SF0074

Why they voted this way

Blackburn argues that the bill should be moved forward immediately rather than delayed until next year, urging a vote to override the governor's veto.

Why they voted this way

Salazar opposes the measure because he believes the formula is flawed and will unfairly destroy small, vulnerable school districts that have already made significant cuts.

Why they voted this way

Bovee requests a no vote due to concerns that the bill's language regarding workers' compensation coverage for special education staff is not feasible based on prior information.

Why they voted this way

Barlow supports the concurrence by viewing changes to assessment funding and enrollment counting as necessary efficiencies, despite acknowledging imperfections in the bill.

Why they voted this way

Kinner encourages an aye vote, stating that the bill responsibly addresses small school district concerns through a cap on reductions which was well-received by local boards.

Why they voted this way

Lindholm urges a no vote if the data confirms that small schools are being cut beyond the intended protection limit, as this would violate the bill's intent to hold them harmless.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the amendment removing 'picketing' because he fears it would infringe upon his rights as a union member to exercise collectively bargained strike and picket rights.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the amendment because she believes one of the existing provisions is too broad and could allow a landowner to damage infrastructure on their own property without consequence.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes defining infrastructure by size thresholds would leave small towns vulnerable to damage from tampering with their water or electricity supplies.

Why they voted this way

The speaker supports the amendment because it broadly defines tampering to include actions like turning valves and addresses pollution concerns regarding tanks and lines.

Why they voted this way

The speaker urges a no vote because the amendment risks capturing innocent actors by defining tampering too narrowly and may fail to cover critical acts like diverting gas.

Why they voted this way

The speaker supports the amendment because it clarifies that picketing is only protected if it constitutes free speech, preventing individuals from using protests as a shield for criminal acts like breaking valves.

Why they voted this way

The speaker urges a no vote because the amendment creates an unfunded mandate without sufficient analysis of fiscal impact or whether the relevant department has adequate staff and infrastructure to handle it.

Why they voted this way

The speaker states they will likely vote no because landowner protections were removed from the legislation and are not adequately addressed in its current form.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker expresses uncertainty about how the legislation would be implemented due to missing provisions like tampering, leading them not to support it in its current form.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker argues that provisions penalizing organizations for aiding or encouraging trespass are too vague and could unfairly fine groups like community clubs up to one million dollars for simple acts of humanitarian aid.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill because current laws do not hold organizations responsible for encouraging individuals to commit crimes, and this legislation corrects that injustice.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the broad language of the bill by arguing it could mistakenly target humanitarian organizations that provide basic necessities like water to people in need.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because it is broadly overreaching and could result in humanitarian entities being fined millions of dollars for providing aid like water bottles to individuals committing crimes.

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill to address national issues of people targeting critical infrastructure like power lines and pipelines, noting that organizations are now sponsoring these acts. They argue existing statutes are not specific enough for such crimes which could impact hundreds of thousands of people.