Summary#

“Areas of Local Preemption” was a Colorado Senate concurrent resolution proposing a constitutional amendment; it did not become law. It would have made local laws supersede conflicting state laws in 18 listed areas, within the enacting local government’s territory and jurisdiction. The stated goal was to give local laws priority over conflicting state laws in those areas.

• The proposal covered local permitting, zoning, planning, land use, and decisions about where to site projects.
• Its list also included utilities and infrastructure, minerals, natural hazards, water and sewage systems, waste sites, airports, transit, highways, new communities, nuclear detonations, and commercial geothermal electricity.
• It would not have required local governments to pass new laws. If a local government had enacted a law that conflicted with state law in a listed area, the local law would have taken precedence under the proposal.
• The resolution would have sent the amendment to voters. It would have become part of the constitution only if at least 55% of voters voting on it voted “Yes/For,” subject to a cited exception. The resolution failed, so it did not send the proposal to voters.

What it means for you#

• Local governments: If the proposal had passed, a local law in one of the listed areas would have superseded a conflicting state law, but only within that local government’s territory and jurisdiction. The proposal did not require a local government to adopt such a law.
• Residents, businesses, and project operators: Local rules could have taken priority over conflicting state rules for projects and decisions in the listed areas. This is an inference from the proposed rule; the proposal did not set out how any particular project would be affected.
• General public: It would not have changed federal law. The proposal dealt with conflicts between local and state laws.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The resolution directed the secretary of state to submit the proposed amendment to voters if the resolution passed. It gives no estimate of election costs.
• It does not set out an appropriation, tax, fee, or fine. Because the resolution failed, it created no new spending duty.

What is unclear#

• The supplied material does not include current Colorado law on local-state conflicts, so it is not possible to verify how much the proposal would have changed existing rules.
• The proposal does not define terms such as “major,” “key facilities,” “significant impact,” or “efficient utilization.”
• It does not explain how a conflict between state and local law would be resolved, or who would decide whether the local government had jurisdiction.
• It does not explain how the proposal would interact with existing state programs or requirements in the listed areas.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the proposal is that local governments could set rules suited to decisions within their own territory, rather than being overridden by conflicting state laws.
• Giving local laws priority could make local permitting, land use, and siting decisions more locally controlled.
• The proposal applied only within the enacting local government’s territory and jurisdiction, which limited where its priority rule would operate.

Case against#

• The proposal covered many areas, including major infrastructure, water systems, utilities, and transportation. Local rules taking priority could make requirements differ across jurisdictions.
• The proposal does not define several important terms or provide a process for deciding when laws conflict or a local government has jurisdiction.
• The materials do not explain how local priority would work alongside existing state programs or statewide requirements.