They say democracy dies in the dark. Colorado’s legislative leadership apparently wants to serve as executioner.

On Monday, The Gazette editorial board denounced pending legislation at the Capitol that would blacklist some members of the public as “vexatious” simply for requesting government records. We called it a slap in the face to the state’s citizens. It tells them, “Butt out.”

It turns out that another bill afoot in the Legislature represents an even more galling attempt to shut the public out of what rightly is the public’s business. As reported this week by Colorado Politics, SB24-157 would hide from the public some of the Legislature’s inner workings — where a lot of the real decisions are made.

Of course, the bill wouldn’t conceal the stuff you learned about in civics class — the bills themselves or the floor debate or the final votes. Then again, those steps in the legislative process merely represent the outcome of deals already made behind closed doors.

SB24-157 aims to keep the press and public from seeing the backroom politics that actually drives legislation.

The bill, introduced by House Speaker Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon, and Senate President Steve Fenberg, D-Boulder, would change state law so written communication, “electronic or otherwise,” exchanged between lawmakers in the General Assembly aren’t subject to open meetings laws. The bill also would redefine “public business” to not apply to matters that are “by nature interpersonal, administrative, or logistical or that concern personnel, planning, process, training, or operations, as long as the merits or substance of matters that are expressly defined as being public business are not discussed.”

And who would split those hairs to ensure lawmakers don’t cross that new line? Presumably, we’d have to trust the lawmakers themselves. Yeah, right.

In other words, SB24-157 would grant the Legislature sweeping exemptions from the state’s open-meetings law, flouting the very transparency the law is intended to ensure.

Respected First Amendment attorney Steve Zansberg, who is president of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, told Colorado Politics the proposal, “would literally exempt an entire branch of government from a citizen-initiated transparency law that has been in place for 50 years.”

Zansberg said it would let legislators discuss all pending legislation via electronic communications “without the public ever being able to inspect those communications.” He said if enacted, the proposal would allow lawmakers to engage in an “infinite number of serial meetings” so long as less than a quorum of any committee, caucus or the entire body attended. And lawmakers wouldn’t have to provide public notice or keep minutes as they do under current law. They could engage in “endless discussions through electronic means” without the public ever knowing such conversations occurred or gaining access to them, Zansberg said. Such a scenario would leave the public “completely in the dark,” he said.

It’s hard enough as it is, even under current law, to keep a lot of key legislative proceedings in the public’s line of sight. A lawsuit filed last year against the legislative leadership by two dissident Democratic members of the Legislature claimed the Democratic and GOP caucuses held mandatory secret meetings at least weekly last session, directing legislative aides to omit or disguise the meetings on legislators’ calendars — in violation of state law.

The lawsuit was settled in September with an agreement from leaders to not hold meetings that could violate the open meetings law.

Now, instead of abiding by that agreement, leading lawmakers have decided they’d rather legalize their violations.

The public will have a chance to weigh in on the bill, however, despite its backers’ best efforts to sneak it through. SB24-157 faces its first public hearing in the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee at the Capitol on Wednesday.

Let’s hope for a big turnout in opposition. Enough to compel committee members to stand up for open government — and kill this unjustifiable bill.

The gazette editorial board