Logan County warns Colorado bill allowing government-published legal notices threatens transparency

Sterling Journal‑Advocate, Logan County’s daily paper, warned March 2 that House Bill 26-1095 risks turning public notice safeguards “upside down,” arguing the change would hand notice control to the very entities being noticed. The editorial, published under the paper’s name and circulated in The Times, echoed Colorado Press Association concerns and said allowing government‑only publication “puts the fox in charge of the henhouse.”

House Bill 26-1095, introduced Feb. 3 by Rep. Larry Don Suckla of Cortez, cleared the House Transportation, Housing and Local Government Committee on Feb. 25 with two amendments and was sent to the full House for expected floor debate the following week. Poliscore US describes the measure as “Digital Publication for Legal Notice” and notes competing drafts: some language would permit publication on a newspaper‑maintained website so long as the notices are free and not behind a paywall, while committee amendments opened a separate path for government websites in certain counties.

The committee package adopted Feb. 25 included what reporting called Amendment 1, a carve-out allowing counties without a “qualifying newspaper” to publish required notices on their own government websites under certain conditions. The Colorado Press Association, which says it worked with counties and Rep. Suckla earlier in the session on modernization, publicly opposed that amendment and told lawmakers it would support the bill only if Amendment 1 were removed and the alternate amendment favored by the press association remained in place.

Colorado Press Association CEO Tim Regan‑Porter framed the transparency risk in stark terms in coverage by the Gazette and the Durango Herald. “When a government publishes notices only on its own website, it becomes both the subject of the notice and the gatekeeper of access,” Regan‑Porter said, adding that “public notice requires third‑party publication so that the entity being noticed does not control the visibility, prominence, or permanence of the notice.” He pointed to federal examples and “poorly maintained websites” that can cause important documents to disappear.

Opponents emphasized the practical stakes for Logan County and the state by listing the kinds of business carried in legal notices: new laws, public meetings, zoning and land changes, proposed budgets, property auctions, tax rate changes, election dates, polling locations, ballot initiatives, foreclosures, tax sales and budgets. Jeff Roberts, president of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, told the Gazette that “a lot of people in Colorado still rely on their printed local newspaper to stay informed about what’s happening in their communities,” and that those readers are less likely to see notices if they are posted only on a government website.

Supporters and policy analysts framed the bill as modernization, citing potential cost savings and convenience if notices move online, particularly to newspaper websites that make content free for readers. Opponents counter that Colorado already operates a free, searchable statewide notices site run by the press association - publicnoticecolorado.com - and that fragmenting notices across “well over 4,000 governmental entities” would force residents to navigate multiple platforms. The Logan County editorial and statewide press groups concluded bluntly that the government‑only publication provision “should not be allowed in any circumstance” and cautioned that the amendment package adopted Feb. 25 would reduce independent verification and transparency.