Colorado House Passed Indecent-Exposure Felony Bill 37-27 With All No Votes From Democrats

1Colorado passed a bill 37-27 making indecent exposure a felony when an adult knowingly does it in view of a child under 15

Verdict: True.

• The post: The X post from @SaltyGoat17 (June 2, 2026) said Colorado passed a bill 37-27 changing indecent exposure, described as exposing genitals for sexual gratification, to a felony when an adult knowingly does it in view of a child under 15.
• The bill: That vote is House Bill 23-1135, "Penalty For Indecent Exposure In View Of Minors." House third reading on April 29, 2023 was 37 yes, 27 no, 1 excused. The Senate passed it 34-0 on May 6, 2023, with one member excused. Gov. Jared Polis signed it June 7, 2023. It took effect that day as Session Laws 2023, chapter 422.

• What it changed: Colorado already made indecent exposure a class 1 misdemeanor, and a class 6 felony on a third conviction. The 2023 act added another class 6 felony path: the person knew there was a child in view of the act, the person is more than 18, and the person is more than four years older than the child. "Child" in that section means a person under 15.
• What "indecent exposure" already required: The offense was not a new ban on nudity in general. Section 18-7-302 already required knowingly exposing genitals, or performing masturbation, under circumstances likely to cause affront or alarm, with intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desire. Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty, who backed the bill, said it would not apply to showering, urinating, or theater performances.

• Sponsors: House prime sponsors were Democrats Dafna Michaelson Jenet and Shannon Bird. Senate prime sponsors were Democrat Rachel Zenzinger and Republican Jim Smallwood.

In plain language:

Yes. The House passed HB23-1135 on April 29, 2023 by 37-27. The Senate passed it 34-0. Polis signed it June 7. It made indecent exposure, already a sex-intent crime, a class 6 felony when an adult knew a child under 15 was in view.

2All 27 no votes were from Democrats

Verdict: True.

• The official House roll has 27 no votes. Every one of those names was a Democrat in the 2023 House: Amabile, Bacon, Brown, deGruy Kennedy, Dickson, English, Epps, Froelich, Garcia, Gonzales-Gutierrez, Herod, Jodeh, Lindsay, Mabrey, McCormick, Ortiz, Parenti, Ricks, Sharbini, Sirota, Story, Valdez, Velasco, Vigil, Weissman, Willford, and Woodrow.
• No Republican voted no. All 19 House Republicans voted yes. Eighteen Democrats also voted yes. Democrat Brianna Titone was the one excused member.

• That is the House third-reading roll the 37-27 figure refers to. The Senate roll was 34-0, including Democrats. The bill was not a party-line kill in both chambers. It was a House Democratic split, with every no coming from that caucus.

In plain language:

Yes. All 27 House no votes were Democrats. Eighteen Democrats and every Republican present voted yes.

3A key argument against the bill was that it could be used against drag shows, transgender people, and people in restrooms matching their gender identity

Verdict: True.

• On the House floor during final passage, Rep. Leslie Herod (D-Denver), who voted no, made that argument. Colorado Channel footage of the speech is the record. She named drag shows, restroom use matching the sex a person identifies with, and the transgender community. She did not separately say "transgender performers." That is the post's paraphrase of the same floor remarks.

“These types of laws have been used to ban drag shows, to target individuals who use the restroom of the sex that they identify with, a public restroom, to charge them with felony charges. I am very concerned about the attacks against the transgender community that are happening across the country.”

• She added that when she first read the bill the concern did not even come to mind, but that after talking with colleagues fighting similar bills in other states she thought the language mirrored laws used "to target members of our community because of who they are."
• That was not the only no-voter argument. Colorado Politics reported critics also said a felony would hit people in mental-health crises and homeless people who undress in public, and that Rep. Elisabeth Epps (D-Denver) filibustered for about three hours on criminal-penalty and prison-abolition grounds. Sponsor Bird said LGBTQ advocacy groups in Colorado were not opposing the bill, and that district attorneys statewide backed it.
• Dougherty said the felony would apply to adults who knowingly expose themselves with sexual intent in front of a child under 15, and that the statute would not cover theater performances. The posted claim is about the argument no-voters made, not about whether a drag show would actually meet the sexual-intent elements in 18-7-302.

In plain language:

Yes. Herod, a no vote, told the House the bill’s kind of language had been used to ban drag shows and to file felony charges over restroom use matching gender identity. Other no-voters also cited mental health and sentencing.