Senators passed Senate Bill 1, the Colorado Voting Rights Act, on final passage after adopting a series of clarifying amendments addressing multilingual ballots, remedies for alleged violations, and procedures for sharing election data and notifications.

Sponsor Senator Cyndi Gonzales, who carried the bill on the floor, described the measure as an effort to strengthen the administration of elections and to address vote dilution, tribal voting protections, multilingual access and precinct-level data for the statewide election database. “L 20 is crafted in order to ensure specificity for the notice related to voting information given by institutions that house people with disabilities…,” Gonzales said when offering the first amendment to the bill.

The bill moved through three major amendment packages the sponsor offered on the floor. Amendment L20 clarified notice language for institutions serving people with disabilities and required that precinct-level data be submitted to the statewide election database where available. Amendment L21 created an exemption for municipalities with populations under 3,000 from the multilingual ballot requirement and clarified coordination between municipalities and counties on shared ballot translations. Amendment L22 revised the remedies and venue language for complaints under the act; it added a role for the Secretary of State as a necessary party in some cases and specified the contents required in notification letters so respondents have sufficient information to respond and pursue resolution.

A contentious chunk of debate centered on an amendment set (L16 then replaced by L42) directing how and when the Secretary of State must notify county clerks, the governor and the attorney general after an unauthorized disclosure of election-related information. Senator Castle Rock Frizzell led the effort for an initial immediate-notification amendment (L16) that required same‑day notice; after hearings and pushback the sponsor and supporters offered L42 instead. That amendment set a seven‑calendar‑day deadline for notice generally, but required notice within 48 hours if the unauthorized disclosure occurs within three weeks before or after an election. Frizzell argued the change provided a “policy framework” and struck a balance between prompt notification and allowing time to characterize any incident. The Senate adopted L42 after a roll call division.

Several senators raised concerns about the bill’s remedies language and the possibility of courts being asked to grant authority that could be seen as legislative (a separation-of-powers concern). During debate Minority Leader Lundin asked whether language allowing a district court to approve specified solutions risked judges “writing law.” The sponsor and backers said L22 was intended to enable prompt, practical resolutions (including district court approval when a political subdivision lacked authority to implement a fix) while preserving state oversight and limiting interference with signature verification procedures.

Senators who serve or formerly served as county clerks pressed repeatedly on fiscal and operational impacts. Multiple senators — including proponents of amendments that would require financial assistance — argued counties already shoulder enforcement and ballot-delivery costs and sought exemptions or state funding to cover multilingual ballot translation and related compliance costs.

Why it matters: The Senate bill attempts to balance expanded voting-access protections (multilingual ballots, tribal voting protections) and a clearer complaint/remedy process with the operational realities of county clerks and the potential for litigation. The new notification language on election-related data disclosures responds directly to last year’s incidents in Colorado in which passwords and sensitive election-related information were unintentionally published, and to clerks’ complaints that they were not informed promptly.

What’s next: The bill passed the Senate after amendments and will move to the House with the adopted changes. Supporters say the changes make the law operationally clearer; opponents urged additional changes to reduce litigation risk and to clarify timelines and responsibility for notifications.

Ending: Senate Bill 1 passed the Senate after floor agreement on L20, L21, L22 and L42 and final passage was recorded on the Senate calendar. Sponsors said they will continue to work with clerks, municipalities and the Secretary of State’s office to finalize implementing details in rulemaking and in the next chamber.