By Jen Schumann | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice
When Colorado lawmakers debated Senate Bill 25-063—titled the “Freedom to Read Act”—most eyes focused on the usual battle lines: controversial books, age appropriateness and the role of librarians. But tucked inside the bill is something less publicized—and more dangerous to parents who dare to speak up.
Under Section 4(f), any parent who requests that a book be reconsidered for a school library will have their name made public. That request becomes a CORA-able document, meaning it falls under the Colorado Open Records Act. And in today’s politically charged environment, that’s all it takes to make someone a target.
Rep. Ken DeGraaf, who opposed the bill during the April 3 House floor debate, warned that the measure gives activist groups a ready-made list of names.
“The CORA request is so that any parent who expresses a concern can be identified,” he said. He explained that the bill’s open-records clause functions much like a “doxx-like clause” that could be weaponized for political intimidation.
DeGraaf offered Amendment L.021 to exempt reconsideration requests from CORA. During debate, he argued that it didn’t interfere with review processes—it simply protected the identity of the parent raising the concern.
“We don’t hand out names of tipsters in criminal investigations. Why would we do that here?” he asked. Supporters countered that transparency was part of public accountability. But critics said forced disclosure would silence concerned parents.
The amendment failed.
For example, a mother of a 3rd grader in a small rural district may find a book that discusses sexually explicit material. If she files a challenge, her name becomes public. In tight-knit communities, that can mean backlash, social pressure, or even harassment. The risk of being labeled or targeted might discourage parents from engaging at all.
During debate, DeGraaf attempted to read aloud a graphic passage from a book available in school libraries, triggering immediate pushback from House leadership.
SB25-063 like its predecessor SB24-216 are carefully crafted to appear to be giving parents control over removing grooming-porn from school libraries while actually doing the opposite. https://t.co/yZ7xBk68yU https://t.co/LvltNKzlBf
— Rep Ken deGraaf, CO HD-22 (@COrepKdeGraaf) April 4, 2025
Supporters—including sponsor Rep. Tim Hernández and Rep. Steven Woodrow—argued that SB25-063 protects intellectual freedom by directing local school districts to establish fair, consistent policies for evaluating library materials. However, critics remained skeptical.
Another controversial point in the bill is that once a parent files a reconsideration request, the book stays in circulation—with no deadline for review.
Several lawmakers, including Rep. Jarvis Caldwell, pushed back on that clause. “If the concern is that a book is harmful to young children, then requiring it to stay on the shelf for 30 or 60 days makes no sense,” he argued. “At minimum, let schools pull the book temporarily.”
Caldwell, speaking about the controversial issue of age-appropriate content, explained his concern. “We’re not talking about banning books, we’re talking about access and the age appropriateness.”
He went on to detail how, in his experience at his K–8 charter school, his institution separates younger children’s books from more mature materials and requires parental permission for access to the latter.
Caldwell criticized the notion that state mandates—disguised as “local control”—truly leave decision-making in the hands of local communities. “Whenever it’s the state saying, ‘Hey local districts, you have to do this,’ but then call it local control—that’s not lining up,” he argued.
Caldwell also warned that many school libraries, particularly in districts where books are donated by activist groups, risk having material appear unexpectedly. “If someone donates a book tomorrow, it might show up in your school library—even if it’s not intended for K–5 students,” he explained.
Rep. Stephanie Luck argued that limiting review requests to parents of enrolled students was too restrictive. “Those other people should have the same kind of voice,” she said. Luck pointed to tutors, homeschool families, grandparents, and even local business owners who rely on a well-educated workforce, saying they all have a stake in what’s available in school libraries.
Her amendment to allow broader community input also failed.
Luck also raised concerns about the bill’s anti-discrimination language, warning it might prevent school officials from removing material based on age appropriateness without facing potential legal backlash. “There’s a difference between removing a book because it’s not right for 2nd graders versus saying it doesn’t belong in a school at all,” she said.
Critics, including DeGraaf, also see SB25-063 as a follow-up to last year’s SB24-216, which imposed similar policies on public libraries. That bill sparked backlash from rural communities and parents concerned about explicit books in youth sections. SB25-063, they argue, now extends those same risks into school libraries.
SB25-063 was last posted on April 3 following its adoption with amendments on second reading in the House. The bill includes provisions requiring that reconsideration requests be public records, that only parents of enrolled students may submit such requests, and that challenged materials remain available during review.
As of April 8, SB25-063 remains on the calendar, awaiting third reading in the House.
Coloradans can follow the bill’s progress or contact their legislators at leg.colorado.gov.