Concerning measures to reduce administrative burdens, and, in connection therewith, making changes to the mandatory review of department rules by each principal department and clarifying the attorney general's scope of authority related to l...
Summary
SB26-137 is a government-administration bill aimed at reducing regulatory and litigation-related administrative burdens. It expands the required periodic review of rules by each principal department, keeping the existing five-year review cycle but adding new factors agencies must evaluate, including whether rules are redundant, outdated, underfunded, ineffective, or impose administrative burdens without a corresponding public benefit. The bill also requires departments to report these review results in their departmental regulatory agendas and directs the committee of reference at the SMART Act hearing to consider whether the affected program or function should be referred for sunset review or audit.
The bill also clarifies the Attorney General’s role in litigation discovery. In actions brought by the Attorney General in an official capacity, or on behalf of the state or the people of Colorado, the Attorney General is not deemed to be acting on behalf of another state officer or agency, and is not deemed to possess or control records maintained by other state entities for purposes of discovery requests directed at the Attorney General. The bill takes effect after the standard post-session period unless referred to voters.
Impact
The bill amends Colorado’s administrative procedure and state government statutes, primarily Colorado Revised Statutes sections 24-4-103.3 and 24-31-101. It broadens the mandatory rule-review framework for principal departments by adding specific review criteria and by linking those reviews more directly to legislative oversight tools such as sunset review and state auditor performance or financial audits. It also narrows, for discovery purposes, the circumstances under which records held by other state entities are treated as within the Attorney General’s possession or control in enforcement litigation.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, consistent with its stated goal of reducing administrative burdens and improving oversight efficiency. The bill advanced through the Senate Finance Committee and House Business Affairs & Labor Committee and was ultimately signed by the Governor, indicating broad institutional support. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no evidence in the supplied materials of organized opposition or a divided vote.
Contention
The main policy tension in the bill is between regulatory streamlining and concerns about preserving effective oversight and enforcement. On the rule-review side, the added requirements to identify redundant, outdated, underfunded, or burdensome rules may be welcomed by business and administrative reform advocates, while agencies or public-interest stakeholders may be cautious about the workload of expanded review and the possibility of pressure to weaken rules. On the Attorney General provision, the likely point of contention is discovery scope: the bill protects the Attorney General from being treated as the custodian of records held by other state entities, which may be viewed as clarifying litigation responsibilities by supporters but as potentially limiting access to records by opponents in enforcement cases.