Proponents revise draft of initiative to guarantee top 10% automatic admission to Colorado state colleges

A review-and-comment hearing on proposed Initiative Measure 2025-26 No. 40 focused on rules for automatic admission to state-supported institutions of higher education for in-state students who graduate in the top 10% of their high school classes.

Rachel Kurtz Phelan, director with the Legislative Council staff, opened the March 17 session noting the statutory requirement that the directors of the Colorado Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services review initiative petitions and offer comments and questions to designated representatives.

The proposal, as discussed, would (1) authorize automatic admission for in-state students ranking in the top 10% of their graduating class who apply as incoming freshmen; (2) allow state-supported institutions to require additional college-preparation courses for admitted students; and (3) set enrollment thresholds and posting requirements intended to manage the share of automatically admitted students in an incoming class.

Alana Rosen of the Office of Legislative Legal Services asked whether the initiative has a single subject, citing Article V, Section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution. Jaden Wong (identified in the transcript as "Curator") and the proponents confirmed the single subject is "allowing automatic admission to the top 10% of Colorado high school students."

Rosen also raised an effective-date concern. The original draft specified an effective date of "11/31/2025," which Rosen noted was invalid and inconsistent with constraints on odd-year election initiatives under Article X, Section 20 (the Taxpayer Bill of Rights). A representative for the proponents said, "Yes, certainly. We have a revised draft in which we did make that change," and agreed to use November 30, 2026, as the effective date instead.

Staff reviewers identified several substantive points the proponents agreed to address or clarify in the revised draft:

- Cross-references and missing statutory text: The proposed language pulls from Colorado Revised Statutes section 23-3-113.5(1) but omitted substantial existing language; the proponents said they had used an outdated copy and would reinsert the missing material and consider adding a cross-reference to make automatic-admission procedures clearer.

- Scope of applicants: The proponents confirmed automatic admission is intended only for in-state students who apply as incoming freshmen immediately following high school graduation and for schools recognized by the state Board of Education.

- Additional college-preparation courses: Institutions may identify applicants who require additional summer preparation at the college's discretion; the transcript records that applicants would be required to pay for those courses and that admission may be contingent on attending and passing them.

- Moral-conduct checks: The proponents said automatic admission remains subject to an institution's existing rules on moral conduct; if an applicant fails to meet an institution's conduct standards, that applicant would not be eligible for automatic admission under the measure.

- Enrollment thresholds and percentile adjustment: Current statute requires institutions to enroll at least 55% of incoming freshmen as in-state students. The initiative would set an automatic-admission target of 75% of incoming freshmen as in-state students selected via the top-percentile rule, but allow institutions to lower the percentile (for example from top 10% to top 6%) in an application year if the automatic-admit pool would otherwise exceed the 75% cap. Rosen asked for clarification that if the institution lowers the percentile, it must admit all applicants at that lowered percentile, and the proponents confirmed that requirement.

- Posting and timing: If an institution lowers the percentile during an application season, the lowered percentile must be posted on the school's website "current to the previous week"; outside the application season the institution should post the previous application period's percentile, the proponents said.

- Covered institutions: The proponents confirmed the initiative covers all state-supported institutions of higher education, including community colleges, local district colleges, and area technical colleges, provided they are state-supported.

Technical drafting comments from staff included suggestions on how to combine amending clauses, add head notes to statutory sections, adopt standard section-and-subsection numbering and capitalization conventions, and use small caps and strike type correctly in the initiative text. The proponents acknowledged these drafting conventions and asked staff to point to examples from recent house bills.

The hearing concluded after staff read technical comments and the proponents indicated they would submit a revised draft that addresses the stated concerns.

Ending: The review-and-comment hearing on proposed Initiative Measure 2025-26 No. 40 was adjourned after the parties agreed to revise the draft language and correct the effective date and missing statutory cross-references.