Summary#

HB 26-1422, “Security Measures for Certain Government Entities,” amends Colorado law and creates new provisions. The bill’s stated goal is to strengthen security for legislators, courts and other named public officials and workers. The supplied status information says it was signed into law; the bill text provided here ends partway through its court-fee changes, so this summary cannot cover the full law.

• The Legislative Council’s Executive Committee may appoint a legislative safety administrator, if funds are available. The administrator coordinates protection with the Colorado State Patrol, assesses security needs, may appoint additional staff with committee approval, and may decide what protection is needed. The administrator and staff are peace officers with authority to enforce all state laws. The State Patrol remains the main police agency at the Capitol complex and the primary source of security for legislators.
• A new Court Security Authority—a separate public corporation and political subdivision, not a state agency—will distribute court-security grants. A $10 surcharge on specified court and case fees starts July 1, 2027. Grants must prioritize counties meeting at least two listed measures of limited resources; the authority may also fund statewide court-security needs.
• Sheriffs providing court security must use standards recommended by a new task force and, as far as practicable, maintain one secure public entrance, use magnetometers while court is in session, and check and log certain people entering with firearms.
• The bill expands protections for judicial employees, legislative staff and elected officials against online exposure of personal information. For protected people, a private publisher must remove information within 72 hours after a proper written request. Other rules cover government records, elected officials and access by specified exempt parties.
• The bill makes retaliation against a judicial employee a class 6 felony and changes some public-disclosure and court-fee rules. The supplied text is incomplete, so the full extent of those changes cannot be verified.

What it means for you#

• Legislators and legislative staff: They can contact the new administrator about safety. The Executive Committee must create a request process. The administrator must coordinate security with the State Patrol and assess risks in the Capitol complex, legislators’ districts and events. Home security systems may be arranged only if money is appropriated or gifts, grants or donations are received.
• Courts, sheriffs and counties: Sheriffs must follow the task force’s recommended standards, subject to the “to the extent practicable” limit and the listed minimum measures. Counties seeking grants must apply through a local security team that includes a judge or designee, sheriff or designee, and county commissioner, county manager or designee. Grant money cannot replace county money already allocated for court security.
• People who use courts: The bill sets a $10 surcharge beginning July 1, 2027, on the listed civil, criminal, probate, traffic and other fees. The current $5 surcharge applies to covered fees assessed before that date, with a transition rule for amounts collected later. The supplied text also shows some court filing fees changing on that date, but not the complete schedule.
• Judicial employees and other protected people: Publishing their personal information online can be a crime when the required threat and knowledge conditions are met. Protected people may ask government officials to keep personal information off the internet. They may also ask private publishers to remove it; a court action may seek relief and damages for non-compliance.
• Taxpayers and the public: The bill does not create a general public safety service or guarantee that every request for protection will be granted. Security decisions depend in part on risk, location, staffing and policy direction.

Money#

The bill sets a $10 surcharge on specified court fees starting July 1, 2027, but the supplied materials give no overall cost estimate.

• The Court Security Authority may deduct its direct and indirect administrative expenses from surcharge revenue before distributing grants. The surcharge is not state revenue.
• The authority may contract for staffing and must pay the agreed costs, including administrative and indirect costs.
• The legislative safety administrator’s salary is set by the Executive Committee. Additional personnel may be appointed; no staffing or salary estimate is provided.
• Home security systems for legislators depend on an appropriation or gifts, grants or donations.
• Some board members’ actual and reasonable expenses must be reimbursed. The State Court Administrator must reimburse specified legal fees from the existing court security cash fund.

What is unclear#

• The supplied bill text is cut off during the court-fee amendments. It does not show all fee changes or the remaining sections, if any.
• The bill does not give a total cost, staffing plan or estimate of how much the $10 surcharge will raise.
• The administrator’s protection-request process must be established, but the bill does not set timelines, appeal rights or detailed decision rules.
• The administrator has broad peace-officer authority. The bill requires a sunrise application by July 1, 2026, to consider whether a change in that status is needed; the supplied text does not provide the result.
• The task force must develop recommended standards, but the supplied text does not say when they will be final or how sheriffs should proceed if a recommendation is not practicable.
• The bill does not explain how the new authority’s grants will interact with other court-security funding.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that it gives legislators a clear safety contact while keeping the State Patrol’s central role in protection.
• A statewide surcharge could provide a dedicated source of court-security funding, with priority for counties that meet measures of limited resources.
• Shared standards and local security teams could help counties plan for courthouse risks while taking county size and resources into account.
• Removal requests and limits on online disclosure could give public officials and workers practical ways to reduce safety risks to themselves and their families.

Case against#

• The new administrator can decide what protection is needed and has peace-officer authority to enforce all state laws. The bill leaves many limits and operating details to later decisions.
• The $10 surcharge adds a cost to people paying covered court fees, and the bill provides no estimate of revenue or of how much security work that revenue will cover.
• The standards for sheriffs are still to be developed, and some required measures apply only “to the extent practicable.” Counties may face different practical burdens.
• Online information rules may require private publishers to remove information within 72 hours, while the bill also creates access routes for exempt parties. The supplied text does not resolve all questions about how those rules will work in practice.