Summary#

HJR 26-1029 was a Colorado House joint resolution, not a bill amending an Act; it failed and is not law. If adopted, it would have directed the General Assembly to seek outside investigations of alleged violations of the Colorado False Claims Act and other laws. Its stated goal was a conflict-free investigation; the resolution’s allegations are not findings of fact.

• The legislature would have had to ask the U.S. Department of Justice to assign an office other than its Denver or Wyoming offices to investigate alleged public corruption in Colorado state and local governments.
• The legislature would have had to appoint another state’s or the District of Columbia’s attorney general as a Special Assistant Attorney General to investigate and represent Colorado’s interests in alleged violations of the Colorado False Claims Act and other laws.
• That representation would have had to be paid for with money already appropriated to the Colorado Department of Law.
• The legislature would have had to ask the House Speaker and Senate President to appoint a joint select committee to carry out the resolution.

What it means for you#

• Everyone: Because the resolution failed, it creates no investigation, appointment, committee, or new legal duty.
• Colorado state and local governments: The resolution describes the Colorado False Claims Act as allowing the state or a political subdivision to bring a civil case over certain fraudulent claims. It says the Attorney General or a private person may bring such a case. This resolution would not have changed those rules.
• Colorado Department of Law and taxpayers: If adopted, the department’s already appropriated money would have paid for the appointed attorney general’s work. The resolution gives no amount.
• People or agencies mentioned in the allegations: The resolution would not itself find anyone liable or impose a penalty.

Money#

The resolution gives no cost estimate, but would have required the appointed attorney general’s representation to be paid from money already appropriated to the Colorado Department of Law.

• It does not specify the amount or whether those funds would have been diverted from other department work.
• No funding amount or cost estimate is provided for the requested federal investigation or the proposed joint committee.

What is unclear#

• The resolution does not set investigation timelines, procedures, reporting requirements, or oversight rules.
• It does not explain how the other jurisdiction’s attorney general would be selected, whether that person must agree to serve, or what authority the appointment would provide.
• It does not define the scope of “other laws” or explain how this work would relate to existing cases or investigations.
• The resolution’s recitals allege misconduct and conflicts of interest, but the supplied material does not establish those claims. No publicly available information.
• No publicly available information on the proposed investigation’s costs or the amount of Department of Law funding available for the appointment.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the resolution is that an outside investigator might be seen as more impartial if the state or federal offices named in the resolution had conflicts.
• It sought to examine alleged misuse of public resources and possible violations of laws protecting public funds.
• Asking another state’s attorney general to represent Colorado could provide an alternative to relying on the Colorado Department of Law, which the resolution says could not act impartially.

Case against#

• The resolution does not set out safeguards, timelines, or reporting rules for the investigations or the appointed attorney general’s work.
• It does not explain how the appointment would work in practice or define its broad reference to “other laws.”
• Using already appropriated Department of Law funds could reduce money available for other work; the resolution does not estimate that trade-off.
• The resolution’s allegations are not proven by the text, and it does not specify what evidence would establish a violation.