DENVER — Colorado Democrats, hoping to enshrine federal voter protections in state law, are pursuing a bill that would bar voter discrimination based on race, sexual orientation and gender identity in state law — just as President Donald Trump has signed an executive order aimed at overhauling elections nationwide.

Sen. Julie Gonzales, a Democrat and sponsor of the measure, described it as an attempt to bolster state election protections — and voters’ rights — amid an uncertain federal climate.

Senate Bill 1 passed its first full Senate vote on Friday afternoon. If it becomes law, it would prohibit local governments from holding elections in a way that would result in “material disparity” in voter participation based on certain demographics, whether it was intentional or not.

The measure still needs to pass a formal vote in the Senate and go through the House before it could land on Gov. Jared Polis’ desk.

“Voting rights in this country are under attack, both by lack of action (in Congress) to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and through litigation in the courts, where time and time again, conservative judges are tearing away at the hard-fought, bedrock protections to ensure that our elections are free from discrimination,” Gonzales said. She was referring to the stalled federal legislation named after the civil rights icon and former congressman.

“Those protections are falling away,” she said, “and it becomes incumbent upon us as a state to step up and fill in the gap.”

Earlier in the week, Trump issued an executive order that requires proof of citizenship for voter registration and an Election Day deadline for mail-in ballots to count, rather than a postmark deadline that some states use. It’s widely expected to face legal challenges over whether Trump has legal authority to issue such a decree.

Trump said the order would go “a long way toward ending” election fraud. He has spent his political career promoting falsehoods about voter fraud and election conspiracies, even as he won two presidential elections. Trump also promised more action on elections in the coming weeks.

It’s not immediately clear what, if any, effect Trump’s order will have on Colorado elections, which already don’t accept mail ballots received after 7 p.m. on Election Day, regardless of when they’re postmarked.

But Gonzales said the order “underscores” why the state needs to enshrine further voter protections in state law.

Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat and frequent foil to the Trump administration, says she thinks his recent order is unlawful.

If it does go into effect, the rules and changes would disproportionately affect lower-income voters — who would have a hard time obtaining the types of proof of eligibility the order calls for, such as passports or IDs that show citizenship status, she said.

“His executive order would make it harder for millions to register and cast a ballot,” Griswold said, “and we’ll do everything in our power to protect our state and the country from unlawful executive orders and Trump’s effort to suppress the vote.”

Aly Belknap, the executive director of the voter advocacy group Common Cause Colorado, said the citizenship proof requirement could potentially disrupt Colorado’s automatic voter registration system by forcing Colorado motor vehicle offices to assess people’s citizenship.

Voters already need to be citizens to vote. When registering, voters self-affirm their citizenship status, which county clerks and secretary of states’ offices later verify through supporting information on the registration form, such as a social security number or a driver’s license number.

Belknap’s bigger concern lies with the “power-grab” nature of Trump’s election order. Elections are fundamentally local affairs, and the order shows a willingness for “illegal” overreach, she said. Belknap’s organization backs the Senate bill.

“This is a huge wakeup call that Colorado’s elections need to be defended,” Belknap said. “All of the advancements that we’ve made to make our elections more accessible to voters and break down barriers to participation, and improve our election security, stand in the face of these federal overreaches.

“It’s a pretty sobering moment for us in the coalition to pass Senate Bill 1.”

The bill has run into some opposition. The Colorado Municipal League, an advocacy group for cities and towns, said its members have felt targeted by the bill and that its existence implies they haven’t been following election best practices, lobbyist Heather Stauffer said.

The group is officially in an “amend” position, urging changes, though some cities have registered outright opposition to the bill.

“We don’t want to see voter suppression. We don’t want to see abuses of the franchise in municipal elections, ever,” Stauffer said. “And we don’t think we are seeing those issues in municipal elections right now.”

In the 60 years since the federal Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress, no Colorado cities have been found in violation of it, she said.

Local control is a guiding principle for the league, and it sees the bill as a way to force local elections to coincide with November general elections, Stauffer said.

If that happens, nonpartisan city council races would likely be shuffled to the bottom of lengthy ballots stacked with partisan races, regardless of local will, she said. Some cities choose to have local elections in the spring to emphasize their separation from national and state races.

During Friday’s Senate floor debate, Republicans stood by the local-control argument and their opposition to the state forcing local governments to administer elections in certain ways.

Sen. Byron Pelton, a Republican, ran an amendment that would make the state help pay for any associated costs of implementing the bill. It failed.

“This appears to be nothing more than a statement bill that affects very little positive change for the people of Colorado,” Sen. Janice Rich, a Republican and former county clerk, said.

Sen. Paul Lundeen, a Republican and the party’s leader in the chamber, said he agreed with elements of the bill and its intentions, but ultimately was dissuaded by its details.

While closing the debate, he acknowledged the Senate was only the measure’s first chamber, and changes would likely come as it moves through the House.

©2025 MediaNews Group, Inc. Visit at denverpost.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.