Legislative reviewers and the measure proponents discussed the text of Proposed Initiative Measure 58 during a review-and-comment hearing April 4 in House Committee Room 0109. The measure would restrict courts from releasing certain defendants on unsecured personal recognizance bonds in cases involving alleged crimes of violence, repeated motor vehicle theft allegations, or assaults on peace officers, and would require minimum bond amounts for those charged in covered cases.

The hearing opened with Julianne Jensen of legislative council staff summarizing the measure’s aims and the statutory review process. Proponents present included Michael Fields and Suzanne Taheri; Michael Doerr (also recorded as Michael Dorr) of Legislative Legal Services participated for legal clarification.

Reviewers focused on several drafting and scope questions. Staff asked whether the subsection that imposes the two-pending-charge trigger for motor vehicle theft cases requires two charges of the same category (two motor vehicle thefts or two crimes of violence) or permits a mix (one motor vehicle theft and one crime of violence). Proponents indicated they intend a “total of two or more” pending charges across the listed offenses, and said they were open to clarifying language to make that explicit.

Reviewers also asked whether the term “conviction” should include deferred judgments and pleas of nolo contendere; proponents said they intended the usual statutory meaning but acknowledged that Colorado statutes vary in how they treat deferred dispositions and that the measure could adopt a specific definition to avoid inconsistency.

A separate drafting issue arose over the bond-amount clause: the text as drafted would allow a court to set a bond higher than the statutory amount while permitting a defendant to post only $10,000 to secure release. Proponents agreed this does not reflect their intent and said they would change the language so the court must impose a minimum bond of $10,000 (cash or surety) for covered defendants.

Reviewers raised other technical and redundancy items (nearly identical clauses referencing affidavits for arrest) and noted they would remove or consolidate redundant language. The hearing concluded with staff offering technical comments the proponents could address before resubmission.

The review-and-comment session is advisory: legislative staff pose drafting and constitutional questions to help clarify ballot language; it does not advance the initiative toward the ballot itself. The proponents signaled willingness to revise definitions and minimum-bond language based on the discussion.