House judiciary panel advances bill to tighten transparency, inspections for immigration enforcement and detention

The Colorado House Judiciary Committee advanced House Bill 12‑76 on a 6–5 vote after sponsors amended the measure to narrow some requirements and clarify enforcement language.

The bill, led by Reps. Brett Velasco and Debra Garcia, would extend liability created last year for employees who share personal identifying information to employers in some circumstances, require annual transparency reporting about multi‑jurisdictional task forces that result in immigration consequences, require publication of unsealed subpoenas after they have been fulfilled, limit the use of municipal transportation and airports for deportation purposes, and authorize the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to inspect and levy fines at privately contracted immigration detention facilities.

"This bill was written in response to issues that we have seen with the implementation of 2‑76," Rep. Velasco told the committee, citing local incidents she said had reduced residents’ trust in public agencies. "We are expanding the current liability to follow our immigration laws to public employers… and bolstering health and safety protections in our local county and private immigration detention centers."

Co‑sponsor Rep. Deb Garcia walked members through a series of amendments the sponsors brought forward after stakeholder feedback. On civil penalties for deliberate privacy breaches, Garcia said the bill preserves a judicial ceiling of $50,000 but the amendment clarifies that liability attaches only for intentional misconduct and that employers who have taken reasonable steps (training, policies) will not be held strictly liable. "The $50,000 is not about penalizing law enforcement," Garcia said. "It's about deterring the actions… to support immigration enforcement from any government entity without judicial process."

The sponsors also tightened language around subpoena reporting. Under the adopted change, courts would not be asked to publish sealed subpoenas; instead the bill requires agencies to publicize unsealed subpoenas after they have been fulfilled so residents know what kinds of records were shared. "We're not expecting personal identifying information to be published with the subpoena," Garcia said, adding the intent is to show the agency and purpose rather than specific names or addresses.

Committee members expressed concern about operational burdens and unintended consequences. Deputy Chief Todd Reeves of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police warned that multi‑jurisdictional investigations are often led by federal partners and that local departments may lack access to the records needed to meet new reporting requirements. "Local departments are often not the lead agency and do not control those records necessary to comply," Reeves said during the opposition panel. Several chiefs also argued that the proposed reporting and civil‑penalty regime would create unfunded mandates and chill cooperation on the most serious cross‑jurisdictional investigations.

Sponsors responded by noting amendments intended to ease those concerns: reporting is required only for multi‑jurisdictional efforts that result in immigration enforcement consequences (not for ordinary criminal task forces), duties to report will be practical and time‑limited, and the intent is to increase transparency to communities who feel they have been left without information.

Supporters from immigrant‑rights and faith groups described personal and family trauma linked to federal immigration operations and urged the committee to approve stronger state oversight of privately run detention facilities. Christopher Nurse of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition told the panel the bill is "about transparency, accountability, and basic dignity." Community witnesses recounted medical negligence and deaths they say occurred at detention facilities and asked lawmakers to preserve local authority to inspect conditions.

After debate and a series of adopted technical amendments clarifying intent, duties and timelines, the committee voted to send HB12‑76 to the Finance Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended.

What happens next: HB12‑76 is scheduled to be referred to the House Finance Committee for consideration of the fiscal note and any funding needed to implement inspections and reporting requirements.