Gov. Jared Polis vetoed three bills Wednesday, including one that would have prohibited credit card companies from imposing swipe fees on sales taxes starting in 2028.

With the new round of vetoes — including measures helping firefighters who get cancer and letting people sue federal immigration agents for constitutional violations — the term-limited governor has now rejected 12 bills passed by the legislature this year, eclipsing the personal record he set in 2025.

The Electronic Payments Coalition, a credit card industry trade group, fought hard against the credit card swipe fees measure, the most-watched of the measures Polis rejected Wednesday. The organization spent $6 million in March and April on ads opposing Senate Bill 134 and hired former U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, an Arvada Democrat, to serve on its team of lobbyists trying to kill the policy.

The coalition warned that credit card companies could stop operating in Colorado if the bill, aimed at driving down consumer costs by boosting businesses’ bottom line, was signed into law.

The airline industry trade group, Airlines for America, formerly known as the Air Transport Association of America, was another big opponent of Senate Bill 134, arguing that it would upend airline mileage rewards programs. The organization ran TV ads urging travel-conscious consumers to pressure the governor to veto the bill.

Polis refused to say where he stood on the measure during the legislative session and just after it ended on May 13.

“It’s a complicated bill and there’s a lot of legal risks and policy pros and cons,” he said at a news conference a day after the lawmaking term ended.

But he ultimately decided to reject the measure.

“The bill presents too much legal risk to Colorado’s business environment and consumers, with limited upside for our small businesses, for me to be comfortable signing,” the governor said in a letter explaining his veto.

Credit cards are seen in a wallet on June 10, 2015. (Matt Rourke, AP Photo)

Senate Bill 134 passed the Senate by an 18-17 vote and the House by a 44-20 vote.

Swipe fees typically cost merchants between 1% and 4% of a customer’s total bill.

In 2024, Colorado merchants paid $2.1 billion in swipe fees, according to CMSPI, a consulting firm that tracks global payments. Of that amount, local businesses paid fees of $218 million just on sales tax.

Several local restaurants and small business owners testified in support of Senate Bill 134. They said removing swipe fees on sales tax may save them only a little money, but they argued it’s unfair that they’re being charged a fee to collect and deliver tax revenue on behalf of the government.

“This is an example of not paying attention to what the small businesses are telling you and instead choosing big business over your true constituents,” Chris Strowmatt, general manager of Denver’s Blue Bonnet Restaurant, said in reaction to the governor’s veto.

Blue Bonnet paid $62,000 in swipe fees last year.

The Colorado Restaurant Association blasted the governor for vetoing the bill. The Electronic Payments Coalition said the veto was “the prudent and responsible decision.”

Colorado lawmakers entertained a similar bill last year, but House Bill 1282 sought to remove tips and sales tax from the swipe fee calculation. The measure was rejected before it made it to Polis’ desk.

Bridget O’Shea works the cash registers Friday, Feb. 28, 2025, at Call Your Mother Deli in the Denver Central Market. (Alyte Katilius, Special to The Colorado Sun)

A similar law in Illinois prohibiting swipe fees on the tax and tip portion of a bill passed two years ago. But financial institutions challenged the law in court before it went into effect and have so far won.

Polis said he is open to the concept of exempting sales taxes and tips from credit card swipe fees, but between the court ruling in Illinois and questions about whether the national credit card system could be adapted to Colorado law, he decided to veto the measure.

“Even if the bill were to survive legal scrutiny and go into effect in our state, it is questionable whether this bill is fully implementable or operationally feasible,” Polis wrote in his veto letter.

Governor also rejects bill aiding firefighters diagnosed with cancer

Polis on Wednesday also vetoed Senate Bill 184, which would have expanded the types of cancer considered an occupational disease for firefighters.

Firefighters suffering from an occupational disease, or their families, can claim medical and wage-loss benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act of Colorado.

The measure was pushed by the Colorado Professional Firefighters Association, the statewide firefighters union, but was opposed by local governments, who warned that it would increase workers compensation costs by an untenable amount.

A wildland firefighter in training moves a fire hose during a live-fire field exercise led by the Colorado Fire Camp near Salida, Apr. 16, 2023. (Hugh Carey, The Colorado Sun)

Colorado was one of the first states to pass a law designating certain cancers an occupational disease for firefighters. In 2017, the state also created a cancer trust fund that fire departments and fire districts can join that allows their firefighters to get medical and wage-loss reimbursement for cancer diagnoses outside of the workers compensation system.

Senior fire officials in Colorado say they’ve found the workers compensation system slow and burdensome. Firefighters’ claims, they said, are sometimes denied and end up in litigation, whereas the trust fund is easier to navigate.

Polis said he worried that if he signed Senate Bill 184, fire departments would be discouraged from participating in the cancer trust fund.

“I agree with fire chiefs across the state that after Colorado’s significant progress on this issue in recent years, discouraging participation in the trust would be a step in the wrong direction for firefighters and fire districts alike,” Polis wrote in his veto letter. “Decreased participation in the trust might make it harder for those who do participate to receive the expedited access to benefits and services they deserve.”

He also cited how the bill would raise costs for fire departments and fire districts, and said he took umbrage with the decision to exempt state firefighters from the measure. That was done to prevent issues with the state’s already-strained budget.

“Our state firefighters should not be treated differently than any other firefighter, as they face many of the same health-related risks,” the governor wrote. “This creates fundamental fairness issues.”

The Colorado Municipal League, which represents cities and towns across the state, thanked Polis for vetoing the bill.

“We are grateful that Gov. Polis recognized the serious fiscal and procedural concerns that Senate Billed 184 posed for Colorado’s municipalities,” Kevin Bommer, CML’s executive director, said in a written statement. “This veto is not a rejection of firefighter protections. It is an affirmation that burdensome unfunded mandates are unacceptable and that protections for our firefighters already exist.”

The head of the Colorado Professional Firefighters Association didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment Wednesday evening.

Senate Bill 184 passed the Senate by a 23-12 vote and cleared the House by a 42-23 vote.

Governor rejects immigration measure

The governor also vetoed Senate Bill 5 on Wednesday. It would have allowed Coloradans to file state lawsuits against federal immigration agents who violate their constitutional rights.

Polis wrote in his veto letter that he found “the legal risks … outweigh the potential benefits.” He worried that if he signed the bill into law and it was struck down by a judge, “it could weaken current protections for vulnerable community members.”

“This concern stems from the bill’s narrow focus on civil immigration enforcement,” he wrote. “It’s that narrow focus that unfortunately creates legal jeopardy. I believe Colorado has a chance to get this right — and we must pass a broader version of this bill that protects all constitutional rights, including in the immigration context, that will serve to truly hold public officials accountable.”

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent is seen in Park Ridge, Ill., Sept. 19, 2025. (AP Photo/Erin Hooley, File)

State Sen. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora, a sponsor of the bill, called the veto a “travesty.”

“This is a great disservice to people in our state, and I’m afraid it’s a green light to the Trump administration to come in and commit abuses in Colorado,” Weissman said.

Weissman introduced Senate Bill 5 on the first day of the legislative session, following the lead of other Democratic-led states that have passed similar laws to combat what officials say are abuses of power by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Despite a lukewarm response to Senate Bill 5 from the governor’s office, Weissman said he was still hopeful it would get signed.

Late in the session, Weissman introduced a bill, Senate Bill 176, that would have allowed Coloradans to sue any federal official for rights violations, not just immigration agents. Two Democrats, state Sens. Dylan Roberts of Frisco and Lindsey Daugherty of Arvada, joined Republicans to kill that bill in committee.

Senate Bill 176 faced fierce opposition from district attorneys, who argued that it could apply to them. Attorney General Phil Weiser also opposed the bill.

State Sen. Mike Weissman, D-Aurora, speaks about a bill that would require emergency abortion access during a news conference at the Colorado Capitol in Denver on April 14, 2025. (Jesse Paul, The Colorado Sun)

“History teaches us that when governments start to move against the freedom of their citizenry, it is imperative to stand up and do everything that you can do right away, even if you can’t do everything you’d like to do,” he said. “We would have liked to pass Senate Bill 176. We did pass Senate Bill 5. It should have been signed into law to provide some measure of protection for constitutional rights to Coloradans.”

Polis said he would have preferred Senate Bill 176 to Senate Bill 5. He blamed “intense and misleading lobbying from local governments and public entities” for the bill’s failure.

“If Colorado would have passed that bill, we would have

joined a growing list of states that are choosing to defend against all constitutional violations,” the governor wrote in his veto letter.

It’s possible, if not likely, that more vetoes are on the horizon.

The governor has until June 12 to sign or veto bills passed during the legislative session. He can also let bills become law without his signature.

Colorado Sun staff writer Tamara Chuang contributed to this report.