Skip to Main Content

Chris Jackson Quoted Discussing CO Supreme Court's Ruling that Democrats Violated State Constitution by Speed Reading Bill

Holland & Hart appellate partner Chris Jackson shares insights with several media outlets discussing the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision that Democrats’ speed-reading of bills violated the state constitution. In a 4-3 decision, the Colorado Supreme Court confirmed that Democrats in the state Senate violated Colorado’s constitution in 2019 when they ordered bills to be speed-read by computers. Jackson told Colorado Politics, “that the Court didn't give a lot of additional guidance to the General Assembly on what's allowed and what isn't.” He also discussed the case with The Colorado Sun, saying “the decision was narrow.” According to a Law Week Colorado article on the same topic, the narrow decision raises questions about future separation-of-powers disputes. Jackson said “it’s unclear how similar antics, such as having multiple people read the bill simultaneously at high speed, would fare in court. We just don’t know what the contours of this constitutional requirement are.”

Read the full article that was published in Colorado Politics online on March 15 here: “State Supreme Court: Senate Democrats violated Constitution in speed-reading a bill, but District Court Judge went ‘too far’ in his ruling,” (subscription needed).

Read the full article that was published in The Colorado Sun online on March 15 here: “Colorado Supreme Court confirms that Democrats’ speed-reading of bills violated state constitution,” (subscription needed).

The Law Week Colorado article was published in its March 22 print issue.


Unless you are a current client of Holland & Hart LLP, please do not send any confidential information by email. If you are not a current client and send an email to an individual at Holland & Hart LLP, you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us, unless we have already agreed to represent you or we later agree to do so. Thus, we may represent a party adverse to you, even if the information you submit to us could be used against you in a matter, and even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us.