Several speeches from Colorado legislators this week have raised new worries about decorum and grandstanding in the state House after two members talked about immigration and Iran using what’s called a “point of personal privilege.”

Under the rules of the chamber, moments of personal privilege are allowed for a member to speak for up to five minutes on matters that “may collectively affect the House, its rights, its dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings, or the rights, reputation, and conduct of its individual members in their respective capacities only.”

Recently, two legislators talked about immigration and the war in the Middle East, prompting a Republican leader to caution the chamber about not venturing outside of what’s permissible under the rules.

“The institution is important and these rules exist to protect it,” House Minority Leader Jarvis Caldwell, a Republican from Monument, said. “The rules are clear a point of personal privilege is not meant to grandstand policy or advance a political agenda.”

Caldwell noted there have been three recent instances, in which personal privilege was used to advance policy arguments.

On March 2, Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, D-Glenwood Springs, used her personal privilege to criticize the Garfield County Sheriff, who had shared a photo of Velasco at a “No Kings” protest in an email thread.

Velasco then began criticizing the federal government, specifically U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The second incident occurred when Rep. Yara Zokaie, D-Fort Collins, spoke first about her Iranian heritage and family and then criticized the U.S. government for attacking Iran.

Caldwell, who spoke on March 4, said legislators are setting the wrong precedent.

“The credibility of this institution relies on traditions precedence and following the very rules we vote on ourselves. The precedent we’re setting in the first 50 days of the 2026 session is that Points of Personal Privilege are a substitute for personal grievances intertwined with political messaging,” Caldwell told the silent House.

Caldwell, took to the podium for his own moment of personal privilege, in which he said he did not intend to debunk or offer different perspectives on the recent comments.

Caldwell suggested he, too, could make his own politically-charged comments, such as criticizing the House for regulation that forced a small business in his district to close, or blame the chamber for someone being harmed in a crime while waiting for a three-day background check.

Expressing political opinions can be done through social media, opinion pieces, news releases or a town hall, Caldwell said. Or someone could run a resolution that would allow for opposing views and differing opinions, he suggested.

But not, he emphasized, during a personal privilege.

In the last two months, he said, the legislature is setting up the wrong precedent.

“The credibility of this institution relies on traditions precedence and following the very rules we vote on ourselves. The precedent we’re setting in the first 50 days of the 2026 session is that points of personal privilege are a substitute for personal grievances intertwined with political messaging,” Caldwell told the House.

“As a body we have all made a commitment to decorum in this chamber and if we want this institution to retain credibility then we must enforce and respect the rules voted on by us that govern it,” Caldwell concluded.

In a 2006 white paper, the National Conference on State Legislatures said decorum is essential to policymaking, since it creates an appropriately formal atmosphere, encourages order and places focus on the issues, rather than the person speaking.