Summary#

HCR 26-1004, titled “Person’s Rights Related to Their Children,” is a House concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Colorado Constitution; it would not create a separate law or program. Its stated goal is to add an express inalienable right to direct the upbringing, education, and care of one’s children. The resolution is listed as failed, so it did not amend the Constitution.

• The proposal would add that right to the Constitution’s existing list of inalienable rights.
• If approved by the required legislative process, the question would go to voters. The text says the amendment would take effect if at least 55% of voters voting on it voted yes, subject to an exception in state law.
• The resolution sets out no new office, service, application process, enforcement power, or specific rule for deciding disputes.

What it means for you#

• People with children: This resolution made no change to your legal rights because it failed. If adopted, it would have added the stated right to the Constitution, but the proposal does not spell out how it would apply in particular situations.
• Voters: The resolution did not advance to a vote under this proposal.
• Public services and institutions: The text does not directly change school rules, child-care services, or other programs.

Money#

No publicly available information on costs.

• The supplied material gives no estimate of public spending, savings, or other costs.

What is unclear#

• The proposal does not define “directing,” “upbringing,” “education,” “care,” or “their children.”
• It does not explain how the proposed right would interact with existing laws or be weighed against other rights and interests.
• It creates no process for enforcing the right or resolving disagreements.
• The text refers to an exception in Colorado law for the 55% voting threshold, but the supplied material does not explain that exception.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the proposal is that it would make the right to direct children’s upbringing, education, and care explicit in the state Constitution.
• The existing constitutional list is described as nonexclusive, but adding this right by name could make its importance clearer.
• Sending the proposal to voters would have let Colorado voters decide whether to add the language.

Case against#

• The proposal does not define the right or explain how it would apply in conflicts involving children, families, schools, or existing laws.
• Because it would add a constitutional right without setting out limits or a way to resolve disputes, its practical effect could be uncertain.
• The resolution failed, so voters were not asked to decide this proposal and the proposed language was not added.