H_JUD_2018A 04/10/2018 01:41:18 PM Committee Summary

The committee was called to order. All members were present. Representatives Wist and Garnett, prime sponsors, presented Senate Bill 18-109, concerning an authorization for notaries public to perform notarial acts using audio-video communication.  Representative Wist explained the effect of the bill and discussed its need. Representative Garnett provided input on the bill. Representative Wist discussed the potential interplay between SB 18-109 and forthcoming model laws from the Uniform Law Commission. Discussion ensued on this point. Representative Wist screened a short video about remote notarization. Discussion ensued regarding the technology involved in remote notarization, and documentation maintained for notarization under current law and under SB 18-109.

Discussion continued regarding the technology used for remote notarization under the bill.  Committee discussion also covered the retention of records.

Ms. Anne McGihon, representing the Colorado Commission on Uniform State Laws, testified in opposition to the bill. She explained that the Uniform Law Commission has model legislation pending on the issue. Ms. McGihon responded to questions regarding the work of the Uniform Law Commission on remote notarization, and the ramifications of passing SB 18-109 before the commission acts. Committee members received an article about privacy concerns with remote notarization (Attachment A).  Discussion ensued regarding bills similar to SB 18-109 in other states. Representative Wist explained how the bill will harmonize with any model legislation adopted by the Uniform Law Commission. Discussion followed regarding notary laws in Colorado.

Mr. Charles Calvin, representing the Colorado Bar Association, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Calvin discussed affidavits used for notary services, and expressed concerns about the process used to facilitate remote notarization. Mr. Calvin responded to questions about remote testimony in depositions, which is acceptable practice in judicial proceedings. Mr. Calvin responded to further questions regarding how notaries determine if coercion is present during signings under current law.

Ms. Letitia Maxfield, representing the Colorado Bar Association, testified in opposition to SB 18-109. Ms. Maxfield discussed some provisions on remote notarization that her organization supports, but are not present in the bill. Ms. Maxfield responded to questions regarding the sale of data gathered by remote notarization providers, and mandatory reporting by notaries. Discussion ensued regarding her organization's reservations with the bill based on potential coercion of the elderly, and current law governing notaries.

Ms. Victoria Bantz, representing the Colorado Bar Association, testified in opposition to SB 18-109. Ms. Bantz spoke in support of holding off on remote notarization legislation until the Uniform Law Commission acts on the issue, and discussed potential statutory clean-up work that would need to be done.

Mr. Frank Hill, representing the Colorado Bar Association, testified in opposition to the bill. He explained that his organization is in favor of remote notarization generally, but the process needs certain safeguards. Mr. Hill responded to questions regarding safeguards under current law that would apply to remote notarization.

Mr. Andy Toft, representing the Colorado Bar Association, testified in opposition to SB 18-109. He raised concerns about consent. Mr. Toft responded to questions regarding the waiver of privacy when using a remote notarization company, and the binding of Colorado law to out-of-state notarization companies. Discussion ensued regarding notary-related legislation passed in Colorado in 2017.

Mr. Terry Jones, representing the Colorado Mortgage Lenders Association, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Jones expressed concerns with the "prohibited acts" section of the bill, and explained why the Secretary of State should be granted rulemaking authority with respect to remote notarization.

Ms. Diane Evans, representing Land Title Guarantee Company, testified in opposition to the bill. She expressed concerns about the risk to consumers' private information under the process allowed by the bill, and the potential for coercion under this process.

Mr. Robert Howe, representing the Land Title Association of Colorado, testified in opposition to SB 18-109. He discussed the genesis of the legislation, and expressed concerns about data privacy. Mr. Howe responded to questions regarding amendments that may change his organization's position on the bill, and the types of data involved in real estate transactions that is of commercial interest.

Ms. Denise Maes, representing the ACLU, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Maes spoke in support of waiting for the Uniform Law Commission to act on model remote notarization legislation, and raised concerns about privacy. Ms. Maes responded to questions regarding the extent of the ACLU's opposition to the bill.

Mr. Tim Griesmer, representing the Secretary of State, testified on the bill from a neutral position. Mr. Griesmer responded to questions regarding the ability of his office to create rules for governing certain aspects of remote notarization, and protocols observed by the Secretary of State when accessing notary journals. Mr. Griesmer responded to questions regarding the oversight of remote notary companies based outside of Colorado under the bill. Mr. Griesmer responded to further questions about laws similar to SB 18-109 in other states.

Mr.Michael O'Neal, representing First American Title, testified in support of the bill. Mr. O'Neal discussed the consistency of SB 18-109 with national models, and addressed privacy concerns raised during earlier testimony. Mr. O'Neal responded to questions regarding the need to record remote notarization sessions, and potential amendments to the bill.

Mr. Matt Wendel, representing the Colorado Technology Association, testified in support of SB 18-109. Mr. Wendel discussed technological change. Mr. Ian O'Neill, representing the Colorado Technology Association, testified in support of the bill. Mr. O'Neill addressed privacy concerns. Mr. O'Neill responded to questions regarding risk associated with notaries maintaining databases with private information, and other privacy concerns.

Discussion continued regarding privacy concerns with SB 18-109.

Ms. Geri Combs, representing Stewart Title, testified in support of the bill. She discussed the convenient aspects of remote notarization, and protections in place for consumers. Mr. Michael Chodos, representing Notarize Inc., testified in support of SB 18-109. He provided an overview of the services provided by his company, and addressed privacy concerns raised during earlier testimony. Mr. Chodos also discussed the merits of amendment L.005 (Attachment A). Mr. Chotos responded to questions regarding data privacy provisions in the bill.

Representative Salazar laid over SB 18-109 for future action.

The committee recessed.

The committee returned to order. Representatives Pabon and Sias, prime sponsors, presented SB 18-171, concerning the creation of a test to determine whether a marketplace contractor that provides services on a marketplace platform is covered under certain employment-related laws. The sponsors explained the effect of the bill.  Representative Pabon responded to questions regarding what employment-related laws are impacted by the bill, and the effect of the bill on a fact pattern with liability implications for the entity contracting for services.  Representative Pabon responded to further questions regarding certain court rulings that impact the bill.

Representative Pabon responded to questions regarding quality of service.

Ms. Becky Smith, representing the National Employment Law Project, testified in opposition to SB 18-171. She explained that the scope of the bill extends beyond its title, and discussed the new definition of employer set out by the bill. Ms. Palak Shah, representing the National Domestic Workers Alliance, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Shah explained how the bill erodes the rights of domestic workers, and discussed the intersection of technology and work. Mr. Scott Wasserman, representing the Bell Policy Center, testified in opposition to SB 18-171. He discussed technology's effect on economic mobility. Ms. Smith responded to questions regarding the potential for additional companies to convert their employers to independent contractors through the use of technology. Ms. Shah responded to questions regarding the effect of certain technological platforms on workers' independence. Ms. Smith responded to questions regarding the impact of the bill on other worker protections already in law, and certain court decisions impacting employment. Discussion ensued regarding the legal protections for domestic workers. Mr. Wasserman responded to questions regarding the effect of technology on the provision of benefits to workers going forward.

Mr. David Lichtenstein, representing the Plaintiffs Employment Lawyers Association, testified in opposition to SB 18-171. Mr. Lichtenstein discussed economic leverage that employers operating on technological platforms have over workers, and the impact of the bill on workers in areas such as benefits and wages. Ms. Corrine Rivera Fowler, representing Padres y Yovenes Unidos, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Fowler discussed the lack of benefits and protections for those participating in the "gig" economy, and the protections removed from employees by the bill. Ms. Casey DiGaetano, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed the lack of benefits and protections in her employment. Ms. DiGaetano responded to questions regarding what happens if she is injured at work. Discussion ensued regarding the fiscal analysis of the bill. Mr. Lichtenstein and Ms. Fowler responded to questions regarding the ability of platform employers to discriminate in hiring.

Ms. Marie Medina, representing herself, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Medina discussed her work for a marketplace platform company, and explained why classifying such jobs as independent contract arrangements is detrimental. Ms. Kathy White, representing the Colorado Fiscal Institute, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. White discussed the loss of unemployment insurance and workers' compensation under the bill, and certain add-on effects of the bill. Ms. Karla Gonzalez Garcia, representing the Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights, testified in opposition to SB 18-171. Ms. Gonzalez Garcia discussed the impact of the bill on workers. Ms. Medina responded to questions regarding her gig economy position. Ms. White responded to questions regarding the impact of the growth of the gig economy. Discussion returned to Ms. Medina's position.

Ms. Claire Levy, representing the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Levy read a statement about the marketplace platform economy. Ms. Judith Marquez, representing 9to5, testified in opposition to SB 18-171. Ms. Marquez discussed those who work in the gig economy, and the loss of protections under the bill. Mr. Kyle Huelsman, representing the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Huelsman discussed the scope of immigrant labor in Colorado, and issues these workers face. Ms. Levy responded to questions regarding the potential for removing the independent contractor legal status, and the ability to regulate marketplace platform jobs through existing law and caselaw. Ms. Marquez and Ms. Levy responded to questions regarding protections currently in place for certain marketplace platform positions.

Ms. Ashley Wheeland, representing the Women's Lobby of Colorado, testified in opposition to the bill. She discussed the loss of protections for workers under the bill. Mr. David Seligman, representing Towards Justice, testified in opposition to SB 18-171. Mr. Seligman discussed the incentives created for employers by the bill. Mr. Eric Leveridge, representing United for a New Economy, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Leveridge read a statement in opposition to the bill. Discussion ensued regarding caselaw that impacts the bill, and the ramifications of pushing marketplace platforms out of Colorado.

Mr. Scott Meiklejon, representing Western Colorado Contractors Association, testified on the bill from a a neutral position, if amendment L.011 (Attachment C) passes. Discussion ensued regarding this amendment. Mr. Meiklejon responded to questions regarding how workers' compensation claims are handled for marketplace platform jobs.

Mr. Patrick Teegarden, representing the Department of Labor and Employment, made himself available to respond to questions. Mr. Teegarden responded to questions regarding the fiscal impact of SB 18-171, and whether the bill creates more marketplace confusion.

Mr. Brian Miller, representing Handy, testified in support of SB 18-171. Mr. Miller discussed the benefits of marketplace platform services, and explained how employment laws are outdated and not suited for new types of service delivery. Mr. Vikrum Aiyer, representing Postmates, testified in support of the bill. He discussed the economic benefits of marketplace platforms, and explained how current employment law inhibits its ability to innovate. Mr. Matthew Lopez, representing himself, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Lopez discussed his work in the gig economy, and the benefits of such employment. Mr. Lopez responded to questions regarding the benefits he received when he was delivering food for restaurants. Discussion ensued regarding the decision-making ability of those working in the gig economy, and the ramifications of not adopting SB 18-171.

Mr. Jeremiah Leslie, representing himself and Handy, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Leslie discussed his experience in working with Handy to build his business. Mr. Matt Wendel, representing the Colorado Technology Association, testified in support of the bill. Representative Pabon read a statement in support of the bill by Ms. Becky Petre. Mr. Leslie responded to questions regarding his arrangement with Handy.

Ms. Bre Andrews, representing the AFL-CIO, testified in opposition to the bill. Ms. Andrews discussed an arrangement between certain corporations and marketplace platforms, which she says misclassifies employees.

Representative Pabon explained the effect of amendment L.011.

Discussion ensued regarding the merits of amendment L.011.

Representative Herod explained the effect of amendment L.012 (Attachment D). Discussion ensued regarding the amendment.

Representative Herod explained the effect of amendment L.015 (Attachment E). Discussion ensued about the amendment.

Representative Herod explained the effect of amendment L.016 (Attachment F). Discussion ensued regarding the amendment.

The committee recessed.

The committee returned to order. Various committee members provided their positions on SB 18-171. Representatives Pabon and Wist provided closing remarks in support of the bill.

Representatives Salazar and Esgar, prime sponsors, presented House Bill 18-1273, concerning protections for Colorado residents from federal government overreach based on a person's status. Representative Salazar explained the effect of the bill and discussed its need. Representative Esgar provided input on the bill.

Ms. JoAnn Fujioka, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Fujioka discussed the plight of her family during World War II. Ms. Iman Jodeh, representing the Colorado Muslim Leadership Council and Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, testified in support of HB 18-1273. Ms. Jodeh discussed her reaction to recent rhetoric from the federal government. Mr. Jose Torres-Vega, representing the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Torres-Vega discussed the development of the human rights movement, and spoke against discrimination.

Ms. Jill Wildenberg, representing the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Wildenberg discussed the history of Yom Yeshua. Ms. Karla Gonzalez Garcia, representing COLOR, testified in support of HB 18-1273. Ms. Gonzalez Garcia discussed recent presidential executive orders. Mr. Maytham Alshadood, representing the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Alshadood discussed his experience as an immigrant from Iraq. Representative Esgar read the testimony of Mr. Michael Neil. Committee members received copies of a letter from the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (Attachment G).

Ms. Jeri Sheppard, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Sheppard quoted Martin Nemoeller. Ms. Lydia Waligorski, representing the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, testified in support of the bill. Committee members received a handout detailing findings of a survey concerning immigrant victims of domestic violence (Attachment H). Ms. Waligorski discussed these findings. Mr. Chris Hinds, representing himself, testified in support of HB 18-1273. Mr. Hinds read a statement analogous to the bill's protections.

Ms. Brianna Titone, representing herself, testified in support of HB 18-1273. Ms. Titone discussed actions taken against the transgender community. Ms. Eleanor Cabel, representing herself, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Cabel outlined the effect of the bill, and discussed the protected liberties in the United States.

Representative Salazar explained the effect of amendment L.001 (Attachment I).

Representatives Esgar and Salazar provided closing remarks in support of HB 18-1273. Representative Lundeen discussed the bill and its supporters.