By Jen Schumann | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
Should state officials weigh in on how books are selected in your child’s school library? That’s the core question behind Colorado’s Senate Bill 25-063, the ‘Freedom to Read’ bill, which was discussed this week in a Senate Education Committee hearing.
The bill, sponsored by Senators Lisa Cutter and Dafna Michaelson Jenet, requires school districts to set written policies for selecting, reconsidering and removing library materials.
It prohibits books from being removed based on the author’s identity, political objections or sexual content, unless they meet the Supreme Court’s obscenity standard under Miller v. California.
Only parents of current students would be allowed to challenge books, and a title could not be reconsidered more than once every two years.
Supporters argue SB25-063 protects students’ access to diverse perspectives and shields libraries from political pressure. Opponents say it limits parental oversight and weakens local control over school policies.
Cutter supports librarians over families to select library materials. She defended the bill’s parameters on parental choice, stating, “I don’t believe it’s the community at large’s responsibility to weigh in on a book challenge if their child doesn’t go there.”
“Public school librarians are trained professionals who follow structured policies. They are experts in literature, education and child development.” Cutter pressed, “If you send your child to a public or charter school, you’re trusting them with your children. Why wouldn’t you trust the librarians?”
Mika Alexander, with the ACLU of Colorado, said allowing unrestricted book removals would lead to discriminatory censorship.
“Without a codified set of protective standards, our public school libraries face the potential for unchecked discriminatory censorship,” Alexander said. “This will ultimately violate our students’ and authors’ freedom of speech as afforded to them by Section 10 of the state constitution. The unregulated permanent removal of library resources from public schools is a potential threat not only to Coloradans’ freedom of speech but also to the quality of the state’s public education system.”
Electra Greer, representing the Colorado Association of Libraries Legislative Committee, said similar policies already exist in public libraries and argued that statewide standards would reduce lawsuits over book removals.
“Part of the value of this bill is that we will be able to decrease the number of lawsuits that are happening in rural and mountain districts, if we vote yes on Senate Bill 63,” Greer said. “Public school libraries should have the same clear and transparent policies as public libraries. Part of the value of this bill is that we will be able to decrease the number of lawsuits that are happening in rural and mountain districts.”
Tiffany LoSasso, a Jefferson County school librarian, said parents have the right to decide what their own children read, but not to make that decision for all students.
“I serve on our district’s secondary reviewed book committee, which evaluates books for age appropriateness,” LoSasso said. “Every book is read by multiple librarians before being approved for student access.”
She added, “I will always respect a parent saying they do not want their child to read a book. [But] I do not believe they have the right to designate that for all kids.”
Jennifer Stites, a survivor advocate, believes books offer vital support.
“Books can provide a lifeline to survivors, saying that you don’t have to be ashamed, you’re not alone and most importantly, that there is a path forward.” Stites said. “This bill ensures that books are analyzed for their literary, artistic and educational value before being restricted. Limiting access to books that tell real stories only harms the students who need them most.”
Opponents warn the bill sidelines parents and strips power from local school boards.
Rosie Stewart, senior public policy manager for Penguin Random House, pushed back on that argument, framing the bill as a necessary stand against censorship.
“By passing this bill, you send a message that books from all perspectives are safe in Colorado,” Stewart said. “Now is the time to protect your citizens’ rights from mandates that may come down from the federal government or federal courts.”
Among the seven senators on the committee, only Republicans Paul Lundeen and Janice Rich challenged the bill, arguing it erodes parental rights and local school board authority.
Lundeen argued that the bill would impose unnecessary administrative burdens on school districts.
“My primary argument at this point is, I don’t think we actually need this,” Lundeen said. “The districts are already highly sensitized about this. They’re already trying to take this on and this is one more administrative burden that we’re placing on school districts.”
He also pointed to the state’s struggling academic performance: “We are struggling to get above failing half of the students on an academic basis, and we’re focusing our administrative efforts on things like this.”
“The bill effectively shuts out parents and taxpayers who have a vested interest in what children are reading in public schools,” he added.
Rich questioned why parents without currently enrolled children should be excluded from the process. She also pushed back against the bill’s provision that limits book challenges to once every two years.
“That waiting every two years — you know, students will move on and there will be new students and new parents that have concerns,” Rich said. “And so you are going to keep them from being allowed to object to these books? How do you square that with the Constitution?”
Laurel Ann Flahive, a Colorado resident, said the bill removes a voice from longtime community members.
“I’ve raised four children, and now they are outside of the education system,” Flahive said. “As a taxpayer in my district, this bill would not care about what I perceive as issues or problems. It puts me outside of being able to speak to the books that are educating the community that I am a part of.”
Tammie John, a mother and child advocate, testified about her daughter’s struggles with classroom reading selections.
“Our children come to us born with a clean, pure slate,” John said. “What we as parents and schools present to them affects their well-being and their views — this can be their view of the world and their personal view of themselves.”
She shared, “Over a decade ago, I had a daughter who was struggling — she was becoming depressed due to several books chosen by her English teacher,” John said. “Every book the teacher selected left her feeling powerless and negative.”
Chrissy Davis, a parent, criticized the bill’s two-year restriction on book reconsiderations, saying it limits school boards’ ability to respond to concerns.
“If parental oversight is only applicable in the school their child is currently in, their concerns will not follow their child,” Davis said. “We must ensure that all voices — teachers, administrators, parents, students and community members — are equally valued.”
Davis also argued the bill limits school boards’ ability to respond to concerns.
“On Page 3D, the time frame to reconsider a book — once every two years — removes a school board’s autonomy to create a reconsideration process that works best for their community,” Davis said.
The Senate Education Committee advanced SB 63 in a 5-2 vote, with Lundeen and Rich opposed. The bill now heads to the Committee of the Whole for a second reading, where the full Senate will debate and decide its fate.
A full calendar of House and Senate floor proceedings and committees is available at: https://leg.colorado.gov/session-schedule
Coloradans are invited to testify on bills in person, remotely via Zoom or by submitting written testimony. Instructions are available at https://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2025A/commsumm.nsf/NewSignIn.xsp