Concerning a limit on the number of days in the regular legislative session.
Summary
HB 26-1074 would amend Colorado law to impose an additional limit on the length of each regular legislative session. Under current constitutional language, the General Assembly may meet for no more than 120 calendar days in a regular session each year; this bill would further require that, once convened, the legislature may meet for no longer than 90 consecutive calendar days. The measure is framed as a procedural change to the timing and duration of regular sessions rather than a change to substantive policy areas.
The bill would add a new subsection to Colorado Revised Statutes section 2-2-303.5, which governs convening regular sessions and the duration of those sessions. It also includes a standard referendum clause and delayed effective date, meaning it would take effect after the post-adjournment period unless referred to the voters, in which case it would require approval at the November 2026 general election. If enacted, the bill would directly affect the General Assembly’s scheduling authority and could shorten the window available for introducing, debating, and passing legislation each year.
Impact
The bill would modify state legislative procedure by placing a statutory cap on the consecutive length of regular sessions, adding a 90-day limit on top of the existing constitutional 120-day annual limit. The affected statute is Colorado Revised Statutes section 2-2-303.5, which addresses convening and duration of regular sessions. The practical impact would be on lawmakers, legislative staff, and the pace of the state’s lawmaking process, potentially compressing committee work, floor debate, and bill consideration into a shorter period.
Sentiment
Available context suggests limited support within the legislative process, as the bill was postponed indefinitely in the House Committee on State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs. No committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, so there is no detailed public record here of arguments for or against the measure. The committee action indicates that the bill did not advance out of its first committee and likely faced skepticism or insufficient support.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the policy choice to shorten the regular legislative session. Supporters would generally view the bill as a way to constrain session length and encourage efficiency, while opponents would likely argue that a 90-day consecutive limit could reduce the time available to address complex legislation, budget issues, and late-session negotiations. Because there are no transcripts or vote details, the specific objections or sponsors’ arguments are not documented in the provided materials, but the committee’s decision to postpone indefinitely indicates that the proposal was not broadly embraced.