The first regular session of Colorado’s 75th General Assembly concluded last Wednesday, May 7. And, as with most sessions, it ended with a sprint to the finish as lawmakers rushed to finalize and pass various legislative proposals as the state’s 120-day lawmaking deadline approached. However, while the session featured its fair share of typical policy disagreements between members—tempered by occasional moments of compromise—what became increasingly palpable was the growing tension between legislators and the governor’s office.
Gov. Jared Polis (D) has earned a reputation as an active participant in the policymaking process during his tenure and, moreover, possesses a strong libertarian bent that frequently clashes with the more progressive wing of the state’s Democratic party. But the governor’s hands-on approach—which has ruffled lawmakers’ feathers in the past—coupled with his lame-duck status (Polis is in the final two years of his second term) meant his involvement was met with more public frustration by legislators this session. Also, while the overall volume of bills considered this year was less than 2024 (657 vs. 705), the sheer number of bills over which Polis sought to wield his influence and invoke his veto authority—on a vast range of issues such as workers’ compensation, regulation of artificial intelligence, land use, controls on social media platforms, among others—was especially notable. As of publication, 485 of the 657 total bills introduced fully passed both chambers and have been signed the governor or are otherwise awaiting action. Of the remainder, 104 were postponed indefinitely through official votes and another two earned vetoes from the governor, leaving dozens of measures that failed for procedural reasons.
In hindsight, this more adversarial relationship between the executive and legislative branches was set well before lawmakers began their work in the capitol this session, particularly when key Democratic members unveiled a proposal to overhaul Colorado’s Labor Peace Act following last November’s elections. Polis quickly voiced concerns with the concept and then issued a thinly veiled veto threat during his State of the State address when the proposal was formally introduced as Senate Bill 5 (Worker Protection Collective Bargaining) on the first day of legislative session. The dynamics of this bill, which pitted Polis against his Democratic colleagues and their supporters in the labor community, set the tone for many of the negotiations on other equally contentious policy proposals that followed.
This session, Democrats maintained their trifecta control of the state House, state Senate and the governor’s seat. But more importantly, in the state House, Democrats were unsuccessful in defending the 46-19 supermajority they enjoyed in previous years. Instead, the margins in both chambers (43-22 in the House and 23-12 in the Senate) were both one vote shy of the two-thirds veto-proof supermajority status, which capitol observers viewed as a boon to a Polis.
Still, that did not stop lawmakers from trying to force overrides on two bills: one, Senate Bill 77, was a reform of the Colorado Open Records Act and another, Senate Bill 86, sought to regulate the content permitted on social media platforms and increase law enforcement access to user accounts and material. Ultimately, neither veto override was successful, but both were collectively a clear open challenge not only to the governor’s views on policy but also his political influence in his waning time as the state’s top executive.
Indeed, in one final rebuke to Polis during the session’s last three days, Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez (D) tabled Senate Bill 318, his own bill that in major part would have delayed the effective date of last year’s Senate Bill 24-205 designed to regulate AI applications by both developers and deployers. Notably, Polis specifically requested a delay on behalf of the technology industry and broader business community and Rodriguez’s decision ledthe governor—as well as Attorney General Phil Weiser (D), Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D) and Democratic members of Colorado’s congressional delegation—to issue a letter admonishing the legislature and perhaps setting the stage for a special session on that topic.
Clouding the entirety of the 2025 legislative session was a budget crisis years in the making. The Joint Budget Committee (JBC) began their work in early November, anticipating the need to find $1.2 billion in cuts from the state’s general fund—typically a $17 billion allocation. Several factors contributed to this crisis, among them the reduction of federal COVID relief dollars that were used in previous budget cycles to fund ongoing programs. Ballooning cash funds also squeezed out the legislature’s ability to allocate general fund dollars before reaching the TABOR cap. The state’s decreasing population growth and slowing inflation, the two most relevant factors in calculating spending limits, also placed additional pressure on discretionary spending.
As the JBC pressed further into their work to find cuts and craft a balanced budget, pressures from stakeholders intensified. Members signaled from the outset their unwillingness to trim programs like Medicaid that serve the most high-risk populations in the state and instead chose to focus primarily on finding reductions within transportation funding. In the end, although much later in the process than is typical, the committee did reach agreement on a budget that both chambers subsequently approved. However, as of this alert’s publication, much remains in question with respect to federal funding that supports state programs, particularly Medicaid. Significant federal cuts would require the governor to call a special legislative session during the summer or fall to further scale back state programs that rely on those federal funds.
With all eyes now watching for a potential special session later this year to address the state budget, artificial intelligence and any number of other policy topics besides, please see below for a more detailed analysis on the headline issues debated during Colorado’s 2025 legislative session.
Employer and Business Legislation
Arguably the most closely watched legislation this session, Senate Bill 5, garnered significant media attention far before the legislature convened back in January. Senate Bill 5 would eliminate the requirement for employees to conduct a second election to negotiate a union security agreement clause in the collective bargaining process. The governor made it clear from the outset, even including in his State of the State speech, that he would not sign the bill unless it represented a compromise between both the labor and business communities. Despite multiple offers, labor unions and bill sponsors wouldn’t budge. The bill passed unamended the last week of session, leading the governor to reiterate the day after session that he will veto the bill.
Meanwhile, labor and other workers’ rights organizations sought to advance House Bill 1300 (Workers' Compensation Benefits Proof of Entitlement), a major overhaul of the state’s current workers’ compensation processes. Under current law, the legal burden is on an employee to demonstrate why certain medical treatment is necessary under a workers’ compensation claim if there is a dispute involving level of care. As introduced, the legislation would have shifted the burden to an employer to contend why certain medical treatment sought by an employee was unnecessary. While that modification was ultimately struck, another provision allowing an employee to essentially refer themselves to medical professionals within a certain geographic area was retained throughout the legislative process. This change was not only objected to by private and public employers alike but also Pinnacol Assurance, the state-chartered insurer of last resort, all of which contended that the change would increase costs and delay care. Importantly, Polis has contemplated privatizing Pinnacol in the wake of decreasing enrollment and other financial challenges, which has led to speculation that he will also veto House Bill 1300 as those plans further crystallize.
House Bill 1286 aimed to protect workers from extreme heat (80 degrees Fahrenheit or higher) and cold (30 degrees Fahrenheit or a wind chill factor with 20 mph gusts) with requirements for shade, safety plans, water, breaks and training plus creating a private cause of action for violations. Business opposition regarding feasibility and existing rules, along with a deluge of industry-specific exemption requests, led sponsors to postpone the bill in its first committee meeting. However, members committed to reviving the measure next session. The bill will be introduced again next session after more stakeholder meetings.
The first bill introduced in the house this session, House Bill 1001, strengthens wage protections by broadening the definition of "employer" to include those with significant ownership, ensuring workers receive at least minimum wage and raising the limit for wage claims over time. It increases enforcement by publicly listing wage violations, imposing fines for misclassifying employees and allowing local governments to enforce wage laws. Additionally, it expands worker protections by prohibiting retaliation by an employer, addressing immigration-related discrimination and adjusting penalties for inflation. The bill is waiting to be sent to the governor's office for signing.
In 2024, Colorado enacted Senate Bill 24-205, becoming the first state to adopt a broad regulatory framework governing the development and deployment of high-risk artificial intelligence systems. The law includes requirements for developers and deployers to take reasonable steps to avoid algorithmic discrimination in consequential decision-making areas such as housing, employment and financial services. It also establishes transparency measures such as consumer disclosures and algorithmic impact assessments, with enforcement authority granted to the Colorado attorney general. While the legislation positioned Colorado as a national leader in AI governance, it also prompted a wide range of critical responses from stakeholders in the technology, business, and civil rights communities.
During this session, the sponsor of the 2024 bill introduced Senate Bill 318 with just 10 days left in the legislative session to modify several aspects of the original law. The proposed changes would have delayed key provisions until Jan. 1, 2027, provided exemptions for smaller businesses, narrowed the scope of what constitutes algorithmic discrimination and clarified the allocation of responsibilities between developers and deployers. Although this year’s bill reflected ongoing efforts to refine the regulatory approach given practical considerations raised by businesses and other stakeholders, the bill ultimately did not pass and so Senate Bill 24-205 and its Feb. 1, 2026, implementation date remains in effect.
Two other AI-related bills introduced during the 2025 session raised issues for businesses operating in the AI space. House Bill 1212 proposed whistleblower protections for employees and contractors working on foundation models, including protections for those who disclosed potential risks to public safety or security, even outside the organization. It also would have required companies to implement internal reporting mechanisms. In addition, House Bill 1264 sought to prohibit the use of surveillance data—broadly defined to include personal characteristics, behaviors and biometrics—by automated systems to determine individualized prices or wages. The bill raised concerns among some businesses regarding potential disruption to dynamic pricing and customer segmentation practices. Both measures failed to advance all the way through the legislative process but signal emerging areas of legislative interest that could resurface in future sessions.
Senate Bill 157 (Deceptive Trade Practice Significant Impact Standard) could have profoundly affected Colorado’s litigation environment. Like similar efforts brought repeatedly in prior sessions, the bill would have functionally eliminated a legal test requiring deceptive trade practices to have a significant public impact for a plaintiff to seek recourse under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), which carries treble damages associated with violations. However, the legislation faced significant headwinds from the business community and, despite an attempt by the sponsor and proponents to limit its application by creating a class of plaintiffs that could be “particularly targeted” by deceptive acts (e.g., seniors, military servicemembers, persons with disabilities, etc.), it failed on a bipartisan vote in the Senate.
House Bill 1010 (Prohibiting Price Gouging in Sales of Necessities) also became one of the session’s most contested consumer protection bills. Initially, the bill defined price gouging as increasing the cost of any good or service needed for the health, safety or welfare of persons by 10% or more during a declared disaster emergency (with exceptions only for increased supplier costs). Over the course of debate, the definition of “disaster” was broadened to include market disruptions like trade disruptions, and new language prohibited businesses from selling goods or services they didn’t offer before the emergency. A final exemption was added for seasonal price fluctuations, so long as businesses could show increases were unrelated to disaster conditions. The bill also codified price gouging as a deceptive trade practice under the state’s consumer protection laws. Though heavily amended, the bill passed, marking another significant foray by the state into price gouging and consumer protection policy.
House Bill 1090 (Protections Against Deceptive Pricing Practices) aimed to improve pricing transparency by requiring businesses to clearly disclose all mandatory fees and the total price of goods, services or property. While seemingly focused on landlords (please see the “Housing and Landlord-Tenant Legislation” section below), closer inspection revealed broad applicability to service-based businesses such a delivery platforms and restaurants as well as other sectors that customarily add service charges or fees. It prohibits misleading or partial pricing in advertisements or online listings and requires any extra charges to be communicated up front. In response to concerns raised across industry sectors, the final bill created some degree of safe harbor for operators already complying with federal disclosure standards to prevent regulatory duplication.
Housing and Landlord-Tenant Legislation
Affordable housing remained a top campaign issue heading into the 2025 legislative session, setting the stage for high-profile debates and intensifying the ongoing tension between state-level priorities and local land use control. Gov. Polis continued to make housing a central focus of his agenda, and the General Assembly considered a wide range of proposals aimed at expanding supply, protecting renters and reforming development incentives. Some measures advanced, others stalled—reflecting the deep political and structural challenges of addressing Colorado’s housing needs.
The governor’s signature proposal this year was House Bill 1169 (Housing Developments on Faith and Educational Land), colloquially known as “Yes in God’s Back Yard” or YIGBY. This bill encapsulated both the desire to expand the housing supply and the tensions felt between state and local authorities. It would have allowed churches and schools to bypass local zoning restrictions to build housing on their land. The bill was seen as a signature attempt to accelerate housing development through a targeted override of local land use authority. It passed the House with moderate support but ultimately failed in the Senate—a notable setback for the governor. Whether this defeat signals diminished gubernatorial influence or simply underscores the enduring strength of local control is unclear. What is evident is that even narrowly tailored proposals to boost housing face resistance when they touch local authority over land use.
Still, some supply-side measures succeeded. Specifically, House Bill 1273 (Residential Building Stair Modernization) mandated that jurisdictions with populations over 100,000 permit single-stair multifamily buildings—an approach intended to lower construction costs and expand design options. Like YIGBY, the bill faced pushbacks from local governments and fire safety officials. After extensive amendments, including a 10-year sunset clause, it passed in a significantly modified form.
Perhaps most notably, House Bill 1272 (Construction Defects and Middle Market Housing) marked a small but potentially transformative moment in Colorado housing policy. For the first time in several years, the legislature was able to advance reform of the state’s construction defects laws, a perennial barrier to new condominium construction. House Bill 1272, supported by a bipartisan coalition, sought to reduce developers’ legal exposure in multifamily construction by clarifying the process for defect claims and encouraging arbitration over litigation. Its passage is especially meaningful given the failure of House Bill 1261 (Consumers Construction Defect Action), a competing measure that would have expanded homeowners’ rights to sue builders. The outcome suggests a growing legislative appetite for practical reforms that can unlock middle-market housing while balancing consumer protections.
On the rental front, the General Assembly passed House Bill 1090 (Protections Against Deceptive Pricing Practices), a bill intended to rein in so-called “junk fees”—undisclosed or excessive charges added to rental agreements. While early versions of the bill would have opened landlords up to lawsuits from tenants, the final version removed the private right of action, a concession to business concerns. The bill’s passage underscores a continuing trend toward increased regulatory scrutiny of landlord practices, even as legislators remain sensitive to industry objections when crafting enforcement mechanisms.
In this same vein, the legislature took aim at the intersection of housing and technology. House Bill 1004 (No Pricing Coordination Between Landlords), which bans landlords from using algorithmic pricing tools to set rents, was a follow-up bill to last year’s unsuccessful effort (House Bill 24-1057). This bill passed both chambers and is awaiting the governor’s signature. While aimed at curbing what lawmakers view as price manipulation, the bill raised concerns among property managers and institutional landlords who see such tools as essential to managing and pricing their portfolios appropriately. The legislation may force operators to revise pricing strategies and raises broader questions about the regulation of data-driven business models and how technology can and should be used in the marketplace.
In addition to those housing and pricing regulations, the Colorado General Assembly passed a series of bills that would significantly modify landlord-tenant law and impose new obligations on rental housing providers. Several proposals that passed the General Assembly focus on affordability-related measures but could also alter standard leasing and property management practices. House Bill 25-1249 (Tenant Security Deposit Protections), caps security deposits at one month’s rent and require landlords to offer installment plans and may present new administrative and financial challenges. Senate Bill 25-020 (Tenant and Landlord Law Enforcement), authorizes courts to appoint third-party receivers for properties where landlords are found to have persistently violated habitability standards—effectively shifting control of the property away from the owner under certain conditions. Meanwhile, House Bill 25-1240 (Protections for Tenants with Housing Subsidies) expands source-of-income protections by removing exemptions for small landlords and requiring cooperation with rental assistance applications, backed by a minimum $5,000 penalty for noncompliance. Finally, House Bill 25-1236 (Residential Tenant Screening) prohibits landlords from requiring credit history reports when screening applicants who rely on housing subsidies and would lengthen the validity of portable screening reports from 30 to 60 days.
Several bills also targeted broader business practices in the rental market. House Bill 25-1235 (Jury Trials for Tenant Proceedings), which failed, would have introduced new procedural requirements in eviction proceedings, including mandatory jury trials upon tenant request and more stringent service obligations, potentially increasing the cost and complexity of the eviction process. House Bill1207 (Pet Ownership Residential Housing Structures), which passed and is currently awaiting the governor’s signature, would impose new standards around pet ownership in rental units by limiting breed-specific restrictions and requiring landlords to allow pets under “reasonable” conditions.
For the business community—especially those in real estate development, property management and housing finance—these developments warrant close attention as they require meaningful operational and policy adjustments, if signed by the governor.
Together, these bills reflect a legislative body that is responding to the political urgency of housing affordability. The failure of the YIGBY bill and the watering down of single-stair reform suggests that local control remains a powerful force in Colorado politics, while the success of the construction defects reform signals that incremental, consensus-driven policies are more likely to gain traction. Meanwhile, legislation targeting pricing tools, fees and tenant’s rights show that lawmakers are eager to regulate the downstream effects of housing shortages, particularly where technology, pricing opacity or contractual power imbalances are involved.
The direction of policy in 2025 suggests that while large-scale zoning reform remains politically fragile, gradual changes to the development environment and new restrictions on landlord behavior will likely continue in future sessions. Next year may bring renewed attempts to revisit land use authority and expand tenant protections even further, particularly if housing affordability metrics fail to improve.
Energy and Environment
Despite the widely known energy deal reached during the 2024 legislative session, Colorado lawmakers returned in 2025 with a wide array of proposals to put sweeping regulations on the state’s largest emitters and conventional energy sources overall. However, despite those lofty expectations, multiple bills that were strapped with large fiscal notes or were clearly seen as violating last year’s handshake deal ultimately failed to secure the votes needed to pass.
Among those was House Bill 1277, which would have prohibited retailers from selling or displaying fossil-based fuel products for sale without a consumer disclaimer. The bill passed the House but ultimately didn’t have the votes to get out of Senate Transportation and Energy Committee. Similarly, House Bill 1119—which proposed scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions reporting requirements for Colorado companies with total revenues of over $1 billion—didn’t make it past its first committee and failed to secure multiple progressive Democrats. Burdened by a hefty fiscal note and up against concerns raised from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, a proposal to require certain polluting facilities make their emissions records public (House Bill 1241) failed to secure the support needed to make it through the House Appropriations Committee.
Other energy measures seeking to advance the state’s renewable energy goals received initially mixed reviews from the business community but ultimately garnered the support needed to pass. House Bill 1269—widely known as the counterpart to Denver’s Energize Denver ordinance—established building performance standards with a 2040 deadline and created a new state enterprise to support building decarbonization efforts. The bill kicked out the deadline for compliance, which was received warmly by building owners, but came with a hefty price tag for noncompliance. Splintering the business community and the governor’s office, House Bill 1269 was ultimately amended to decrease the fines and neutralize much of the opposition in the building. On the other hand, House Bill 1040, a bipartisan proposal, passed early in session, securing the governor’s signature back in March with little consternation under the Gold Dome. The bill reclassifies nuclear energy as a “clean energy resource” under Colorado law, allowing utilities to include it in clean energy portfolios alongside renewables.
Last month, with little over a month left in session, a near-final policy proposal was put forth to advance the state’s 2040 renewable energy goals. The proposal, which among other things would have moved up the state’s clean energy targets for the power sector from 2050 to 2040, received swift opposition and ultimately did not clear stakeholder concerns and roadblocks to secure late bill status.
Transportation
House Bill 1291, a major piece of bipartisan legislation, aimed to improve safety and accountability in Colorado's ride-sharing industry. The bill introduced enhanced safety features like limiting drivers to 10 consecutive hours, requiring biannual fingerprint background checks, and mandating continuous audio and video recording. Sparked by safety concerns, particularly after a personal incident involving a state representative, the bill also targets deceptive practices like altering rider ratings and mandates data-sharing for complaints. Large ride-sharing companies warn it could disrupt services, with Uber threatening to cease operations if the bill takes effect. House Bill 1291 is currently awaiting the governor's decision.
House Bill 1044 (Local Funding for Vulnerable Road User Protection) proposed allowing local governments to levy additional motor vehicle registration fees to fund safety programs for vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists. The fees were to be determined based on the vehicle's weight and (optionally) fuel efficiency, with heavier and less fuel-efficient vehicles incurring higher fees and adjusted annually for inflation or deflation. The revenue collected from these fees was to be allocated to a dedicated local cash fund and used exclusively for vulnerable road user protection strategies, which included infrastructure projects like active transportation networks and local transit improvements. However, there was no appetite for such a fee structure and the bill died in its first committee of reference.
Following House Bill 1044’s demise, several of the sponsors endeavored in the same vein with House Bill 1303 (Funding for Motor Vehicle Collision Prevention). This bill would have created the Crash Prevention Enterprise Fund within CDOT and would have added up to $3 per policy on a vehicle in Colorado. This was expected to generate yearly income in the mid- to high seven figures with 70% going to funding grants to improve vulnerable road users. While the bill passed the House, amendments in the Senate expanded project eligibility and altered funding distribution. Critics questioned the need for new fees and the administrative burden of the proposed fund. In the end, the Senate Finance Committee declined to advance the bill, citing skepticism around imposing additional costs on drivers during an inflationary period. The outcome highlights ongoing fiscal caution even in support of seemingly popular safety priorities.
Health Care
The 2025 session of the General Assembly was especially active on health care policy, with both health committees among the busiest of the year. Lawmakers worked under the shadow of ongoing budget constraints, which heavily influenced debates over how to expand access to care without overextending the state’s financial commitments. Medicaid remained at the center of these discussions, as the largest cost driver in the state budget. Despite pressure to make cuts, the Joint Budget Committee maintained reimbursement rates at previous-year levels, reflecting a broad reluctance to reduce access to care. Nevertheless, tensions persist between the policy goal of expanding coverage and the costs necessary to sustain it—tensions that played out in nearly every corner of the health policy agenda.
This fiscal tightrope was particularly evident in debates about safety net providers. Legislators were often forced to weigh support for these community-based organizations against the interests of larger hospital systems. Still, the General Assembly ultimately authorized funding for several targeted services. These included parenteral nutrition with Senate Bill 84 (Medicaid Access to Parenteral Nutrition) and vagus nerve stimulation therapies with Senate Bill 121 (Medicaid Reimbursement for Vagus Nerve Stimulation), with both bills passing. House Bill 1270 (Patients' Right to Try Individualized Treatments), which is awaiting the governor’s signature, would allow severely ill patients to more easily try investigational medicines by relieving some liability from manufacturers and dispensers. Lawmakers also enacted Senate Bill 166 (Health-Care Workplace Violence Incentive Payments), which directs the state Medicaid agency to bring forward recommendations to address violence in health care workplace settings—an acknowledgment of growing concern around safety for health care workers.
A major flashpoint during the session was the federal 340B prescription drug program. Competing visions emerged through two high-profile bills. Senate Bill 71 (Prohibit Restrictions on 340B Drugs), which passed, prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from limiting the number of contract pharmacies with which a hospital or hospital group may partner under the 340B program. In contrast, Senate Bill 124 (Reducing Costs of Health Care for Patients), which ultimately failed on the last day of the session, would have required hospitals participating in the program to meet new transparency and reporting obligations. The success of Senate Bill 71 and the defeat of Senate Bill 124 reflect the ongoing tension between operational flexibility for providers and calls for greater accountability.
In addition to addressing reimbursement and drug pricing issues, the legislature also focused on Medicaid oversight and broader system reforms. Senate Bill 314 (Recovery Audit Contractor Program), currently awaiting the governor’s signature, will make significant changes to the Medicaid Recovery Audit Contractor program. This legislation responds to findings from the state auditor and aims to improve oversight and program integrity. Meanwhile, Senate Bill 45 (Health-Care Payment System Analysis), signaled lawmakers’ willingness to think big about structural reform by authorizing a task force to study the viability of a statewide single-payer health care system.
Workforce issues also came under the spotlight. Senate Bill 83 (Limitations on Restrictive Employment Agreements), which passed with bipartisan support, restricts hospitals from entering into non-compete agreements with physicians—a move that supporters say will improve provider mobility and patient access. Additionally, Senate Bill 152 (Health-Care Practitioner Identification Requirements), requires all health care practitioners who interact with patients to wear badges clearly identifying their roles, a measure intended to support transparency and trust in clinical settings.
These developments reflect a legislative session deeply focused on patient access, program integrity and structural reform. Lawmakers worked to preserve essential Medicaid services even while facing broader fiscal challenges, and they showed a continued commitment to supporting vulnerable populations. As cost pressures and looming federal cuts to Medicaid remain, we expect the General Assembly to stay highly engaged in shaping the future of health care in the state.
Public Safety and Criminal Justice
Public safety and criminal justice topics were top of mind during last year’s election cycle and, correspondingly, were a major part of the Colorado General Assembly’s work during the session. Once again, Democrats passed a slate of gun violence prevention bills, foremost among them Senate Bill 3 (Semiautomatic Firearms & Rapid-Fire Devices). Broadly, the bill bans the manufacturing or sale and purchase of a host of semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines, making it one of the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation. However, the legislation was heavily amended during the process—including at the behest of Gov. Polis—to create a pathway for individuals to purchase these firearms if they pass a vetting process by their county sheriff and subsequently complete additional training with standards set by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Unsurprisingly, Republican lawmakers still vociferously opposed the measure in addition to other firearms-related bills, including proposals to regulate the sale of ammunition (House Bill 1133) and extend peace officer authority to certain Department of Revenue employees charged with enforcing firearms laws (House Bill 1314).
Meanwhile, other legislation seeking to create new criminal offenses or raise penalties for existing crimes were again hotly contested, particularly by more progressive legislators who view these policies as potentially having a disproportionate impact on minority and marginalized communities. Yet, certain bills—including proposals to make gun theft a felony (House Bill 1062) and bar certain offenders convicted of prior offenses from possessing firearms (House Bill 1171)—passed muster this year despite having failed in preceding sessions. But other measures, including House Bill 1147 preventing municipal courts from adopting higher penalties than what is allowed under state law for similarly situated crimes, advanced as well, showcasing the strong competing opinions on public safety and criminal justice policy under the Gold Dome.
Notably, the Colorado General Assembly also passed Senate Bill 310, legislation to implement Proposition 130 passed by voters last November. Broadly, the ballot measure directed that the state issue $350 million in funding to local law enforcement agencies to supplement compensation for eligible personnel, expand training opportunities and increase workforce capacity as well as create a $1 million death benefit for the surviving family members of a first responder that passed as a result of their service. However, the proposition was silent on when the $350 million would have to be disbursed, allowing the JBC to sequence disbursements out over a 10-year period to ameliorate its impacts on the state budget.
Liquor
Compared to previous years, liquor legislation remained relatively calm this session, with a few notable exceptions. Senate Bill 33 was perhaps the most significant liquor bill signed this year, and it prohibits the issuance of new hard liquor licenses to grocery stores that contain pharmacies while allowing those with existing licenses to continue selling hard liquor. Sponsored by three Democrats and one Republican, the bill supports small, independent liquor stores in their competition with big-box retailers and aims to benefit craft brewers and distilleries that can more easily access the market through independent stores. While Senate Bill 33 was signed by the governor, he expressed some reservations, stating that it represented a “step backward rather than forward” for the liquor industry.
House Bill 1237 (Soft Closing of Alcohol Liquor Establishments) proposed to reduce the prohibition on selling alcohol in Colorado between 2 a.m. and 7 a.m. by one hour, contingent on city or county approval. Under this legislation, liquor establishments would have been able to continue selling alcoholic beverages until 2:30 a.m., with patrons permitted to consume these beverages in the establishment until 3 a.m. However, due to opposition from law enforcement, municipalities and brewer associations, the bill was postponed indefinitely in the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee.
Similarly, Senate Bill 132 sought to grant distilleries across the state the ability to expand their tasting rooms. Specifically, the bill proposed increasing the number of sales rooms from one to five and permitting distilleries to conduct tastings of alcoholic beverages from state-licensed wholesalers, in addition to their own products. But, like House Bill 1237, opposition from various municipalities, restaurants and brewer associations ultimately led to the bill’s defeat in committee.
Contact a member of Brownstein’s Colorado State Government Relations team to answer any questions related to the 2025 legislative session and to help navigate the many new opportunities and challenges that will present themselves during the 2025 interim and going into the state’s 2026 legislative session.
This document is intended to provide you with general information regarding Colorado's 2025 legislative session. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. If you have any questions about the contents of this document or if you need legal advice as to an issue, please contact the attorneys listed or your regular Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP attorney. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions. The information in this article is accurate as of the publication date. Because the law in this area is changing rapidly, and insights are not automatically updated, continued accuracy cannot be guaranteed.