While the Fate of a Paid Leave Proposal in the Legislature is Unclear, Potential Ballot Initiatives Move Forward
The clock is ticking on a paid family and medical leave bill in the 2020 legislative session. Key sponsors, Sen. Angela Williams and Rep. Monica Duran, dropped their names from the proposal last week – and a new sponsor, Sen. Dominick Moreno, came forward this week. With so much uncertainty, the proposal is still in disarray – which makes the potential for ballot initiatives on the issue so important.
While the legislative drama has publicly unfolded, a quieter fight has been happening in front of Colorado’s Title Setting Board, which determines the language of any ballot initiatives for the upcoming November election.
Advocates for a paid leave program have filed two ballot proposals: Initiatives 247 and 248 and the Title Board approved the final ballot language for the initiatives on Wednesday, March 4th. Both proposals would set up a state-run social insurance program funded by premiums paid by both employers and employees.
The first, Initiative 247, takes an aggressive approach to the issue by permitting up to 16 weeks of paid leave and 10 additional weeks for pregnancy or childbirth complications. The ballot language reads as follows:
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the creation of a paid family and medical leave program in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, authorizing paid family and medical leave for a covered employee who has a serious health condition, is caring for a new child or for a family member with a serious health condition, or has a need for leave related to a family member’s military deployment or for safe leave; establishing a maximum of 16 weeks of family and medical leave, with an additional 10 weeks for pregnancy or childbirth complications; requiring job protection for and prohibiting retaliation against an employee who takes paid family and medical leave; to pay for the program, requiring a premium of 1.04% of each employee’s wages through December 31, 2024, and as set thereafter by the director of the division of family and medical leave insurance; authorizing an employer to deduct up to 25% of the premium amount from an employee’s wages and requiring the employer to pay the remainder of the premium; permitting self-employed individuals to participate in the program; creating the division of family and medical leave insurance as an enterprise within the department of labor and employment to administer the program; and establishing an enforcement and appeals process for retaliation and denied claims?
Initiative 248 is slightly scaled down, permitting up to 12 weeks of leave with an additional 4 weeks for complications. It also offers more exemptions for certain employers. The ballot language reads as follows:
Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the creation of a paid family and medical leave program in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, authorizing paid family and medical leave for a covered employee who has a serious health condition, is caring for a new child or for a family member with a serious health condition, or has a need for leave related to a family member’s military deployment or for safe leave; establishing a maximum of 12 weeks of family and medical leave, with an additional 4 weeks for pregnancy or childbirth complications, with a cap on the weekly benefit amount; requiring job protection for and prohibiting retaliation against an employee who takes paid family and medical leave; permitting self-employed individuals to participate in the program; allowing a local government to opt out of the program; exempting employers who offer an approved private paid family and medical leave plan; to pay for the program, requiring a premium of 0.88% of each employee’s wages, up to a cap, through December 31, 2024, and as set thereafter by the director of the division of family and medical leave insurance; authorizing an employer to deduct up to 50% of the premium amount from an employee’s wages and requiring the employer to pay the remainder of the premium; creating the division of family and medical leave insurance as an enterprise within the department of labor and employment to administer the program; and establishing an enforcement and appeals process for retaliation and denied claims?
The state-run social insurance model was studied by an actuary for the Family and Medical Leave Task Force. The cost of such a program offering this level of benefits was forecast to cost multiple billions of dollars per year.
A key argument made by the Denver Metro Chamber which filed objections to the ballot language is that these initiatives should have template language as required by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights clarifying that it would result in a tax increase. The advocates argue that because the initiatives set up a “state enterprise,” the payroll deductions are considered “fees,” not “taxes.”
The Title Board ruled in favor of the advocates in the latest hearing, determining that any argument over whether the premiums constitute a tax or a fee is a constitutional question that should be decided by the Colorado Supreme Court.
The Colorado Chamber of Commerce will continue monitoring developments with Initiatives 247 and 248 as the General Assembly contemplates legislation.
