Summary#

HB 26-1417, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act Testing Entities bill, amends Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, section 24-34-806. Its stated goal is to strengthen equal access to exams and related courses for people with disabilities; it expressly says the National Board of Medical Examiners is intended to be covered.

• The definition of “testing entity” expands from certain Colorado entities that control accommodation decisions to any person, business, or state or local government agency offering specified exams or courses.
• Covered entities must offer exams or courses in an accessible place and manner, or provide alternative accessible arrangements.
• A covered entity must grant a person’s request for an accommodation on a licensing exam if the person meets the conditions in the rest of the law; those conditions are not included in the supplied text.
• The bill identifies no new agency or funding program. It is signed into law. The text sets an effective date of August 12, 2026, if the legislature adjourned on May 13, 2026, subject to a referendum petition.

What it means for you#

• People seeking exams or courses: If you have a disability, the law requires covered entities to provide an accessible place and manner or alternative accessible arrangements for covered exams and courses. For licensing-exam accommodations, the bill requires granting a request only when the law’s conditions are met.
• Testing entities, businesses, and public agencies: More organizations may fall under the definition, including organizations that do not control accommodation decisions. They must meet the accessibility duty for covered exams and courses.
• Taxpayers and the public: The bill does not directly change exam content, pass standards, or exam fees, and it does not create a new government office.

Money#

No cost estimate is provided in the available material.

• The bill contains no stated appropriation or staffing amount.
• Covered entities may face costs to make exams or courses accessible or to offer alternative arrangements; the bill gives no estimate.

What is unclear#

• The supplied text does not include the rest of the rule for when a licensing-exam accommodation request must be granted, so the eligibility conditions cannot be confirmed here.
• It does not define “accessible” or “alternative accessible arrangements,” or set detailed rules, timelines, or an appeal process.
• It does not explain how responsibility works when one organization offers an exam but another controls accommodation decisions.
• The parent Act was not supplied, so the existing right of action, remedies, and other current-law requirements could not be checked against the full statute.
• The effective-date clause makes the date subject to a referendum petition; the supplied material does not say whether one was filed.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to address barriers faced by people with disabilities and to make clear that more exam providers are covered.
• A broader definition could extend protections to people seeking education-related exams and courses, not only professional or trade licensing and certification exams.
• Requiring accessible arrangements directly addresses access to the exam or course, rather than relying only on individual accommodation requests.

Case against#

• The bill expands duties to a broad range of people, businesses, and public agencies, but does not explain how they should meet them or how costs will vary.
• The terms “accessible” and “alternative accessible arrangements” are not defined in the supplied text, which may leave providers and test-takers uncertain about what is required.
• The bill does not set out the conditions for granting licensing-exam accommodation requests in the supplied text, making the scope of that duty hard to assess.