�Թ���

CU BOULDER STUDENT FEATURE

Introduction

During my final semester at CU Boulder, I was lucky enough to be selected for a student internship with Rep. Junie Joseph, serving as the legislator for the same district where I have pursued my undergraduate education. The fundamental political science principles I memorized in class, notably “the law of the consent of the governed,” unfolded before me as I compiled constituent feedback data and aided her in the House chamber. This study will use my personal experiences in committee hearings, discussions with other representatives, and general attitudes I encountered while walking the state capitol to link and examine the impacts of polarization on sustainable and environmental legislation in Colorado. This project will focus on qualitative assessments and learned political science information to inform my discussion. Additionally, I will include varying statistical analyses looking into constituency outreach received by the office to help visualize my conclusions. Joseph’s policy moves, common patterns of partisanship, and an observed feedback loop in Joseph’s legislative process will also be highlighted to outline the interconnectedness of regional politics with these broader themes. The final intended output of this research will be to analyze the 2025 legislative session, taking Rep. Joseph as a case study, to weigh whether the evidence supports the idea that political polarization plays a significant role in Colorado’s environmental policy momentum via party-line dynamics, stakeholder engagement, and/or constituency outreach.

Context

Even though they have little Republican support, the Democratic caucus continues to pass virtually every one of their environmental efforts. Throughout the 2023 and 2024 sessions, they preserved an overwhelming vote in both legislative bodies. Regardless, the Republicans do exist, even if their power in the state legislature is effectively zero; the active partisanship in the state aligns with the nationwide fault lines across the board. Although state legislatures are more bonded than the Fed with respect to policymaking, Colorado’s tensions are increasing, mostly as a result of worries over the consumption of oil and gas. According to Woodruff (2024), there is a division in the prominent views toward the environment. Only ten percent of conservatives in Colorado feel worried about the impact of environmental degradation, in contrast to 80% of liberals. The remaining 10% is divided across some centrist and nonpartisan groups. “With few exceptions, Republicans in the Colorado General Assembly have continued in recent years to flatly deny the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change,” said Chase Woodruff, a senior correspondent for Rocky Mountain PBS. Democrats, who won total control of state government in 2019 and have expanded their legislative majorities since then, broadly recognize the need to sharply reduce emissions but haven’t always agreed on how to get there.

Boulder, a city that my professors refer to as their “living laboratory,” considering the presence of the university, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Representative Joseph has to balance their interests when it comes to climate legislation, as those prestigious institutions compose her district. Junie’s election to the assembly in 2022 as the first Black member of the legislature makes her a historical symbol. Formerly, she served as a city councilor and even graduated with a law degree from CU Boulder. Therefore, there is no question about her experience as a leader educated in the needs of her people. Joseph isn’t merely pushing forth bills by what she calculates will be most relatable, but rather leaning into conversations with constituents. Her aide, Breanna Miracle, confirmed that much in an interview that I had the chance to conduct, confirming that “Junie carefully listens to all of her constituents when she is determining the way she is going to vote on a bill,” usually through interim advisory committee deliberation between sessions or in emails sent into the office.

At the very least, the vast majority of bill ideas she introduces, according to Breanna, are grounded both in scientific data and backed by the people of District 10. In times between sessions, Junie goes door to door, illustrating her leadership style that drives her policy-making process. As anticipated, during her first term in 2023, Governor Polis signed six of the bills that she had put forth into law, such as those that subsidized the price of electric vehicles as well as electric bicycles (Colorado General Assembly Database, 2025). She aimed to minimize carbon dioxide emissions and maximize rebates for renewable taxation in HB23-1272, one of her more all-encompassing legislative successes. The steps that she’s taken have turned out to be to the benefit of the people that she’s representing, with good pragmatic solutions to their issues of conservation. On a personal note, I found Representative Joseph to be a highly well-balanced, friendly, witty, and optimistic woman with a good head on her shoulders.

Methods

Research Design: This project was designed to be an informative case study combining personal experiences, current events reported in the media, and a quantitative data analysis of constituent emails, all of which were focused on Rep. Joseph’s activity during the 2025 session.

Data Collection: During this research, I relied heavily on my first-hand knowledge and observations while sorting and categorizing constituent emails, attending committee hearings, and writing talking points for debate. I also monitored Joseph’s environmental legislation progress from her past voting history and the bills she was the prime sponsor for. While assisting with legislative preparation, I observed some of the Energy and Environment Committee work that Rep. Joseph sits on. While attending those committee meetings, I took note of the argumentative styles, witness statements, and other recurring patterns of partisanship. In the following quantitative analysis, I utilized ChatGPT’s data analysis feature to better visualize those patterns I observed. I trained the LLM to accurately display constituent sentiment by feeding the program all of the constituent emails sent to Rep. Joseph’s office between January and the beginning of April and then having it account for emails only concerning environmental legislation. Additionally, AI was used to similarly code and produce a flow and web chart of the observations I made between Joseph and District 10. The broader web chart, depicting polarization trends dominating environmental debates this session, was generated from personal experience and why bills were either supported or opposed. For better context clues, I incorporated media coverage from this and past sessions to better analyze the scope of Joseph’s progress as I finalized this research.

Partisan Debates and Rhetoric in Committee

My first-hand knowledge gained from attending committee sessions taught me essential skills in recognizing common arguments and clashing ideologies repeated over the course of the session. The arguments voiced against HB 25-1277, warning labels on fuel pumps, are a solid illustration of those clashes. This bill was first introduced on February 20th and has since passed the House on April 2nd (Fast Democracy Database, 2025). According to an opinion piece written by former Denver mayor Michael Hancock, he asserted that this is “an exercise in government overreach, a performative policy designed more to appease climate activists than to effect meaningful environmental change… Colorado lawmakers indulge in the fantasy that such paternalistic labeling will somehow alter consumer behavior.” Hancock’s stance aligns with the dominant conservative attitudes I observed in committee. The Democratic caucus maintained that this legislation would act as a catalyst to inform consumers of scientific findings about fossil fuels and the effects they have on climate change. Rep. Joseph additionally holds that this could be a potential way forward in stimulating positive attitudes towards cleaner modes of transportation.

Republicans are not on board with those ideas; I recall hearing common rebuttals citing economic strain on small businesses. For example, Republican Representative Ken DeGraaf is known for rebutting with, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions!” The utility and overall merit of legislation aimed at shifting attitudes toward oil and gas are consistently doubted by the GOP. They maintain that the Democrats aim to bully consumers and stigmatize petroleum rather than enact legislation to genuinely punch a measurable dent in emission levels. In my opinion, this argument is not necessarily fair, considering the content of the bill is stated to simply remind consumers of the direct correlation between fossil fuels and pollution, rather than require the use of alternatives. A blog post put out by the Colorado Chamber of Commerce adds context to this debate, saying that this requires labeling to be “directly affixed on fuel dispensing equipment or fuel containers and be replaced when not in ‘excellent condition.’ A violation of this statute could lead to harsh civil penalties of up to $20,000 and costly litigation” (Colorado Chamber of Commerce, 2025). The post concluded by saying, “HB-1277 and similar proposals will only create more costly litigation and regulations on the business community without making any significant progress towards cleaning our environment.” These contrasting attitudes toward environmental legislation continue to exemplify partisanship (see Figure 1).

The Utility On-Bill Repayment Program, HB25-1268, also showed similar clashes. This program is aimed at assisting low-income families in purchasing new home renovations, such as insulation, solar panels, or heat pumps that they otherwise could not afford. The committee’s Republican members are concerned that this could lead to financial entanglement, wrongfully positioning utility companies such as Xcel Energy as formal lenders, considering that payments would be made within their monthly utility bills. What I saw Republicans push as an overreach, Democrats identified as an asset for aiding low-income communities. I observed both sides regularly at odds with one another, not exclusively within the goal of their agendas, but mainly on their deeply rooted core differences. An example of bipartisanship, though, can be seen in the case of HB23-1075: Wildfire Evacuation and Clearance Time Modeling. This bill outlined wildfire evacuations and how some Republicans joined the Democrats in their work to enact revised public safety laws. Regardless of this legislation being introduced by Rep. Joseph and predominantly featuring environmentalism, the driver for this cohesion is founded on the framing of public safety. Otherwise, Republicans regularly emphasized the right to property, immediate financial effects, burdens on small businesses, and/or other reservations about governmental duty to intervene on matters of environmental policy.

Constituent Communication and Decision Tree Analysis

I did observe that constituent outreach in Boulder does affect Rep. Joseph’s policymaking. Skimming environmental-priority emails sent to the office during the session, one can gauge by those who called or emailed us that there is resounding support for environmentalism echoed in District 10. However, Figure 3 illustrates that constituency opinion did in fact become exceedingly polarized on specific issues as a reaction to certain legislation. In February, constituents were concerned with the contents of HB25-1040, attempting to characterize nuclear power as a clean alternative energy source. I saw numerous negative messages flood into Joseph’s inbox while it was in committee. On ethical grounds, constituents did not agree with its objectives; these messages primarily vilified nuclear energy for being an expensive and dangerous method, diverting from true sustainable practices such as solar and wind. I spoke with Rep. Joseph about this bill, and in our conversation, she noted that while many Democrats supported nuclear energy, she broke from her coalition due to the significant influx of dissent from District 10. She said that while she often votes along party lines, she could not reasonably ignore her community, thus voting against HB25-1040. It is clear that Joseph cares more for her district and will ultimately override party sentiment given significant constituent responses (see Figure 2). Throughout those four months, almost all negative messages concerning the environment were dictated by that very single issue. The surge of opposition to HB25-1040 actually proves Boulder’s commitment to sustainability overall, considering the thoughtful and scientific rebuttals I read in those emails. The AI-generated decision tree, shown below, takes the events surrounding HB25-1040 and illustrates the causal relationship between District 10’s dissent towards the bill and Rep. Joseph’s ultimate ‘nay’ vote on the matter.

This chain of criticism was the exception to the rule. Almost three-quarters (74%) of the remaining emails sent in discussing environmental bills favored Joseph’s stance. March and April both saw increased activity from constituent contacts as many poured in support. I skimmed over hundreds of messages to conserve ecosystems, ban glyphosate, or push for that labeling bill at fuel pumps. HB25-1277, which is the legislation designed to require warning labels on fuel pumps, elicited a surge of support. Some were against it, but the majority of messages were from environmentalists voicing support. I noticed that she made it her goal to clarify and make it clear that her job belongs to her constituency; Rep. Joseph proves that she acts on behalf of voiced opinions.

Environmental organizations were tapping into Boulder’s engaged citizenry to swamp our inboxes with memos of support. While it appeared as though it was an individual emailing the office, these copy-and-paste messages, drafted by advocacy groups, spammed our inbox daily. For example, Joseph’s aide said that during a contentious committee vote, she had seen more than 100 emails that morning alone attempting to influence her vote. This became a typical advocacy tactic, but it produced little to no impact on a divided legislature: depending on the bill, supportive communications were delivered to Democratic offices, and negative ones were directed to Republican offices. The ultimate outcome was the fact that each legislator might hear a skewed choir of voices articulating the prejudices they held. For Rep. Joseph, to receive near-unanimous consent from her constituents worked well to bolster her resolve to forge onward and solidified her arguments after sorting out those more blast email types.

The Role of Large Language Models in Legislative Analysis

Although this project was largely qualitative in character, the use of large language models (LLMs) proved extremely valuable to this research. By training AI to code constituent emails both by sentiment and by specific issue, I was able to generate precise graphics (decision trees & web charts) that graphed patterns in feedback more clearly, much more efficiently than sorting by hand. Not merely was it easy to isolate high-volume issues—like pushback on HB25-1040—it also allowed for tracking the link between constituent dissatisfaction and Rep. Joseph’s voting decisions.

While I don’t contend that AI tools can or ought to replace traditional legislative analysis, I have found that they can complement it in meaningful ways. Large language models can scan dozens of messages in seconds, discern clusters of opinion, and organize communication thematically, enabling faster response and more responsive decision-making. I argue that employing artificial intelligence in this manner could become a direct catalyst for democracy, considering that more advanced deep learning has the potential to swiftly inform elected representatives of real-time data from their constituents. In an increasingly polarized setting, this would help legislators separate grassroots opinion from orchestrated campaigns.

This approach also opens new possibilities for scholars as well as public administrators: if ethically constructed and openly designed, LLM-based modeling can become an accessible methodology for measuring public sentiment in legislative bodies, most notably when email volume is high and resources for such tasks are limited. In a place like Colorado, where environmental politics mobilizes vast numbers of citizens, such an application could become an excellent cross between science-based policy agendas and short-term community concerns.

Discussion

I have watched Representative Joseph fight for actionable change and incorporate the opinions of her district into her decisions. The polarizing effects I studied are not necessarily a defining variable in constraining her legislative mobility. Rather, it is her discussions with key stakeholders and constituent outreach. For example, in her work with the On-Bill Financing program, she was not significantly hindered by her Republican counterparts, but more by her deliberations with industry leaders, like Xcel Energy, in her efforts to reform energy policy. The evidence, as I saw it, was ultimately the decisions made in Joseph’s office from January to April 2025. Considering that the feedback loops between District 10 and her office actually strengthen and insulate her progressivism. In the 2025 session, we saw a flood of emails on the subject of environmental policy, considering the varying proposals to build nuclear reactors and rely on them for “clean energy.” This instance was the primary culprit stimulating that spike in opposition; yet, it is arguable that this surge proves Boulder’s commitment to environmental stewardship, considering the harmful radioactive waste produced from nuclear fission. Most of the messages received during March and April were utilitarian in the sense that they were favorable with respect to robust environmental action: support for banning toxic chemicals, opposing further mining operations, and subsidizing climate education initiatives such as HB25-1277. My access to these constituent contacts allowed me to accurately verify Rep. Joseph’s commitment to her community.

The decision tree model, based on my observations, showcases a strong positive relationship between the district and the legislator. As she voted for and proposed more environmentally conscious legislation, more positive feedback was sent to the office. Although there was mixed dissent across the board, that percentage was not deemed representative enough of the district to change her stance on certain issues. This has policy implications in her pursuit and passage of sustainability policy. As observed in the other generated model (Figure 1), concerning predominant ideological disparities between the Democratic and Republican caucuses, Joseph is a fundamental catalyst for the observed contrast in Colorado politics. She has been the prime sponsor of several environmental bills during her relatively short time in the House, and in that time has contributed greatly to this polarization. This is not to say that her work is anything other than essential to a sustainable future, but it is important to note that, at least on the Democratic side of things, she weighs heavily on one side of the aisle.

Conclusion

In my final remarks, my experiences and observations have affirmed that the constituency does, in fact, shift their respective legislators’ views. Regardless of commonly held beliefs that the average voter is helpless, I witnessed Rep. Joseph thoroughly listen to what her community was saying in their outreach. Supported by my generated data analysis and evidence from the HB25-1040 decision tree, there is evidence to argue that community attitudes contribute significantly to Rep. Joseph’s decision-making. Representatives like Joseph act according to their constituents’ feedback, while Republicans in more conservative seats react in their contrasting but similar way. Watching political philosophy naturally manifest as I participated in this session was astounding. It is clear from my observations, though, that legislation in Colorado is ultimately more constrained by concessions with stakeholders and primary actors a given bill will affect (e.g., Xcel Energy and on-bill financing). While polarization does affect bipartisanship, Colorado Democrats hold such a strong plurality and are secured by a liberal governor that collaboration with the GOP is not necessary or likely. I observed that environmental legislation made in the Boulder-Joseph feedback loop advanced exceptionally quickly, but other bills required greater consensus. District 10’s enthusiasm for environmental stewardship adds to her rhetorical armor; she embodies the values of our community. Colorado is run by the Democrats; the continual roadblock of polarization that is seen on the national level is not nearly as troubling for her work.

��

References

Bill Tracking in Colorado – HB 25-1277 (2025A Legislative Session). (2025). FastDemocracy.
��

ChatGPT. (2025). OpenAI (Model gpt-4o).
��

Colorado Chamber of Commerce. (2025). What we’re watching: House Bill 1277. Colorado Chamber of Commerce.
��

Hancock, M. A. (2025). Colorado’s climate labels will solve nothing: Podium. Colorado Politics.
��

Junie for Colorado. (2025). Issues: Junie Joseph for House District 10.��
��

Woodruff, C. (2024). Colorado updates climate “roadmap” as data shows it falling short of emissions goals. Colorado Newsline.
��

Woodruff, C. (2024). How your vote could affect climate policy in Colorado. Rocky Mountain PBS.
��