public safety and security measure likely contributed to support, especially given its focus on protecting lawmakers, judges, court staff, and other officials.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s expansion of security powers and its funding mechanism. Counties, court users, and transparency advocates could object to the new $10 surcharge and the replacement of the existing court security fund structure, while others may question the creation of a new authority and task force rather than using existing institutions. Privacy-related provisions that reduce public posting of disclosure information and add removal rights for personal information may also draw concern from open-government advocates, while supporters would emphasize protection from threats and harassment.