## Facts

- The Colorado Senate considered Senate Bill 19-181, a 2,023-page bill.
- The Colorado Constitution requires each bill to be read by title when introduced and “at length on two different days” in each house unless reading at length is unanimously waived.
- To perform the “read at length” requirement, Senate staff used automated software on multiple computers to simultaneously vocalize different portions of the bill at roughly 650 words per minute.
- The overlapping audio on the Senate floor was a “cacophony” that was “unintelligible.”
- Several senators objected and requested that the reading be slowed; Senate leadership refused.
- Senators sued for injunctive relief, alleging the computerized method did not satisfy the constitutional reading requirement.
- The district court enjoined the practice, ruling the March 11, 2019 reading did not comply and ordering specific parameters for future readings (including intelligibility).
- Senate officers sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether a simultaneous, high-speed, automated computer vocalization producing unintelligible sound satisfies the constitutional requirement that a bill be read “at length.”
2. Whether, after finding a constitutional violation, a court may prescribe the specific manner by which the legislature must conduct bill readings consistent with separation of powers.

## Decision

- The court held the computerized, unintelligible speed-reading did not satisfy the constitutional “read at length” requirement.
- The court held the district court exceeded its authority by prescribing detailed requirements for how the legislature must conduct readings in the future.
- The judgment was affirmed in part (noncompliance) and reversed in part (remedial details), and the case was remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional procedural requirements governing enactment of legislation are judicially enforceable when interpretation of constitutional text is required.
- “Read at length” requires a genuine reading; a method producing unintelligible sound is not constitutional compliance.
- Separation of powers permits courts to declare legislative conduct unconstitutional and grant appropriate relief, but does not permit courts to manage or dictate the legislature’s internal procedures absent specific constitutional authorization.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that unintelligible, overlapping computer audio is not a constitutional “reading at length,” but limited judicial remedies to declaring the violation and forbidding unconstitutional action, rejecting court-imposed prescriptions for future legislative reading mechanics.


Markwell v. Cooke, 482 P.3d 422 (Colo. 2021)