HB1074 would amend Colorado law to require the General Assembly, once convened for a regular session, to meet for no longer than 90 consecutive calendar days. Current constitutional language already limits regular sessions to no more than 120 calendar days, so this bill would create a shorter statutory cap on the length of each regular session. The bill is framed as a session-management measure rather than a policy bill affecting substantive program areas.
If enacted, the measure would add a new subsection to Colorado Revised Statutes section 2-2-303.5 governing the timing and duration of regular legislative sessions. It would take effect after the standard referendum period following adjournment, unless challenged by referendum and approved by voters in the 2026 general election. In practical terms, the bill would constrain the legislature’s calendar, potentially compressing the time available for hearings, debate, amendments, and final passage of bills.
Impact
The bill would directly amend Title 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes by adding a 90-day consecutive-session limit to section 2-2-303.5. It would not change substantive policy statutes, but it would alter the procedural rules under which the General Assembly conducts regular sessions, potentially affecting the pace and volume of legislation considered each year. The measure would apply to the legislature itself and could influence all stakeholders whose bills depend on available session time, including state agencies, local governments, advocacy groups, and the public.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill faced mixed to unfavorable reception in committee. One motion to refer the bill to Appropriations failed on a 5-5 vote, and a later motion to postpone indefinitely passed 6-4, indicating that a majority of committee members were not supportive of advancing the measure. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the votes indicate limited momentum and significant skepticism among committee members.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether the legislature should impose a stricter 90-day limit on itself when the state constitution already allows up to 120 days. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to force efficiency and reduce the length of the session, while opponents may argue that a shorter calendar could reduce deliberation time and make it harder to address complex issues. The committee votes show that at least some members were concerned enough to block referral and ultimately support postponement indefinitely, suggesting disagreement over the practical consequences of compressing the legislative process.