Summary#

HCR-1006, “Governor Proclamation Respect Separation of Powers,” is a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution, not a new operating program. It would change Article IV, section 9, which lets the governor call the General Assembly into special session by proclamation. Its stated goal is to protect the legislature’s ability to choose how to address the business named in the proclamation.

• The governor could still name the business for a special session and limit the legislature to that business.
• A proclamation could limit consideration to a specific area of a general subject, but could not frame the matter so narrowly that it restricts the possible outcomes.
• The change would take effect only if the resolution passes the legislature and at least 55% of voters who vote on it approve it at the November 3, 2026 election.

What it means for you#

• Colorado voters: If the resolution passes the legislature, voters would decide whether to add this rule to the state constitution.
• Governor: The governor’s power to call a special session would remain. The proposed rule would limit how narrowly the proclamation could frame the session’s business.
• General Assembly: Legislators would have more room to consider different ways to address the named business. The proposal does not require the legislature to pass a bill or reach a particular result.
• General public: The proposal does not directly change taxes, benefits, or public services. It changes a rule about the governor’s proclamation and the legislature’s scope in a special session.

Money#

No cost information is available in the supplied material.

• The resolution directs the secretary of state to put the measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot if it advances as required.
• No election-administration cost or other spending estimate is provided.

What is unclear#

• The bill does not explain how officials or courts would decide when a proclamation is so narrow that it “restrict[s] the possible outcomes.”
• The bill does not set out a process or timeline for challenging a proclamation under the new wording.
• The supplied material includes the current section’s text and cites court decisions, but not the full Constitution or those decisions. The current law and how courts might apply the proposed change could not be independently verified against those materials.
• The proposal does not explain how the new wording would interact with existing court interpretations of the governor’s power to call a special session.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to preserve the legislature’s ability to choose among policy solutions, even when the governor limits a special session to a particular subject.
• A possible argument for the bill is that a governor can identify an urgent issue without directing the legislature to make one specific change to one law.
• The proposal keeps the governor’s power to call a special session and name its business, while setting a limit on how tightly that business can be framed.

Case against#

• One concern is that “restrict the possible outcomes” is not defined. That could leave disagreement over which proclamations meet the constitutional rule.
• It is unclear whether the new wording would lead to court challenges over the scope of a governor’s proclamation.
• A possible trade-off is that the governor could have less ability to focus a special session on a narrow legislative change, even when the governor views that change as necessary.