SB26-087 creates a new statutory right for certain members of the Colorado General Assembly to take “legislative leave” from outside employment while the legislature is in regular or extraordinary session. The bill is aimed at lawmakers whose outside income is limited enough that they qualify under an income test: a member must have annual individual or household income at or below 120% of area median income to be a “qualified member.” Beginning January 1, 2027, those qualified members may request leave from outside employment to perform legislative duties, and the leave may be paid, unpaid, or partially paid at the discretion of the outside employer.
The bill also adds job-protection provisions for those members. An outside employer may not terminate a qualified member because the member requests or takes legislative leave, and when the member returns, the employer must restore the member to the same or an equivalent position with equivalent benefits, seniority, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment. The bill requires advance written notice to the employer before a regular session, or as soon as practicable before an extraordinary session, and it specifies that the leave does not create entitlement to accrue seniority or other employment benefits during the leave period.
In terms of state law, the bill adds a new section to Title 2 of the Colorado Revised Statutes and makes a conforming amendment to the state employee leave statute to recognize this legislative leave right. It also includes an exception for employers that must maintain nonpartisan roles for legislative, judicial, or election-related staff, and it delays eligibility for currently serving four-year-term members until January 1, 2029, with that delayed-eligibility provision repealed in 2029. The act is subject to referendum and would take effect after the standard post-session period unless challenged and approved by voters.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of expanding access to public service. The legislative findings emphasize that low legislative compensation can exclude working-class people, caregivers, public service employees, and hourly workers from serving, and that protecting outside employment helps make the General Assembly more economically and socially representative. No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no additional evidence of floor or committee opposition in the supplied materials.
The main point of contention suggested by the bill itself is the balance between protecting lawmakers’ public-service participation and imposing obligations on private or outside employers. The bill limits coverage to lower-income members, but it still requires employers to hold jobs open and restore employees after session, which could raise concerns for employers about staffing, scheduling, and administrative burden. Another possible issue is the income-based eligibility threshold, which may prompt debate over whether the bill helps the intended group without extending protections too broadly.
The bill adds a new statutory entitlement for qualifying legislators to take leave from outside employment during legislative sessions and requires job restoration afterward. It amends Colorado law in Title 2 and makes a conforming change to the state employee leave provisions, while also creating exceptions and delayed applicability rules for certain members and employers. The practical effect is to impose anti-retaliation and reinstatement obligations on outside employers of eligible legislators and to formalize legislative leave as a protected category under state law.
The bill’s stated purpose and findings reflect a favorable, access-to-government framing: it is designed to reduce economic barriers to serving in the General Assembly and to protect members from losing outside employment because of legislative duties. Because no committee transcript or vote record was provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or amendment debate in the supplied context. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to have been presented as a pro-participation, pro-workforce-diversity measure rather than a controversial policy change.
The likely areas of contention are the obligations placed on outside employers and the scope of eligibility. Employers may object to being required to grant leave, preserve employment status, and reinstate a legislator to the same or equivalent position, especially when the leave may occur during unpredictable special sessions. There may also be debate over the income cap, which determines who qualifies for protection, and over the delayed implementation for currently serving four-year-term members. The bill also carves out nonpartisan legislative, judicial, and election-related staff, which suggests concern about conflicts with certain public or quasi-public roles.