That should not be allowed in any circumstance.

Public notice exists to protect the public. It informs residents about zoning changes, property tax increases, special district elections, annexations, construction bids, water rulings, foreclosure proceedings, and other actions that directly affect property, neighborhoods, and taxes. It is not simply about putting information somewhere online. It is a carefully constructed legal safeguard built on independence, permanence, verifiability and accessibility.

At the heart of public notice law is a simple principle: governments must inform the public through independent platforms they do not control.

Allowing a government entity to declare its own website legally sufficient turns that safeguard upside down. It puts the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Colorado has well over 4,000 governmental entities. Each may operate its own website, with its own navigation, formatting, search tools and retention practices. If notices are allowed to move solely onto government websites, residents could be forced to search multiple separate platforms just to stay informed: one for the county, one for the city, one for the fire district, one for the school district, one for a metropolitan district, one for parks and recreation, one for sanitation, and so on.

That is not transparency. It is fragmentation and obscuration.

Even well-intentioned governments make mistakes. In a recent Colorado example, a major municipality’s website returned 404 errors on crucial budget documents at the very time officials were asking voters to approve publishing notices exclusively on its website. Websites change vendors. Pages are reorganized. Links break. Content can be altered or removed, whether intentionally or not. A printed legal notice cannot be quietly changed once published. It becomes part of a fixed public record and is uploaded to a centralized, statewide online repository that aggregates notices across Colorado.

Colorado already has a modern system. Legal newspapers publish notices in print and online, and every notice is uploaded to a free, searchable statewide website. That system combines local visibility, digital access and independent verification.

The provision in HB 26-1095 that allows government-only publication is being described as a narrow fix for rare situations. That framing is misleading. Colorado law already provides structured solutions for situations where no legal newspaper is based in a county. In fact, during this very legislative session, the Colorado Press Association worked closely with counties and other stakeholders to modernize those provisions and expand placement options within the independent system.

Compounding the problem is the language of this provision. The proposal allows bypassing newspapers where the government deems a paper “unavailable” or where an adjacent-county publication would not provide “adequate notice.” Those terms are undefined and subjective. Under this language, the same government that is required to give notice could declare an independent publication insufficient and substitute its own website.

That is not how public notice law currently operates.

Public notice statutes are detailed, structured and precise. They regulate formatting, type size, frequency, duration and proof of publication through sworn affidavits that courts rely upon. Notices intersect with hundreds of statutory provisions involving elections, property rights, tax sales, zoning approvals, creditor claims, and special district actions. The law creates clear standards because due process depends on certainty.

Allowing government website posting to satisfy “all publication requirements” sweeps aside that structure with a vague override.

In 2023, Florida allowed limited government-run website publication for certain notices. A major academic study from faculty at the University of Chicago, Texas A&M University and Yale University, released in January of this year, examined the results. It showed that when notices are removed from newspapers and placed only on government-operated platforms, civic engagement declines and fewer people show up at public meetings.

When notices left independent newspapers, fewer people saw them and fewer people showed up. Moving notice off independent platforms does not increase awareness. It reduces it.

Colorado residents trust local newspapers and their websites as primary sources of public information. A statewide survey in 2022 found that 80% of adults cite local newspapers and newspaper websites as their most trusted source for public notices, and nearly two-thirds report reading notices in print or online local publications. Public notice works because it appears where people already look for information.

Reform may be appropriate as technology and usage evolve, as we have demonstrated repeatedly over the years. But reform must always preserve independence, aggregation, permanence and clarity. It must not allow the government to replace independent publication with self-publication based on vague and subjective standards.

Public notice is too important to let governments control how and where it reaches the public.

Tim Regan-Porter is CEO of the Colorado Press Association, which represents print and digital newsrooms throughout Colorado.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

But as he touted many so-called “policy wins” for women, it has made me reflect on just how much he has actually harmed women specifically with his short-sighted, misguided policies – and how important it is that we continue to elevate women into the leadership positions.

For example, Trump highlighted access to IVF drugs — but ignored the Medicaid cuts in his “One Big Beautiful Bill,” even though Medicaid covers 40% of births in this country.

He bragged about lifting millions off food stamps, while ignoring SNAP changes that disproportionately hurt single moms and caregivers already struggling under this volatile economy.

This hypocrisy was not lost on me. Nor was the fact that much of our president’s career has been spent mocking, belittling, and degrading women.

Our country is 249 years old. We’ve had 101 in-person State of the Union addresses, and 47 presidents have led the United States.

Yet, it wasn’t that long ago that women couldn’t vote, let alone hold public office or sit inside that chamber as lawmakers. There are so many trailblazers who have come before me, paving the way and cracking glass ceilings that once felt unbreakable. Just a few decades ago, Colorado had never sent a woman to Congress. Pat Schroeder changed that. One of just 15 women at Harvard Law School, she was elected at 32, when only 14 women served in the House. She brought her experience as a mom of two to help champion the Family and Medical Leave Act — reshaping how we support working families.

She passed that torch to Congresswoman Diana DeGette, who continues that legacy today as a leader of the Reproductive Freedom Caucus, fighting to repeal the Hyde Amendment and protect access to abortion care for low-income women. Colorado is lucky to have DeGette at the helm of this fight.

The trailblazers before us have moved this country forward, but, as we begin Women’s History Month on Sunday, I can’t help but think of how far we have to go. And there has rarely been a moment more pivotal than right now. Many of Trump’s most extreme policies disproportionately harm women — from cuts to health care and food assistance to attacks on reproductive freedom.

And how do we address what feels like insurmountable challenges? By continuing to elevate women — not just as figure-heads — but as leaders.

Women don’t want “baby bonuses.” They’re asking for affordable health care, reliable child care, and a safe place to live and raise their families. That means we have to build upon the progress that Sen. Michael Bennet started by making the child tax credit permanent. We have to guarantee paid family leave for everyone, so women have ample opportunity to get ahead.

Just one year ago, I became only the 14th Member of Congress to give birth while serving. The sexism I faced was palpable — from being denied the ability to vote remotely to being told I belonged at home, taking care of my baby, instead of in Congress.

But I also experienced many moments of hope. Moms would stop me with tears in their eyes, saying they saw themselves in me. It showed me that, above all, representation matters.

If we want to solve the biggest challenges facing families — affordability, health care, child care — we have to center the people living them. That means making our institutions more accessible and ensuring women have a real seat at the table.

Across the country, women still haven’t held some of the highest offices in our land. And when leadership doesn’t reflect the lived experiences of the people it serves, it’s no wonder so many feel like nothing ever changes.

U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen represents Congressional District 7, which includes part or all of these Colorado counties: Jefferson, Broomfield, Lake, Chaffee, Park, Teller, Custer, and Fremont.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

“I am proud to be the President to SAVE Women’s Sports,” Trump wrote on X.

Then, in an instant, he tore down decades of work advancing female Olympic athletes to get equal recognition for their medals as their male counterparts.

Tuesday night’s State of the Union address and the lack of a single-female gold medalist’s attendance showed that for Trump, female athletes are an inconvenient afterthought, only to be included if required by the politics of the day.

Now, Trump will forever be remembered as the man who set women’s sports back. His decision not to include a female gold medalist sent a clear message to the nation about how unimportant women’s wins are to the White House.

Trump spoke with the U.S. men’s hockey team to congratulate them on Sunday, immediately after the team beat Canada. The men had played a rough and grinding game that captured the hearts of Americans as they won a gold medal in hockey for the first time since the 1980 Miracle on Ice.

But Trump couldn’t just use the moment to recognize their accomplishment and share in the athletes’ glory; he had to tear down the U.S. women’s hockey team, too. He invited the men to come to the White House and the State of the Union during the jovial phone call. Then he joked, “And I must tell you, we’re going to have to bring the women’s team. You do know that.” Someone in the room says “absolutely,” and someone else chants “two for two,” clearly excited that their female colleagues would be included in the recognition. There is laughter at Trump’s slight, but also clear agreement that the women must be there to share in the honor.

Trump continues when the laughter dies down: “I’d probably be impeached.”

But the women were not in attendance Tuesday night. The National Hockey League players were picked up in Florida on Air Force One and escorted to the White House.

For the women, the invitation came far too late. The women’s team had won gold on Thursday and had already scattered across the country. Perhaps if their invitation to the State of the Union had come earlier, they could have had their moment standing before Congress to celebrate an American win. And it’s unclear what if any travel options were offered to the women.

But Trump is not the type of man who would ever think to invite a female athlete for recognition at the White House. He only invited the women’s team on Sunday, begrudgingly for political appeasement, as an afterthought while he was fawning over America’s best male hockey players.

Trump could have called Breezy Johnson and invited her to the State of the Union for being the first American gold medalist this winter on Feb. 9 in the women’s downhill. He could have called Mikaela Shiffrin, who won gold a few weeks later in the slalom. Perhaps those weren’t historic enough wins. American women have historically been competitive in both disciplines, unlike the men, who haven’t won either event since 1984.

But Trump wasn’t inspired to celebrate Alysa Liu on Tuesday, either, after she came back from a break with the sport to win the first gold in individual free skate in 24 years. So clearly it wasn’t about how historic or inspiring the story of the athlete was. Trump didn’t even call to congratulate her, and he certainly didn’t invite her to the State of the Union.

I do just want to briefly explain that I understand that the U.S. men’s team is a big deal. These players are multimillionaires playing in the National Hockey League. Most are minor celebrities nationwide, and all enjoy incredible fandom in their hometowns. They are beloved athletes who just delivered for the United States. By all accounts, these are good men, too. Brock Nelson returned to Denver on Tuesday rather than going to the White House because the Avalanche has a game in Utah on Wednesday.

But the disparity in wealth and prospects between the men and women makes Trump’s obvious slight all the more hurtful.

Sixteen of the athletes on the U.S. women’s team play in the Professional Women’s Hockey League, making between about $40,000 a year and $100,000 a year. But many of them are still college athletes taking time away from school and their teams to travel to Italy and represent America. These athletes are not paid and are certainly not celebrities, except maybe on their college campuses. What an incredible moment it would have been for them to stand before Congress to thunderous applause, to gain recognition, fans and perhaps even sponsorships. Trump denied them that with how little he cared for their victory.

Should the women’s team now visit the White House in the days to come, knowing they are not really welcome there? I cannot know with certainty what would be better for women’s sports at this point: ignore the slight and make nice, or hold firm to dignity and honor and politely decline.

Either way, the women now cannot win. Trump has used his power and his presidency to hurt women’s sports, not to lift them up.

How do I know that? Last night, during the State of the Union, I ran a test and posted on conservative posts that decried the women for failing to attend, suggesting that everyone should support women’s sports as more than a punchline.

The response was resounding. Both men and women were eager to point out that women are not as good as the NHL players. Just to be clear, Trump supporters are now rubbing the inferiority of women in the face of women who ask for support for girls sports.

One anonymous man on X was even so kind as to include a link to a YouTube video from the U.S. hockey team’s scrimmage with a U17 boys team — something I’ll remind you Trump would make illegal if he could. “If women were as good as men, they’d be playing in the NHL (its open to all genders) … but I’m pretty sure the best 13yo in the world could beat the women’s team,” the man wrote, defending the president’s decision not to support the women on a national stage.

This is the type of support our female Olympic medalists get when they return home — men who don’t really count their wins as a victory. There is an asterisk by it.

Unathletic men like Trump are often threatened by female athletes. Think of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club, and the response he would have if a woman beat him on his own golf course in a high-profile tournament. I can assure you the president would not be gracious and certainly would not celebrate her win.

The U.S. men’s hockey team should have declined the invitation to the State of the Union and instead waited to visit the White House when they could be recognized alongside their female colleagues. Not because they are equals physically, and not because they have the same net worth, but because someday these men may have daughters who will love the sport as much as they do.

The men could have told their daughters that they once used their Olympic gold to lift up athletes whose college teams and fledgling professional teams needed a little boost. Now they can point to a picture of themselves in the Oval Office, alone, celebrating their gold medal as if they were the only ones who accomplished that feat.

Megan Schrader is the opinion editor of The Denver Post.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Trump is reversing the many years of rising crime and chaos inflicted on families under Democrat rule. The American people asked for safer streets and secure borders, and today, GOP-led policies are delivering measurable results.

A new report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association shows violent crime is plummeting across major U.S. cities between 2024 and 2025. Homicides fell 19%, robberies dropped 20% and aggravated assaults were down nearly 10% in 2025 across 67 of the nation’s biggest police departments. These improvements came after Americans rejected soft-on-crime and defund-the-police policies, which resulted in a spike in crime over the previous 4 years. Denver saw one of the highest drops in homicide rates in the nation.

In just one year, the Trump Administration has captured six of the FBI’s Top 10 Most Wanted fugitives who collectively evaded accountability for their crimes and delaying justice for half a century – that’s more than were captured the entire four years under Biden. In Washington, D.C., the city went three weeks in the New Year without a murder, one of the lowest monthly totals recorded.

These trends are not happening by accident.

Empowering federal law enforcement to do their jobs in soft-on-crime cities and states, supporting cops, and holding criminals accountable sets a precedent that Republicans are serious about their promises to Make America Safe Again.

GOP-led immigration policies are keeping American citizens safe from bad actors, including murderers, rapists, and traffickers who pose serious threats to our communities. In fact, a drug and immigration enforcement operation in Adams County resulted in the arrest of dozens of Tren de Aragua gang members running a makeshift nightclub where weapons, cash, and drugs, including cocaine and Tusi, were seized. For those criminals, there is zero tolerance — they should be immediately deported or imprisoned, and sanctuary jurisdictions that give them safe harbor must be held accountable.

Through the implementation of strong border policies, fentanyl trafficking across the southern border has been slashed in half, leading to fewer overdose deaths devastating American families. Every 15 days under the previous administration, more Americans died as a result of drugs than were killed on 9/11. As a combat veteran of the Global War on Terror, this fight is personal. Republicans and President Trump are putting a stop to the peddling of deadly drugs coming through our southern border and poisoning Americans.

While our public safety policies are delivering results, there is still more work to be done. Safer streets require sustained leadership and cooperation from state and local governments who are equally vested in the security of our nation, but our direction is clear. President Trump and Republicans in Congress are leading the country in a renewed effort to support law enforcement, protect or communities, and save American lives.

As the nation listens to President Trump’s State of the Union address, Americans will hear a record of measurable progress. From declining crime rates to strengthened border enforcement, the policies shaping today’s public landscape are making a tangible difference.

As your Congressman, I remain committed to advancing common-sense legislation to maintain border security, secure our streets, and ensure the United States remains a nation where communities can live, work, and raise a family without fear.

U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans represents Colorado’s 8th Congressional District in Adams, Weld and Larimer counties.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The governor’s spokeswoman Shelby Wieman said “Governor Polis will review this bill as it moves through the process but supports an adult’s right to make their own decisions about their bodies.”

That’s quite the libertarian sentiment. Such arguments for the legalization of drugs, unlimited gambling, sex work, and even assisted suicide often assert that human beings are self-directed decision makers who have an absolute right to self-determination and bodily autonomy. So long as individuals do not infringe on the rights of others, the government should not interfere. Prostitution is no less a valid occupation than any other. Legalization will improve the lives of those who engage in it without negatively impacting anyone else.

As with many arguments, when the premise is incorrect, what follows cannot be true. Individuals are not autonomous decision makers but are inexorably linked. Legalized prostitution does not merely substitute a legal activity for an illegal one but encourages a growth in the flesh market across the board. A study of laws in 150 countries found that legalized prostitution increases human trafficking.

No one being trafficked is operating of their own bodily autonomy.

It will be awkward this November for lawmakers to explain why they voted against a bill mandating life sentences for trafficking of minors for sex and for a bill legalizing prostitution which will ultimately increase incidents of trafficking.

Laws against buying sex protect both the “willing” and the “unwilling.” I put these words in quotes because there isn’t much of a distinction in real life. Prostitution is not just another job chosen freely. No young woman analyzes her college and career prospects and determines exploitation is her best bet.

One study conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University found that “Overall, 73% of women entered the sex trade to get drugs, 36% of women entered to get basic necessities such as food or housing, and 17% of women entered to support their children or family. Of significance, 21% of those aged < 18 years at entry reported being either coerced, threatened, pressured, misled, tricked, or physically forced into trading sex compared to 5% in those who entered at an older age group.”

Legalized prostitution enables the exploitation of vulnerable people and expands its reach. I have no doubt that the sponsors of this bill genuinely want to help prostitutes and believe their bill will reduce violence perpetrated by those buying sex against those selling it. Their compassion is not misplaced but their solution is.

Legalized prostitution enables and legitimizes the degradation of human beings, especially women who make up the majority of prostitutes. No one is an object for sale. Laws and equally important, organizations that assist people in getting out of prostitution, are what women and men in this situation need.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The study, covering roughly 8.6 million acres in six management units, will run for at least three years with the goal of indiscriminately exterminating “as many (lions) as possible.”

Buying into this ancient predator-prey superstition are the nonprofits Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Utah Wild Sheep Foundation. Each has contributed $150,000 to the cull.

Wildlife managers have no idea how many mountain lions roam the state because estimating populations is essentially impossible. Lions are solitary, elusive and range over vast territories they defend. Unlike ungulates that compensate for mortality with fecundity, predators don’t “overpopulate,” and they’re much slower to recover from culling or hunting.

I asked veteran mountain lion researcher Dr. Rick Hopkins, board president of the Cougar Fund, what science supports a claim that killing mountain lions generates more deer. “None,” he replied. “For years, agencies have made such claims, but when pushed to provide evidence, they can’t. Predator control has never worked anywhere.”

Utah’s Division of Wildlife Resources estimates the state’s mule deer population at 295,200–73 percent of the “long-term goal.” That goal is based more on desired hunting-license sales than science. Still, considering the natural ebb and flow of deer populations, 73 percent isn’t bad.

Mountain lions have little or nothing to do with the decline of Utah’s mule deer. Predator populations are limited by available prey. What we learned in Biology 101–that predators control prey—is incorrect: Prey controls predators. Utah has experienced prolonged drought, which peaked in 2022. Reduced forage starved female deer so that fewer fawns were born, and those fawns were sickly and therefore less likely to survive winters. When record-breaking snowfall occurred during the winter of 2022-2023, there were massive mule deer die-offs.

Utah’s mountain lion cull follows hard upon a 2023 state law that opened up year-round, mountain lion killing without requiring permits. Both this law and the current cull outrage environmental and animal wellness communities. The Western Wildlife Conservancy and Mountain Lion Foundation have filed a lawsuit (ongoing), asserting that the law violates the state’s Right to Hunt and Fish Act, which requires a “reasonable regulation of hunting.”

The Mountain Lion Foundation dismisses the mountain lion cull study as a “lethal program without rigorous science,” and reports: “Decades of peer-reviewed research across the West show that intensive predator removal rarely delivers sustained or landscape-scale recovery of prey populations. Instead, it often destabilizes predator populations, leading to younger, transient animals, increased conflict and little long-term benefit for deer.”

And this from Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action: “The science shows that healthy lion populations create robust and healthier deer herds, with lions selectively removing deer afflicted with the 100-percent fatal and highly contagious brain-wasting scourge known as Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) caused by malformed, self-replicating proteins called ‘prions.’”

All threats to mule deer pale in comparison with CWD. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, a hunter-support group, calls it “the number one threat to deer hunting.”

In Utah, CWD has been detected in 356 of the few mule deer checked. Symptoms include fearlessness and loss of coordination, behaviors inviting lion predation, and thereby removal of disease vectors.

What’s more, mountain lions are resistant to CWD. They deactivate prions through digestion, removing them from the environment. That further protects mule deer as well as possibly protecting people. In 2022, two hunters who ate venison from a CWD-ravaged deer herd in Texas died from prion disease. Given the rarity of human prion infections, this seems an unlikely coincidence.

The Idaho Capital Sun quoted Dr. Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease at the University of Minnesota, as follows: “We are quite unprepared. If we saw a (CWD) spillover right now, we would be in free fall. There are no contingency plans.”

Dr. Mark Elbroch of Panthera, a nonprofit dedicated to conserving wild felines, told me this: “Heaps of science show the beneficial contributions of mountain lions. Humans are healthier when we live with mountain lions.”

So are mule deer.

Ted Williams, a longtime environmental writer, is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

More than 100 years later, Colorado voters could be left out of the process of selecting our representative to the upper chamber of Congress.

That’s not how democracy should work. And the Colorado General Assembly should do something about it.

Colorado will elect a new governor this fall. If that governor turns out to be Sen. Michael Bennet, voters will have no say in who serves them in the Senate. That’s because Sen. Bennet  says he “will be in the position to pick the replacement.”

No ballots will be cast. Voters likely won’t even know the names being considered for our state’s highest federal office until after the decision has been made. If Bennet is elected governor, that decision will fall to him alone – taking advantage of a flaw in the current system that must be corrected.

Bennet has been routinely pressed on the issue on the campaign trail, and campaign supporters were recently directed to tell anyone who asked: “There will be some really great, young Democrat who is there to vote exactly the same way that Michael votes.”

Voters deserve better. Bennet should either say now who intends to appoint or — to remove even a hint of impropriety — promise to resign his Senate seat should he win the governor’s race and let Gov. Polis make the appointment before leaving office. Then, the legislature should come up with a fix moving forward that puts the decision in the hands of voters — which is already how it works in Colorado for U.S. House vacancies.

It’s my view that once Sen. Bennet thinks on it a bit — he will agree.

Colorado law gives governors the authority to fill Senate vacancies without any restrictions other than that the appointee satisfy constitutional requirements for the office. Sen. Bennet, whose third full term isn’t up until 2028, has confirmed his intention to make use of that authority upon election — foregoing even the marginally preferable option of allowing current Gov. Polis to appoint a replacement — and retaining his Senate seat should he lose the gubernatorial election.

One of the major problems with the current system is it gives Bennet an unfair advantage over his competition – anyone who would like to be the senator of our state (which is a lot of people) will feel huge pressure to support Bennet for governor.

Although I have no reason to doubt his good intentions, one cannot help but think of the debacle of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was sentenced (and ultimately pardoned by President Trump) on charges of trying to profit from his power to appoint someone to President Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat.

While Bennet’s decision — should he be elected governor — to select his replacement falls within the legal authority of the governor’s office, the perception of a conflict (in which those considered or, ultimately, appointed must kiss the proverbial ring) is simply too great. Anyone and everyone with a desire to be chosen to serve as senator (which comes with a huge, unearned incumbency advantage in the next election cycle) will feel pressure to play along.

I believe voters, not politicians, should have the final say on who represents them in Washington, D.C. A special election was held when Rep. Ken Buck vacated his Congressional District 4 seat in 2024, and the state legislature needs to give voters the right to pick their senator back.

Following the Blagojevich saga, several states passed laws either removing the power of appointment from governors entirely or allowing brief placeholder appointments until voters could fill the vacancy through a special election. Methods vary, and details like election timelines and whether custodial appointees are eligible to run must be considered before passing such laws in Colorado. Polling shows the commonsense point you would expect: A clear majority of Coloradans want to vote to pick their senator, not have them appointed.

As a starting point, I would suggest a special election be held to fill the vacancy as soon as practical, and a placeholder appointed – either by the governor or the legislature – only to ensure Coloradans are represented in the Senate until voters quickly select the replacement to fill the remainder of the term.

While some might decry the cost of holding a special election, I assert that a democracy that’s in the hands of voters – not politicians – is worth it. At least 15 other states have proven that by already establishing such a system, several in response to the Blagojevich mess. But let’s get serious: It does not take being a criminal to want to use this absolute power without creating in the appointee some sense of obligation or without having them commit to policy positions they would not otherwise.

The infringement upon the democratic process that vacancy appointments impose must be recognized and addressed without any further delay. Bennet’s gubernatorial run has brought this issue to the forefront, but it’s hardly an isolated incident. We’ve seen a plethora of vacancies in our state legislature (so much that in the last few years as many as one in three lawmakers arrived via appointment) and it’s not out of the realm of possibility that U.S. Senate vacancies could surge as well.

Bennet was appointed to his own Senate seat in 2009, going on to be democratically reelected three times. For democracy’s sake, I hope he’s one of the last appointments.

Kent Thiry has co-chaired multiple successful Colorado citizen ballot initiatives including the 2016 efforts to restore the state’s presidential primary election (Proposition 107) and to open Colorado’s primary elections to unaffiliated voters (Proposition 108), and 2018 efforts to ban political gerrymandering and create independent commissions to draw Colorado’s congressional and legislative voter maps (Amendments Y and Z, respectively). He is the former chair and chief executive officer of DaVita.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), employers are required to verify the employment authorization of all new hires and maintain proper records. The law’s “Employer Sanctions” provision allows for civil fines and even criminal penalties against businesses that knowingly hire people without authorization.

In theory, that should discourage illegal hiring. In practice, it’s barely enforced. When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducts workplace raids, the employees — those with the least power — are the ones arrested. The employers who signed their paychecks and looked the other way almost never face charges.

It strains belief that companies employing dozens or even hundreds of undocumented workers do so “unknowingly” claiming that use of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, is sufficient. Many employers otherwise perform only superficial efforts at verification of legal status of employees, confident that enforcement agencies will target laborers, not management. Yet ICE agents interviewing those same workers can identify illegal workers with ease. Why can’t the employers?

Each year, thousands of undocumented workers are detained or deported. Yet, on average, only about a dozen employers are prosecuted for hiring them. That imbalance has turned employer sanctions into a hollow statute — and it sends a clear message: breaking immigration laws apply only to workers, not to those who exploit them.

Both parties share the blame. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have lacked the political will to enforce the law against employers. Doing so risks angering powerful industries — from agriculture to construction to hospitality — that rely heavily on low-wage immigrant labor. If we truly want to address illegal immigration, the solution isn’t worksite raids or more detention centers — it’s accountability at the top.

Incredibly, the Trump administration plans to hire 10,000 more ICE agents. Instead of sending them to round up desperate workers, why not assign them to investigate and prosecute employers who hire those workers in the first place? If businesses knew they could face heavy fines or jail time for employing undocumented labor, the incentive to hire illegally would vanish.

Imagine the ripple effect: If there were no jobs awaiting them, far fewer people would risk their lives crossing deserts or paying smugglers to reach the border. Those who still come — fleeing violence or persecution — could still apply for asylum as the law intends.

This change would also expose an uncomfortable truth: America’s economy depends on immigrant labor. If employers could no longer rely on undocumented workers, they would have two choices — raise wages to attract U.S. workers or push Congress to expand legal, regulated work visa programs.

That would be a healthy reckoning. A modernized system could allow immigrants to work legally under fair conditions, with oversight from the Department of Labor to ensure safety, fair pay, and compliance. Employers would follow one transparent process, and the black market for labor would finally end.

Critics will argue that enforcing employer sanctions could disrupt industries and raise consumer prices. Perhaps–but the alternative is a status quo built on hypocrisy and inequality. We cannot rely on the traditional, failed strategies that have brought us untrained ICE agents, the killing of Americans, and the destruction of families and communities alike.

The longer term solution will require amending current immigration laws. But today it only requires political courage to enforce the ones we already have. True immigration reform starts not at the border, but in the boardroom.

Until we hold employers accountable, America’s immigration debate will remain what it has always been: loud on rhetoric, silent on responsibility.

Federico Peña served as Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of Energy under the Clinton administration. He was mayor of Denver from 1983 to 1991. He has been a businessman since 1998.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

This came days after two members of Congress — Rep. Jason Crow and Sen. John Hickenlooper — announced they will donate tens of thousands of dollars to immigrant rights organizations to offset campaign contributions they received from Palantir’s executives and employees.

More members of Congress are likely to follow suit and return their donations as the company and its political contributions come under more public scrutiny. These donations, while welcome, raise a deeper and more troubling question: Why is a company that powers mass surveillance and immigrant enforcement so deeply embedded in our political system in the first place?

Even before ICE agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement arm racked up a long history of racism, violence, and anticonstitutional activity. What’s really changed since its founding in 2003 is the speed and the scale of that violence — in the last four months, ICE agents have shot nine people and killed three.

Now armed with unchecked power from this administration and a growing suite of surveillance tech tools, ICE has a blank check to terrorize all of us. But what few are talking about is how these two pieces of the puzzle are connected: ICE is a financial conduit between the federal government and the tech industry, namely the data-mining firm Palantir. Silicon Valley executives and Capitol Hill suits are getting rich and doing each other favors while a band of thugs threatens our communities and our democracy.

Tech has been a big part of ICE’s deportation pipeline for a while now. In 2018, through my work at Mijente with the #NoTechForICE campaign, we put out detailed documents to track those connections. But as the DHS’s budget has grown under the Trump administration, so have the lucrative tech and data contracts that extend ICE’s reach.

Palantir now makes billions from government contracts for software and services. Last year, the federal government paid Palantir $30 million to build its new AI-driven surveillance platform, “ImmigrationOS,” now foundational to ICE’s functioning. When agents charge into neighborhoods and workplaces, they are relying on Palantir’s custom software to run their operations and using data brokers to get their information.

When the mood in Silicon Valley was decidedly more liberal, Palantir leadership — which includes co-founder Peter Thiel and CEO Alex Karp — mainly stayed under the public radar. But in this new political era where retaliation from the president and abuse of force are seen as “high testosterone” behavior, they are now saying the quiet part out loud — very loud.

In a 2025 earnings call, Palantir CEO Alex Karp said that “when you have an open border, it means that the average poor American earns less” and that he believes “this country is right to stop that.”

He went on to say that he was proud of the efforts Palantir is involved in around immigration, and most Palantirians are proud too. He may be right: co-founder Joe Lonsdale has posted on X about his support for the government’s actions in Venezuela, and wrote that Palantir was founded to “save Western Civilization from our adversaries, especially communists and Islamists.”

When some Palantir employees asked questions internally about how their software was supporting ICE’s recent killing of ICU nurse Alex Pretti, the “global director of privacy and civil liberties engineering” simply sent out a link to information about existing government contracts.

And it’s more than just talk. Karp and other Palantirians are showing pride in the administration’s work through their wallets. As they pocket billion dollar government tech contracts, they’re giving away million dollar political donations.

And the largest recipient of donations from Palantir employees and the company’s PAC are PAC’s set up to support Trump, according to OpenSecrets. All you have to do to is follow the money.

That’s why last month, we released The Palantir Payroll: a deeply-researched list of the political donations from Palantir’s corporate PAC, and individual Palantir employees and executives. The data was compiled from public filings with the Federal Elections Commission, looking at Palantir’s employees and executives donations to politicians’ principal campaign committees, their leadership committees, and the super PACs that support them. Scroll through the spreadsheet and see just how far and wide the money flows — and whether your representatives are accepting money from the company that ICE depends on.

Palantir uses public money to build private control — and private money to try and buy public control. Now that the company’s technologies are threatening the liberties of everyone, we all must ask ourselves: What are we going to do about it?

Fortunately, there’s one simple thing you can do today to make a difference. Don’t vote for any politician who takes money from Palantir and therefore supports ICE. If a leader you like has already accepted a donation from the company, demand that they return the funds. Spread the word among your friends and family, coworkers and neighbors.

No tech for ICE and no political donations from Palantir

Jacinta Gonzalez is the head of programs at MediaJustice, a national organization that fights corporate and government control of media and technology in Black, brown, and working class communities. She previously served as the policy director at Mijente, where she helped lead the #NoTechForICE campaign exposing tech companies contracts with immigration enforcement.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

At a time when federal worker protections are under attack, the National Labor Relations Board is being gutted, and Americans live with such financial stress that they are often too intimidated to speak up at their workplaces, it’s time for state leaders to make it easier for working people to win the life-changing benefits of a union.

As the president of Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 30, I’ve seen these challenges firsthand, as we recently won a first contract for workers who support refugees and people in conflict zones at the International Rescue Committee’s Denver office.

Through steadfast organizing, these OPEIU members won pay increases, more sick days and a voice in their workplace. But these wins did not come without additional challenges that deter workers across the state from organizing unions of their own. Not only did they have to win an election to form a union, but they then had to win an election to charge union dues, and will have to do so again for each future contract, an onerous requirement that none of the other twelve IRC offices we represent have to deal with.

Due to the so-called Labor Peace Act, Coloradans have never enjoyed the full benefits of the National Labor Relations Act, which protects Americans’ right to unionize, bringing them salaries 10% higher on average than their non-union counterparts. The state’s rampant inequality is the direct byproduct of outdated laws that created a system designed to impede the growth of unions with the explicit original purpose of quelling interracial organizing. These laws leave Colorado’s union density lagging behind the national rate and have inspired anti-union legislation nationally.

To bring these contract wins to workers throughout Colorado, it is essential that we amend the so-called Labor Peace Act now and pass House Bill 1005, a bill spearheaded by Representatives Javier Mabrey and Jennifer Bacon and Senators Jessie Danielson and Iman Jodeh. We call on Gov. Jared Polis to start listening to workers across the state and sign this vital legislation when it lands on his desk again this year.

By forcing workers to constantly re-vote on whether dues can be deducted, employers can easily undermine the will of their employees by prioritizing anti-union hires and undermining the financial stability of the union. This law also forces workers to endlessly focus on rallying their colleagues around the very preservation of their union, diverting limited resources that could be used to fix workplace issues.

Despite Colorado’s law being positioned as a “compromise” between workers and management, the Labor Peace Act actually plays out more like the famously anti-union “right-to-work” laws seen elsewhere. In these states, union density is lower and workers earn an average of $1,670 less than their counterparts in states that protect union security.

This is the difference between a family being thrown out on the streets or having enough money for rent, parents having the resources to send their children to college, or a senior being able to enjoy a dignified retirement. For people who must work for a living, who don’t have hundreds of millions to sustain them as they bounce between political offices, this $1,670 can mean everything.

The amendment would remove this burdensome extra vote and bring Colorado’s labor laws up to the standards of states ranging from California to Montana, sending a message that Colorado is serious about developing an economy that provides working people access to a comfortable middle-class life.

At a moment when 70% of the country approves of labor unions and our federal government has waged a full-on war against workers, amending this backwards law is essential for working Coloradans to win what they are owed.

And at a time when insurance premiums are soaring and Medicaid, as we know it, could disappear, workers need the employer-provided health insurance that they are almost twice as likely to receive through a collectively bargained contract. Our recent victory at IRC exemplifies this, bringing Denver workers higher incomes, better work-life balances and increased job stability.

The law as it stands does not reflect Coloradans’ values, and OPEIU encourages Polis to follow Michigan’s 2023 repeal of right-to-work and make it easier for Colorado workers to win the better wages, benefits and working conditions they are entitled to — and that union membership makes much more likely.

Marianne Giordano is a vice president at OPEIU who serves as executive director and CFO of Local 30, where she is also a Coalition Tri-Chair of Kaiser Permanente’s Regional Labor Management Council, a member of the National Labor Management Council Steering Committee and a delegate to the Coalition of Labor Union Women. She is an echo technologist in the Internal Medicine Cardiology Department at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. 

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.