Reviewers flag single-subject, liability and penalty questions in Colorado initiative to broaden public access to records

Legislative Council staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services held a review-and-comment hearing on proposed Initiative 25-26 No. 286 on March 16, 2026, to discuss draft language that would create a constitutional right of public access to government proceedings and records.

At the hearing, Rebecca Baiati of the Office of Legislative Legal Services summarized what staff view as the measure's primary purposes, including establishing "a fundamental constitutional right for all persons to know the affairs of all levels of state and local government" and requiring that any government entity claiming an exemption "demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence" that the exemption applies. "[T]he major purposes of the proposed amendment ... appear to be to 1, establish a fundamental constitutional right," Baiati read to the panel.

Staff also noted that subsection 8 of the draft would "impose a civil penalty of at least $1,000 on any state or local government for each instance in which they knowingly violate the provisions of the proposed initiative," and asked several clarifying questions about who would be the proper defendant in enforcement actions and whether the drafters intended to subject individual officers or employees to personal liability. "As to the professional capacity, that will be up to any enforcing court," Shane Madsen, counsel for the proponents, said in response. He added that the proponents' intent in removing prior language referencing individual actors "is to make only the entity, the governmental entity, subject to the knowing violation."

Proponents asked staff to revise the purposes language to expressly state the measure's single subject and to clarify that paragraph 2 should not be read as creating only one narrow circumstance in which information may be withheld. "This measure creates a new constitutional right of access to the affairs of government," Madsen told reviewers when staff asked the proponents to identify the single subject.

Staff also confirmed that comments and questions from an earlier memorandum dated March 13, 2026 (and a prior public meeting on March 16, 2026, addressing an earlier draft identified as Initiative 25-26 No. 261) remain part of the record and are incorporated by reference into the current review. Staff indicated the remaining items in their memorandum were technical and did not require further discussion.

The hearing produced no formal vote or rule change; staff submitted the comments and questions in the record and adjourned the meeting. The memorandum and the record of this review will remain available to the proponents and the public as the measure proceeds through any further drafting or legal review.