Legislation that would enact new antidiscrimination protections for transgender Coloradans passed a Senate committee early Thursday morning after its backers altered the most controversial provisions to assuage advocacy groups’ concerns.
House Bill 1312 is now two votes and some procedural smoothing away from Gov. Jared Polis’ desk. The proposal would expand the state’s antidiscrimination law to include intentionally, repeatedly “deadnaming” or misgendering a transgender person.
The measure passed the House a month ago but has since hit whitecaps: Two weeks ago, some prominent LGBT+ groups began to hedge their previous support over fears of legal backlash.
Those concerns prompted significant changes to the bill early Thursday, after hours of testimony in a marathon hearing that had begun Wednesday afternoon. HB-1312 passed Senate Judiciary on a party-line 5-2 vote just before 1 a.m.
Should it pass into law, the bill would still protect transgender people from being misgendered or deadnamed, or referred to by the name they used before they transitioned, in discrimination laws for places like work and school. It would also enact shield-law protections for Coloradans against other states’ anti-transgender policies, and it would make changes to policies for name alterations on marriage certificates and gender markers on driver’s licenses.
But the bill’s Democratic sponsors — Sens. Chris Kolker and Faith Winter — fully removed the bill’s most controversial provision: a new requirement for family-court judges to consider one parent’s misgendering or deadnaming of their child in custody proceedings. They also stripped language related to publishing materials that deadname or misgender someone.
“We want to make sure that we’re all seen as equals,” Kolker said. “And that’s what this bill is doing.”
As the hearing wound down, Democratic Sen. Dylan Roberts said some concerns were persisting. Roberts pressed one of the bill’s proponents about the measure’s shield law provision, which would prohibit Colorado authorities from removing a child receiving gender-affirming care from a parent’s home because of another state’s laws. Roberts argued the provision may violate interstate agreements and would put the state at “immense legal risk.”
He said he understood that Polis was worried, too, and Roberts wanted to know why proponents wouldn’t just remove that section.
Erika Unger, who works for a law firm supporting the bill, replied that Polis’ office has “certainly expressed concerns” recently but that the governor hasn’t said he would veto HB-1312. Roberts, who later voted to pass the bill, said it would be “disappointing to the community” if the bill were not to pass, given the “significant concern” from Polis.
That prompted a transgender woman to interject.
“As one of those community members that was also stakeholdered on this bill, and as someone who grew up in rural Alabama — someone who was persecuted by my state’s laws — I absolutely feel this section matters, very much to me,” Sky Childress told Roberts. “I do not want this section struck from the bill whatsoever.”
A Polis spokeswoman was not able immediately to provide comment Thursday morning, though she indicated that Polis wasn’t opposed to the proposal. Winter said Thursday that supporters were meeting with Polis’ office later that day and that she wasn’t worried.
As the hearing began Wednesday, hundreds of people had signed up — and lined up — to testify, filling two overflow rooms and prompting the committee’s chair to cap testimony at four hours each for supporters and for opponents.
Proponents said the protections were vital to prevent anti-transgender discrimination in schools, workplaces or in transgender Coloradans’ daily lives. Supporters said those greater protections were especially vital now, amid the Trump administration’s open hostility to transgender Americans.
Protesters took to the Capitol steps before the meeting, criticizing HB-1312 in religious terms and likening its supporters to communists. Much of the public criticism during the hearing centered on the soon-to-be-stricken family court provisions, as well as general opposition to gender-affirming care’s availability for minors.
One father testified against the bill. Hours later, his transgender son and the child’s mother spoke in favor of it.
Sen. Lisa Frizell, a Castle Rock Republican who voted against the bill, said the original provision related to family courts had stoked fear among some parents.
“I understand that we are trying to create an environment for everyone in the state of Colorado where they feel safe,” she said. “And I get that. But you can’t at the same time create an environment where the vast majority of the people who live here and have children live in fear of what we are going to do in this building.”
The governor’s potential concerns are a new wrench in what’s become a winding road for HB-1312. After the bill passed the House in early April, One Colorado — a prominent LGBTQ+ advocacy group — abruptly pulled back its support, citing fears of a legal backlash. The head of the Gill Foundation, a prominent funder of LGTBQ+ causes, also called bill sponsors to express reservations (though a Gill spokesman later said the official made the call as a private citizen).
One Colorado did not testify Wednesday, nor did any other skeptical LGBTQ+ group.
Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.