DENVER (CO)
Greeley Tribune [Greeley CO]
February 25, 2024
By Nick Coltrain
Republicans align against proposal over concerns of long-term consequences
Unexpected partisan opposition to a state constitutional amendment that’s aimed at clearing the way for survivors of childhood sexual assault to sue over older claims has clouded the measure’s chances in the Colorado Senate.
Backers, who are working to shore up support, see it as a black-and-white proposal that would give survivors of abuse that occurred a decade or more ago a chance to demand justice against the perpetrators — and the institutions that enabled it. After a state court overruled past legislation, lawmakers launched the bid to place an amendment on the ballot as a key step of opening that opportunity.
But Republicans — many of whom voted for the 2021 bill that was a precursor to this effort — warn now of unintended consequences to public and private institutions for crimes that occurred potentially decades in the past.
They include Sen. Mark Baisley of Woodland Park, whose name is on the proposed amendment as a sponsor. He said this week that he now plans to vote no, in part over a worry that good organizations could be “devastated” by claims targeting the actions of past leadership.
The proposal passed on a 3-2 party-line vote at its only formal hearing so far. Supporters have been delaying the next vote, which would be before the full Senate, as they work to drum up more support.
Democratic lawmakers launched the latest legislative effort after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in June that the 2021 law was unconstitutional. That law had opened a temporary window for survivors of child sexual abuse to sue over assaults that happened in 1960 or later, regardless of whether the statute of limitations in place at the time had passed. The court found it violated a state constitutional provision against retrospective legislation.
Sens. Jessie Danielson and Rhonda Fields, both Democrats, figured the solution was to amend the constitution to remove that ban on retrospective legislation for laws dealing with child predators.
If at least 55% of Colorado voters agreed in the November election, a future General Assembly would be able to pass laws allowing civil claims for child sexual abuse that is beyond the statute of limitations.
But first, the sponsors need support from two-thirds of each chamber. While the House has a Democratic supermajority, in the Senate the two-thirds threshold is one seat more than Democrats hold.
“These aren’t ancient cases that are without evidence and unprovable,” said Danielson, of Wheat Ridge. “Right now, the state of Colorado is denying (victims) their justice.”
The law shot down by the courts had wide, bipartisan support when it passed the chamber in 2021. For the new amendment, backers secured initial support from some Republicans, including Baisley, who agreed to attach his name.
But that bipartisan support has evaporated.
Opponents warn of opening a Pandora’s box of civil litigation targeted deep in the past, when surviving records may be rare and memories are fuzzy.
Survivors can already seek criminal charges, regardless of when the abuse happened. In 2021, other reforms removed statutes of limitations on civil claims for abuse that has happened since 2016. Those opposed to the new measure also point to due process rights and insurance issues as other problems.
That the amendment would allow institutions to be sued in addition to perpetrators is another sore point.
“We’re 100% in favor of protecting children from sexual predators,” said Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican. “But this bill wants to reach back and make retrospective financial claims against large pools of cash and big institutions. It’s not designed to actually protect children from sexual predators.”
Advocacy organizations for sexual assault survivors say it can take decades for child victims to reconcile what happened to them or to seek justice. While the average age when childhood sexual abuse occurs is 9, survivors come forward at an average age of 52, said Jennifer Stith, executive director of the WINGS Foundation, an advocacy group for survivors.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing earlier this month, survivors shared stories of their abuse by church leaders, teachers and others in positions of power and trust.
“Time does not heal this wound because growing older brings a new, devastating perspective,” survivor Caitlin Lynch testified. “I had to come here today because I still don’t know if this testimony is my only chance to say this happened to me.”
Opponents included the Colorado Catholic Conference, the American Property and Casualty Insurance Association, and the American Tort Reform Association. A representative for the Colorado School District Self Insurance Pool asked for schools to be excluded.
“(This proposal) only penalizes organizations today which are already engaging in best practices when it comes to protecting children, but who may have employed a perpetrator years or even decades ago,” said Doug Tumminello, speaking on behalf of the Colorado Catholic Conference.
Baisley, the Republican sponsor who now opposes the amendment, says he doesn’t plan to remove his name from it.
When it comes to child predators, he said, “castration is a good option — with anesthesia optional.” But this proposal, he said, would carry too many risks of unintended consequences. Some organizations do deserve to be held accountable for what happened to children in their care, Baisley said. But others may have essentially been remade or are now unable to defend themselves against civil suits because they lack appropriate records.
They could be “devastated” by lawsuits, he said.
“I can’t imagine anyone, regardless of their worldview, would be in support of a molester getting away with that crime,” Baisely said of the sudden partisan divide on the measure. “I’d like to think that neither prominent worldview,” referring to those of Democrats and Republicans, “would want to see good organizations have to pay the financial burden for someone else’s 30-year-old crime against a child.”
For the measure’s supporters , it’s not about destroying organizations. It’s about holding institutions accountable for any role they may have played in allowing abuse.
“This is about giving remedy to those crime victims, those sexual assault abuse victims, and the opportunity to seek civil liability for the harm that was done to them,” said Fields, an Aurora Democrat, adding that the harm could come from an individual or the institution that allowed the abuse to continue. “Why should they be shielded from civil liability?”