Last week, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Colorado’s General Assembly may reconvene its legislative session after the public-health danger posed by the COVID-19 pandemic has passed, and pick up from the point at which it was forced to suspend the session to save lives. That was the right decision under the law and under the language of our Colorado constitution.

By overwhelming bipartisan vote on March 14, the General Assembly made the unprecedented decision to suspend its work mid-session. The alternative – continuing the session in the midst of a public-health emergency – would have endangered not only legislators and staff, but the broader Colorado community.

Simultaneously, the General Assembly did the responsible thing under Colorado’s constitution – it sent a formal request for a legal opinion to the Colorado Supreme Court. In that request, the General Assembly asked the Supreme Court to have the final say on the impact of the suspension on the legislative term: Would the legislature be permitted to reconvene to complete its session where it left off, or would the legislative session expire automatically in early May?

In the 1980s, Colorado voters amended the state constitution to limit the regular legislative session to 120 “calendar days.” The key question for the Supreme Court was whether these “calendar days” must be counted consecutively. The constitution’s text does not provide a clear answer; it does not say anything one way or the other about consecutiveness. This contrasts with the constitutions of several other states, which use the phrase “consecutive days” or even “consecutive calendar days” for clarity. In fact, when Colorado voters were first presented with the “calendar days” language in 1982, the election Blue Book informed them that the legislature might construe the term to mean only those days it is actually in session, rather than consecutive days. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the General Assembly that the bare phrase “calendar days” is unclear on this point and does not require that days be counted consecutively in all circumstances.

To address this lack of clarity, the General Assembly long ago exercised its constitutional authority “to determine the rules of its proceedings” by adopting two joint rules interpreting the 120-calendar-day provision. Together, the rules provide that the 120 days will be counted consecutively at all times but one: In the extraordinary situation where the governor declares a state of disaster emergency based on a public-health crisis (like a pandemic), the General Assembly counts only “working” days toward the 120-day limit.

The Supreme Court concluded that this interpretation was consistent with both the constitution’s text and the purposes underlying the provision. Three points about these joint rules are worth highlighting.

First, the General Assembly adopted each of these joint rules by unopposed, bipartisan votes. In fact, at the beginning of every General Assembly since the rules were first adopted, Republican and Democratic legislators have re-approved them without a single objection. In other words, this is not and should not be a partisan issue.

Second, the exception is intentionally narrow and only to be used in extraordinary circumstances. This is the first time it has been invoked since its adoption in 2009. The ongoing risk to public health and safety posed by COVID-19 is without modern precedent – and so too is the General Assembly’s decision to suspend operations mid-session. Put simply, this is not a situation likely to happen with any regularity – or possibly ever again.

Third, the exception is not within the control of the General Assembly itself; it is triggered only by external events. Specifically, the governor must declare a state of disaster emergency; the emergency must be “caused by a public health emergency infecting or exposing a great number of people to disease, agents, toxins, or other such threats,” and the governor must activate the Colorado emergency operations plan. These circumstances are not only uncommon, but beyond the General Assembly’s power to influence. Any concern about that a future legislature could abuse the rule and seek to extend the legislative session in the absence of a true public-health emergency is unfounded.

The General Assembly did the right thing for Colorado and under the law when it suspended its legislative session to protect the public and asked the Supreme Court to decide the impact of that decision on its term under the Constitution. And the Court did the right thing by providing needed clarity to the General Assembly as it considers when and how it can safely reconvene. All Coloradans benefit by allowing their duly elected representatives to have the time needed in a crisis to do the work that they were sent to the Capitol to do.

The Court’s decision – fully supported by the Constitution and long-standing legal precedent – permits those representatives to fulfill their constitutional obligations. And it allows them to do so without jeopardizing the health and safety of themselves, their staffs and families, members of the public whose participation in the legislative process is essential to a robust democracy, and the Colorado community more broadly.

John Walsh, former U.S. attorney for Colorado and partner at WilmerHale in Denver, and Michael Hazel, counsel with the firm, represented the Colorado General Assembly before the Colorado Supreme Court.