HB1022 would require Colorado courts, beginning January 1, 2027, to allow a person who is 72 years old or older to opt out of jury service either temporarily or permanently if the person requests it. The bill applies based on the person’s age as of the start date listed on the juror summons, and a person who takes a temporary opt-out becomes eligible for juror qualification again when that opt-out expires, as determined by the court.
The bill also allows a judge or jury commissioner to require proof of age to support the request, and it specifies that any document submitted for that purpose is not a public record and may not be disclosed to the public. A person seeking either a temporary or permanent opt-out must complete the necessary steps before the jury service start date on the summons. The bill amends Colorado’s existing jury-service exemption/opt-out statute, section 13-71-119.5, and creates a new age-based opt-out category for older adults.
Impact
HB1022 would change Colorado jury administration law by adding a mandatory opt-out right for people age 72 and older, expanding the list of persons entitled to be excused from or opt out of jury service under section 13-71-119.5, C.R.S. It would affect courts, jury commissioners, and summoned jurors by creating a new age-based process for temporary or permanent exemption from service, while also protecting age-verification documents from public disclosure.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have mixed but generally workable support in committee. One amendment passed unanimously, another passed on a narrower 6-4 vote, and the motion to advance the bill to Appropriations failed on a 5-5 tie, suggesting the policy itself was acceptable to some members but not yet broadly agreed upon. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record shows procedural movement but also clear division on whether the bill should advance.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether people 72 and older should have an automatic right to opt out of jury service, and whether that change should be mandatory for courts rather than discretionary. Another likely issue is the administrative impact on jury pools and court operations, since the bill creates a new category of excusal and requires courts to process age-based requests and potentially verify documentation. The close committee vote indicates some members were concerned enough about the policy or its effects to oppose advancing it, even though amendments were adopted.