CO Code § 2-2-310 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 2 - Legislative|Article 2 - General Assembly|Part 3 - Organization - Operation|§ 2-2-310. Senate and House Journals Published

 The speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate shall have copies of each of the journals of their respective houses published as soon as practicable after the adjournment of each session of the general assembly. The journals covering regular sessions and special sessions may be combined in a single volume for this purpose. The chief clerk of the house of representatives and the secretary of the senate shall, as soon as possible after adjournment of any session of the general assembly, deliver to the state archives the original journals of their respective houses. They shall also deliver to the printer a complete and accurate copy of the same, indexed and ready for printing, and also a brief index of all bills, resolutions, and memorials introduced in each of their respective houses during the session. The speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate shall certify the correctness of the published copies of said journals, which certificates shall be included in and made a part of such publications. Said journals, when printed and certified, together with all former printed volumes of house and senate journals of preceding sessions of general assemblies of the state of Colorado, published by authority of the state of Colorado, shall be taken and held as prima facie evidence of the originals thereof.   History. Source: L. 1899: P. 240, § 1. R.S. 08: § 2907. C.L. § 14. CSA: C. 74, § 14. L. 53: P. 333, § 5. CRS 53: § 63-2-11. L. 63: P. 274, § 12. C.R.S. 1963: § 63-2-11. L. 2001: Entire section amended, p. 38, § 1, effective August 8. History. Source: L. 1899: P. 240, § 1. R.S. 08: § 2907. C.L. § 14. CSA: C. 74, § 14. L. 53: P. 333, § 5. CRS 53: § 63-2-11. L. 63: P. 274, § 12. C.R.S. 1963: § 63-2-11. L. 2001: Entire section amended, p. 38, § 1, effective August 8.    Cross references:   For bills being presented to the governor, see § 11 of art. IV, Colo. Const.; for reading and passage of bills, see § 22 of art. V, Colo. Const.; for the general provisions relating to and specifications for printing journals, see §§ 24-70-201 to 24-70-222 .   ANNOTATION   Analysis     I. JOURNALS USED AS EVIDENCE.    II. JOURNALS SHOWING FAILURE TO FOLLOW CONSTITUTION.     I. JOURNALS USED AS EVIDENCE.   Courts will not take judicial notice of contents of legislative journals when not pleaded. People v. Bristol, 92 Colo. 325 , 20 P.2d 309 (1933); Marean v. Stanley, 21 Colo. 43 , 39 P. 1086 (1895); Peckham v. People, 32 Colo. 140 , 75 P. 422 (1904); Anderson v. Grand Valley Irrigation Dist., 35 Colo. 525 , 85 P. 313 (1906); Rio Grande Sampling Co. v. Catlin, 40 Colo. 450 , 94 P. 323 (1907); People ex rel. Kiefer v. Ramer, 61 Colo. 422 , 158 P. 146 (1916).   The reason for this is that the resort to legislative journals for proof as to observance of constitutional requirements in passage of bill involves finding of fact. People v. Bristol, 92 Colo. 325 , 20 P.2d 309 (1933); Marean v. Stanley, 21 Colo. 43 , 39 P. 1086 (1895) (decided under former law); Peckham v. People, 32 Colo. 140 , 75 P. 422 (1904); Anderson v. Grand Valley Irrigation Dist., 35 Colo. 525 , 85 P. 313 (1906); Rio Grande Sampling Co. v. Catlin, 40 Colo. 450 , 94 P. 323 (1907); People ex rel. Kiefer v. Ramer, 61 Colo. 422 , 158 P. 146 (1916).   And the party seeking to raise such question must, by pleading, present issue and evidence on which he relies. People v. Bristol, 92 Colo. 325 , 20 P.2d 309 (1933); Marean v. Stanley, 21 Colo. 43 , 39 P. 1086 (1895) (decided under former law); Peckham v. People, 32 Colo. 140 , 75 P. 422 (1904); Anderson v. Grand Valley Irrigation Dist., 35 Colo. 525 , 85 P. 313 (1906); Rio Grande Sampling Co. v. Catlin, 40 Colo. 450 , 94 P. 323 (1907); People ex rel. Kiefer v. Ramer, 61 Colo. 422 , 158 P. 146 (1916).   Also, whatever the legislative body treats and accepts as its journal, is so, and is not to be aided, supplemented or contradicted by reference to loose papers and memoranda kept by the clerk, and which require parol testimony to explain and identify them. People ex rel. Manville v. Leddy, 53 Colo. 109 , 123 P. 824 (1912).   And the courts have no authority to receive such evidence and so amend the journal by importing into it something which was never there. People ex rel. Manville v. Leddy, 53 Colo. 109 , 123 P. 824 (1912).   But evidence aliunde the journal may be received to show that something, once part thereof, has been abstracted or lost. People ex rel. Manville v. Leddy, 53 Colo. 109 , 123 P. 824 (1912).   Also, the copy of the journals of either house of the general assembly, printed under authority of this section, is prima facie evidence of the action of the house. People ex rel. Manville v. Leddy, 53 Colo. 109 , 123 P. 824 (1912).   But such copy is liable to be overcome by the original journal. People ex rel. Manville v. Leddy, 53 Colo. 109 , 123 P. 824 (1912).   II. JOURNALS SHOWING FAILURE TO FOLLOW CONSTITUTION.   Where the constitution is silent as to whether a particular act or formality required in the passage of a bill shall be entered upon the journal, the matter is in the discretion of the house. People ex rel. Manville v. Leddy, 53 Colo. 109 , 123 P. 824 (1912).   However in such case the presumption arising from the enrolled bill lodged with the secretary of state, is not overcome by the silence of the journal. People ex rel. Manville v. Leddy, 53 Colo. 109 , 123 P. 824 (1912).   Otherwise, as to those matters which by the express command of the constitution are required to be recorded, such as the names of those voting on the final passage. People ex rel. Manville v. Leddy, 53 Colo. 109 , 123 P. 824 (1912).   But whether the requirement respecting the entry of the vote on final passage is directory or mandatory, and whether a failure to comply with it, if shown by the legislative journals, prevents the act from becoming a law, are questions relating to the construction and application of the state constitution, upon which the decision of the supreme court of the state is controlling. Rio Grande Sampling Co. v. Catlin, 40 Colo. 450 , 94 P. 323 (1907); Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Duke, 164 F. 180 (8th Cir. 1908); Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Duke, 191 F. 692 (8th Cir. 1911).   And it was held that this requirement was mandatory. Rio Grande Sampling Co. v. Catlin, 40 Colo. 450 , 94 P. 323 (1907); Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Duke, 164 F. 180 (8th Cir. 1908); Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Duke, 191 F. 692 (8th Cir. 1911).   A failure to comply with it, if shown by the legislative journals, is fatal. Rio Grande Sampling Co. v. Catlin, 40 Colo. 450 , 94 P. 323 (1907); Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Duke, 164 F. 180 (8th Cir. 1908); Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Duke, 191 F. 692 (8th Cir. 1911).   And if therefrom it appears that the requirements of the constitution were not observed the attempted enactment is without effect. City of Denver v. Rubidge, 51 Colo. 224 , 116 P. 1130 (1911).   Also where it appeared from the published journals that it was not complied with in respect to an act, an attempt made by a succeeding session of the general assembly to correct the error was ineffectual. Rio Grande Sampling Co. v. Catlin, 40 Colo. 450 , 94 P. 323 (1907); Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Duke, 164 F. 180 (8th Cir. 1908); Portland Gold Mining Co. v. Duke, 191 F. 692 (8th Cir. 1911).   But where the complaint is that in one house the provisions of § 22 of art. V, Colo. Const., were not complied with, mere excerpts from the journal of that house, not assuming to state in what manner the bill passed on final reading will not suffice. City of Denver v. Rubidge, 51 Colo. 224 , 116 P. 1130 (1911).