Clock runs out on social media bill: lawmakers shield themselves and Polis from historic override

By / / Top Stories, Rocky Mountain Voice, State

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

The Senate overrode the governor’s veto. The House never even had to say no. In Colorado politics, sometimes the clock matters more than the votes.

Without casting a single “no” vote, Colorado lawmakers on April 28 killed a bipartisan attempt to override Governor Jared Polis’ veto of a social media regulation bill. Just days earlier, the Senate had voted 29–6 to override the veto of Senate Bill 25-086, marking the state’s first successful chamber override of a policy bill in more than a decade. 

But when the bill reached the House, members voted 51–13 to lay over the override until after the legislative session ended. As reported by The Colorado Sun, the maneuver guaranteed the bill’s death without a formal vote, allowing lawmakers to avoid public reversals and preserving Polis from a rare legislative rebuke.

A rare override dies without a vote

The decision to delay was no accident. Under Colorado legislative rules, any business scheduled after the session’s final day—May 7—is automatically void. 

“The votes are not here. That’s a fact,” said Rep. Andy Boesenecker (Fort Collins), one of the bill’s House sponsors, during the floor session. 

By setting the override vote for May 9, House leaders effectively pocket-vetoed the bill without forcing members to formally reverse their earlier support.

Strange bedfellows in opposition

Though framed as a child-protection measure, SB25-086’s veto fight revealed bipartisan concerns over free speech, privacy and government overreach. 

Civil liberties advocates like ProgressNow Colorado and the ACLU found themselves on the same side as conservative groups such as Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, opposing the bill’s mandates on social media companies. 

Hazel Gibson, political director for ProgressNow told Denver7 that while she fully supports protecting children she didn’t see that this bill would accomplish that. Gibson added, “The Supreme Court has ruled that access to social media is a First Amendment right, and in this bill, it requires social media to kick people off, so that is taking away their First Amendment right.”

Conservative groups such as Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) warned on X that the bill would give government too much control over online speech.

On April 23, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners posted on X, “SB25-086 opens citizens to inspection if their content is reported, even if the report is unfounded. If the inspection finds that an individual is in violation of any state law OR policy of the particular platform—the user and all of their accounts MUST be terminated within 24 hours by law.” RMGO added, “This is a disturbing recipe for extreme censorship.”

Two days later, Ian Escalante, RMGO’s executive director, revealed that gun rights content would be targeted if the bill became law. “Sources in the Capitol have informed me @NSSF helped draft the firearm section of recently vetoed SB-086, a California-style social media censorship bill,” Escalante posted. 

He added, “This bill WILL be used to CENSOR 2nd Amendment content on SM platforms!”

Civil liberties groups welcomed the House’s decision not to challenge the veto. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) posted on X that SB25-086 was “part of the latest wave of speech-repressive legislation motivated by moral panic over social media.” 

FIRE warned that the bill would have “forced social media platforms to permanently ban users without any due process for alleged violations of law or simply a platform’s own policies.”

Progressive groups like ProgressNow Colorado and digital rights advocates echoed concerns that SB25-086 could open the door to excessive censorship under the guise of child protection.

Supporters call it a betrayal

For lawmakers who championed SB25-086, the House’s procedural punt felt like a betrayal of promises made to grieving families and child-safety advocates who had fought for the bill. 

“We had the votes to pass Senate Bill 86 on Friday, but leadership in the House wouldn’t put it on the calendar,” Sen. Lindsey Daugherty (Arvada) told The Colorado Sun after the layover vote. 

In his floor remarks, Boesenecker called on advocates to “demand a solution rooted in the safety of our communities, not corporate interests.”

In the days leading up to the House decision, advocates like Matt Riviere, who lost two sons to fentanyl purchased via Snapchat, had pleaded with lawmakers to act. 

“This bill is incredibly important to me and other affected families,” Riviere said in comments to Denver7. “We are losing so many kids to drugs, sex trafficking and illicit guns, and we need to do something about it.”

Polis frames the bill as a threat to free speech

While supporters cast SB25-086 as a needed crackdown on criminal activity online, Polis framed his veto in constitutional terms. 

In his official veto letter, the governor warned that the bill would “impose sweeping requirements that social media platforms, rather than law enforcement, enforce state law,” arguing it would conscript private companies “to act as government enforcers without due process” over users without sufficient due process. 

“Despite good intentions, this bill fails to guarantee the safety of minors or adults, [and] potentially subjects all Coloradans to stifling and unwarranted scrutiny of our constitutionally protected speech,” Polis wrote, as reported by Denver7.

Polis also warned the bill could chill online speech for marginalized users, including those seeking reproductive care or immigrant support resources.

The debate isn’t over

Although the House’s procedural move killed SB25-086 for this session, both supporters and opponents signaled the debate over regulating social media is far from over. 

Boesenecker, who sponsored the bill in the House, urged advocates to stay engaged and prepare for a renewed push next year. In his floor remarks, he called on supporters to “hold parties accountable when this bill comes forward next session.”

Polis, in his veto message, left open the door for future legislation that might better balance free speech and child safety concerns. 

Progressive and civil liberties groups have promised to watch closely for any new proposals they view as risking constitutional rights. 

The collapse of SB25-086 this year, despite bipartisan support and heartbreaking appeals from victims’ families, shows how a division remains over where to draw the line between protecting children and Constitutional rights.