The Colorado House has advanced a request from Secretary of State Jena Griswold seeking a boost of $120,800 for the Department of State to provide her private security and monitor threats against her.

The mechanism by which Griswold is seeking that funding is House Bill 1182, a supplemental appropriation for the 2021-22 fiscal state budget.

The bill doesn't actually include a line item or footnote explaining what the funds would be used for, but the Joint Budget Committee narrative document on supplementals explains it this way: "The bill increases total Department of State Cash Fund spending authority by $120,800. Within the Administration division, this bill adds $113,800 added to the Personal Services line item and $7,000 to the Operating Expenses line item. This is in order for the Department to contract for private security and threat monitoring services in response to an increase in threats towards Department personnel."

The Secretary of State's Office, through a spokeswoman, said that private security services would be for official public events only and would be paid for by a cash fund in the Secretary of State's Office budget.

During the Wednesday second reading debate on the bill in the House, Republicans objected to how the security funding would be paid for, noting the cash funds are furnished by fees paid by businesses for services provided by Griswold's office.

House Minority Leader Rep. Hugh McKean said the request highlights a much bigger issue: how to provide security for constitutional officers.

"It's sad that we live in a world where we get death threats on a routine basis. We're left with the question on how to deal with it," the Loveland Republican said.

A contract to pay for private security is not that way, McKean argued. The best way to handle it is to handle it in the same way as credible threats to lawmakers: take it to the State Patrol. Then, those complaints can be aggregated into one place, and the state patrol has its "thumb on the pulse" of what is happening within the legislature, the first floor and with the constitutional officers. 

Rep. Janice Rich, R-Grand Junction, questioned how that private security would be used in an election year, opining that the lines between Griswold's official duties and campaign events could become blurred.

That matches concerns raised when Griswold was turned down last year by the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission for a similar request.

Last October, the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State went to the state ethics commission seeking permission to pay for private security for Griswold, who was serving as the organization's president.

The request for private security was tied to online threats, some tied to false allegations that the 2020 election was fraudulent. That included threats of physical harm, some which Denver7 News forwarded to the Colorado State Patrol for investigation. According to discussions during the meeting, the threats did not rise to the level of requiring the Colorado State Patrol to provide additional security for Griswold. 



 Ethics commission says no to paying for Jena Griswold's private security

The ethics commission ultimately denied the request. 

Cole Wist, an ethics commissioner and former Republican state representative, raised concerns about the security detail, which would have covered Griswold in her official capacity, regardless of the type of event. According to a DASS representative, the security detail could cover campaign events. 

"One of the tough issues for me is to understand where the line is between work and the secretary's official capacity and political work and appearances that are political in nature," Wist said during the Sept. 22 meeting. "Are we to conclude that all appearances by the secretary would be in her official capacity?"

A DASS representative replied that all appearances, official or political, are in her capacity as a public official.

"There is no distinction. She's always acting in her official capacity," the official said.

That was enough for the ethics commission to turn to Griswold's request, stating it would violate the Amendment 41 gift ban. 

HB 1182 will come up for a third reading and final vote in the House on Thursday.