Proponents tell staff two ballot measures would shield voter-approved statutes for four years

At a March 5 review in Senate Committee Room 354, proponents of two proposed constitutional amendments — Initiative 2025–2026 numbers 2-46 and 2-47 — told staff that the measures are intended to protect statutory ballot measures from legislative interference for four years.

David Meschke, counsel for the proponents, said the measures’ central aim is “voter protection for statutory measures.” Legislative Council and the Office of Legislative Legal Services read a memorandum of substantive comments dated March 3, 2026, and asked proponents to confirm the measures’ stated purposes and to address drafting and constitutional questions.

The proposals would prohibit the General Assembly from limiting, preventing, or otherwise frustrating the operation, implementation, or administration of an initiated statutory measure for four years after its effective date, with two explicit exceptions: the General Assembly may repeal an initiated statute by a two-thirds vote of both chambers, and may amend a measure if the amendment “furthers” the measure’s purpose and implementation. The staff reading also said the measures would prioritize an initiated statutory measure over any prior law or bill to the extent that the prior law conflicts with or frustrates the measure’s purpose.

Legislative staff flagged several areas for clarification. Staff asked whether the measures satisfy the Colorado Constitution’s single-subject rule; Dr. Landon Lasquerinas, representing Courageous Colorado Action, said the single subject is “voter protection for statutory ballot measures.”

Staff also asked whether the proposals would force the legislature to prioritize initiated measures over constitutionally required budgeting obligations such as public education, health care, and transportation. Lasquerinas responded, “It’s important to say that the measures are not assigning any priority to state programs or interfere with state programs. The legislature has discretion on its own budget and can refer measures to the voters, if they want.” He and counsel noted that the two-thirds repeal mechanism preserves legislative flexibility.

On questions about enforcement and interpretation, Meschke said the measures’ language would be subject to judicial interpretation if disputes arise. When staff asked how it would be determined whether a legislative action “frustrates the operation, implementation, or administration” of an initiated measure, counsel said, “we think the language in the measure speaks for itself on this,” and that a court would likely resolve any dispute.

Staff also asked what it means for an amendment to “further” an initiated statutory measure’s purpose; counsel said the term is intended to provide flexibility and would be interpreted as necessary. When asked whether a repeal by the General Assembly could be partial or must repeal the entire initiated measure, counsel said the proponents’ intent is that repeal be in whole and that they would consider tightening the language to make that explicit.

Proponents thanked staff for the review; Meschke said they understood the technical comments and planned to make conforming edits to the draft language. The hearing was adjourned without any formal votes or committee action on the measures.

The staff memorandum cited Colorado law governing staff review of initiative petitions (Colorado Revised Statutes section 1-41-105) and noted the Colorado Constitution’s single-subject requirement (Article V, section 1, subsection 5.5) as the basis for several questions; proponents indicated they would respond in revised drafts.

What’s next: This session was an informational review required by statute; any substantive changes to the initiatives’ language will appear in subsequent filings or revised drafts submitted by the proponents.