Opponents say 'merit' hiring bill excludes sexual orientation and gender identity; supporters call it skill-based

A floor exchange in the Committee of the Whole put Senate Bill 10-13 under scrutiny after members questioned whether the measure’s 'merit' language would exclude protected classes. Representative De Los Angeles opposed the bill on those grounds, saying the bill 'excludes the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity' and urging colleagues to reject it.

Representative Blackman, the bill’s proponent on the floor, framed the measure as an effort to emphasize skills and performance rather than characteristics unrelated to job ability. 'I don't want somebody to say I got a job because of what I look like. I want it because of my merit,' Blackman said, and encouraged members to support the measure.

The exchange highlighted a recurring debate about whether legislation that centers 'merit' can inadvertently limit consideration of diversity characteristics, and whether the state's current legal framework already permits or restricts such exclusions. The Committee of the Whole ultimately reported a do-pass recommendation for SB10-13 and the House recorded the committee’s recommendation on the calendar.

The next steps for SB10-13 will be the House floor third-reading process; if placed on third reading, members will have an opportunity to vote on final passage. The transcript shows the criticism and the defense on the floor but does not record any definitive legal finding about whether the bill codifies an exclusion of protected categories.