Republicans and Democrats clashed anew over legislation that would require identifying which programs would see a funding reduction if a ballot measure passed, with the former saying it’s yet another way for the government to control the campaign narrative and the latter insisting it provides transparency to voters.

House Bill 1084, sponsored by Denver Democratic Reps. Sean Camacho and Cecelia Espenoza, would require certain ballot initiatives to include the three largest areas where funding would “likely” get reduced in order to pay for the ballot measure.

That applies to citizen initiatives that spends state dollars but do not identify a dedicated source of funding.

The fight is not new. In 2021, the Democrat-dominated General Assembly passed a law that required specific language on a ballot measure if the citizen initiative contains a tax change that reduces state or local revenue.

Specifically, under the 2021 law, the ballot language must identity the three largest areas or programs where spending would be reduced as a result of the tax cut being sought by a citizen initiative. Critics sued, arguing the law unconstitutionally compels any group’s political speech in violation of the First Amendment. The courts upheld the law, arguing the titling language is government speech and is, thereby, not subject to claims of compelled speech under the First Amendment.

The 2021 law also billed itself as a “transparency act,” much like this year’s bill also describes its aim as promoting transparency.

The bill this year requires the state’s “Blue Book” to include a description of each measure’s projected impact on the three largest areas of state program expenditure.

“The bill is framed in a way to maximize information for the voters and maximize information for the people who are going to be part of a process,” Espenoza said. “From my view, this is a way to give power back to the citizens, not a way to undermine the citizen initiative in any way.”

Republicans disagreed, saying that while the sponsors had good intentions, the bill could negatively affect citizen-led initiatives.

Citizen initiatives are one of the few ways ordinary citizens can check the government’s power, argued Rep. Brandi Bradley, R-Roxborough Park.

House Bill 1084 may seem harmless, but it could be used to discourage “grassroots measures that challenge those in power,” she argued.

Fiscal impact statements are “inherently political and often wrong,” Bradley added.

“This is not neutral information; this is about government shaping the narrative about policies that the government may not like,” she said. “Colorado voters are smart and fully capable of weighing arguments without the state acting as a political referee.”

Rep. Stephanie Luck, R-Penrose, mentioned Proposition 130, a ballot measure passed in the 2024 election that requires the state to allocate $350 million to recruitment, training, and retention of law enforcement, as well as a death benefit for families of officers killed in the line of duty.

Luck said lawmakers struggled to find a funding source for the measure, since the state was already facing a budget deficit and the Colorado General Assembly is required by law to balance the budget, meaning spending cannot exceed revenue.

Voters who approved the measure may not have been aware that the funding for it had to come out of another “bucket,” which in the case of Proposition 130 was the Public Employees’ Retirement Association, or PERA.

Luck said she agrees that it’s important for voters to understand the state’s budgetary constraints, but she argued that Camacho and Espenoza’s approach would “further bind this body to particular solutions that may or may not actually be workable.”

“I stand in support of the idea that we want to give people the information they need to make good choices,” she said. “It is important that we give as much information as possible to folks, I just don’t think this is the best way to give that information.”

Rep. Chad Clifford, D-Greenwood Village, said Proposition 130 is a “primary reason” why he supports the bill.

While he voted for the proposition and argued that Coloradans would have passed it even if they had known that its funding would have to come from another budget item, Clifford said it would have been far easier to implement if the organization behind the measure had been required to outline where the funding would come from.

“I’m always gonna encourage something that makes it easier for our voters to understand what’s on their ballot,” Clifford said, adding that the bill is about making sure that it’s clear to people what they’re voting for and how it will be funded.

No part of the bill prevents or discourages someone from going through the ballot initiative process, Camacho said, maintaining all it does is provide “transparency,” which is something lawmakers are asked to do every day on the floor and in committees.

The bill passed on a 40-22 party-line vote. It now moves on to the Senate, where it is sponsored by Sens. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora, and William Lindstedt, D-Broomfield.