A bill to require welfare recipients to take drug tests in order to get benefits died in the state House on Thursday in the face of apparent bipartisan opposition.

House Bill 1046, sponsored by Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, would have required anyone applying for benefits under the federally funded Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, or TANF, to first pay the $45 cost of taking a drug test.

Those who passed the drug test would have been reimbursed by the state and could get TANF benefits. Those who failed, though, would have been denied reimbursement and any benefits and would not have been able to reapply for TANF again for a year.

"If you have enough money to buy drugs, why do you need public assistance?" Sonnenberg said.

Most Democrats had argued the bill would treat the poor like criminals and it made poverty a presumption of guilt.

Democrats already had added an amendment in committee that required state lawmakers and statewide elected officials to also take drug tests before getting their pay and benefits. But House Minority Leader Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, wanted to add another amendment Thursday to make politicians who flunk drug tests pay a fine equal to a year's worth of TANF benefits for an average recipient.

That amendment failed because the Republican-led House approved another that said drug testing for politicians would have to occur in October, just before a general election.

But Republican support for the bill was not rock-solid.

The bill was on its second-reading stage in the House, a step typically marked by a voice vote in the chamber and later followed by a recorded vote on third reading.

That's not what happened.

When the voice vote was held and there were "ayes" from the Republican side and "noes" from the Democratic side, Rep. Brian DelGrosso, R-Loveland, who was in the chair, announced the bill had failed, even though it wasn't obvious that one side outweighed the other.

In instances like that, it's typical to ask for a standing division of members in the chamber, who rise to their feet to be counted as an "aye" or a "no." But no one called for such a vote, indicating Republicans, who hold a 33-32 majority, could not muster the necessary 33 votes to pass the bill.

"I was three short," Sonnenberg said, though he wouldn't name the Republicans opposed. "That's why we didn't have a division. I didn't want people to know who. I didn't want to throw them under the bus."

Tim Hoover: 303-954-1626 or thoover@denverpost.com