Summary#

HCR-1005, titled “Limit Election of Legislators Who Fill Vacancies,” proposed a constitutional amendment; it did not itself change the law. It would have barred someone appointed to fill a state legislative vacancy from serving the immediately following term in the same district. Its stated goal was to limit that consecutive service, but the resolution failed, so it did not become law.

• The amendment would have added a new qualification for state representatives and senators: a person appointed to fill a vacancy could not serve the next term in that same district.
• It would have applied to both the Colorado House and Senate.
• The proposed amendment would have gone to voters at the November 3, 2026, election and needed at least 55% of votes on the question to pass, subject to an exception in state law.
• The proposal did not bar a person from running for office in express terms; it said the person could not serve the following term.

What it means for you#

• Voters: No change. The resolution failed, so this proposal did not change who may serve in the legislature.
• People appointed to fill legislative vacancies: No change under this proposal. If it had passed, an appointee could not have served the immediately following term in the same district.
• Other candidates and the public: The resolution did not create a new election process, service, or benefit.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The resolution did not specify spending, staffing, fees, or savings.

What is unclear#

• The resolution does not explain what would happen if a person barred from serving under the proposed amendment nevertheless won election to the next term.
• It does not set out how the restriction would be enforced or who would decide whether it applied.
• It does not explain the statutory exception referenced in the proposed 55% voter-approval rule.
• The resolution failed, so the proposed amendment was not put into effect.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the amendment is that an appointment to fill a vacancy would not, by itself, allow someone to continue in the same district for the next term.
• The rule would apply to both chambers and would be written into the state constitution, rather than left to appointment practices.

Case against#

• The proposal would have prevented an appointed legislator from serving the next term in that district even if voters chose that person.
• It does not expressly prohibit running for office, but it would bar serving the term. The resolution does not explain how to handle an election result in that situation.
• The restriction would apply only to the immediately following term in the same district; the resolution does not explain why that is the appropriate limit.