Grab your popcorn — it’s going to be an interesting 2026 legislative session in Colorado.

There’s not much you can count on these days, but if you’ve been around the state Capitol long enough, you’ve probably seen your fair share of disagreements, both friendly and unfriendly — and you can be sure you’ll see even more when lawmakers gavel in for the session on Jan. 14.

Here are a few of the biggest battles already brewing among lawmakers ahead of the session.

The urban-rural divide

Nearly 80% of Colorado’s land is considered rural or frontier, but about 86% of the state’s population resides in urban areas, according to Census data. The rural minority has long felt excluded from major policy decisions.

As noted in the Colorado Politics’ Rural Reckoning series, many rural Coloradans feel the legislature and Gov. Jared Polis don’t fully understand the realities of rural life, particularly agriculture.

Sen. Rod Pelton, R-Cheyenne Wells, told Colorado Politics over the summer that Polis has “driven a railroad spike into the rural-urban divide in Colorado.”

Polis disagreed with that statement, with a spokesperson arguing he “deeply values” Colorado’s farmers and ranchers and he has been a “big booster” of Colorado agriculture during his time as governor.

Lawmakers passed several pieces of legislation during the 2025 session aimed at helping rural communities, particularly in health care. One bipartisan measure established stabilization payments for safety-net providers, while another prevented pharmacy benefit managers from prohibiting rural pharmacies from using private couriers or delivery services to deliver prescriptions to patients.

However, rural lawmakers often accuse their urban counterparts of passing policies that affect only their constituents and not the entire state.

Expect to hear the words “urban-rural divide” many times throughout the 2026 session.

Labor vs. business

Prepare for another fight between labor unions and business owners this session, as it appears likely that the sponsors of a measure seeking to repeal the state’s Labor Peace Act will return this year after Polis vetoed it in 2025.

The bill, referred to by supporters as the Worker Protection Act, would repeal the state’s requirement that a second election be held to establish a union security agreement at a unionized workplace. Colorado is the only state that requires such an election.

Support for the legislation was split along party lines. Republicans, even those who said they generally support unions, expressed worries about changing the status quo.

During a floor debate, former Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, R-Monument, said the Labor Peace Act has provided “balance, fairness and economic stability” in Colorado for more than 80 years.

He described the proposal’s requirement that all employees pay union representation fees, regardless of union membership, as “coercion.”

“(The bill) is being sold as a pro-worker bill, but let’s be clear, it’s an anti-worker freedom bill,” he said.

Assistant Majority Leader Jennifer Bacon, D-Denver, one of the bill’s sponsors in the House, said the proposal is “not asking for anything that is unique,” considering Colorado is the only state in the country that requires two elections to begin discussions on union security agreements.

“We all need labor, and the principle of this bill says that those that want to show up and say they want to collectively bargain can do so in one vote,” she said. 

When the bill was introduced, Polis told sponsors he would veto it unless labor and business reached a compromise. Business leaders argued that eliminating the second election would require all workers to pay union fees, regardless of whether they are union members, while unions contended it is only fair for all employees to pay those fees, since unions are legally required to represent and advocate for all employees, regardless of membership.

A compromise was never reached, and although the bill passed both the House and the Senate, Polis kept his promise and vetoed it. It is unknown whether any changes have been made to this year’s prospective legislation.

State vs. Local control

Both Republicans and Democrats have advocated that local governments be the ultimate authority on certain issues, but lawmakers have struggled to determine when the state should intervene and when decisions should be left to local governments.

Housing policy, in particular, tends to draw concerns over local versus state control.

Last spring, several cities on the Front Range filed a lawsuit against the state to challenge the legality of two laws passed during the 2024 session: one that prohibits municipalities from enacting minimum parking requirements at multi-family developments, and another that established a new category of local government known as a “transit-oriented community” and required them to meet certain zoning capacity goals for housing.

“Colorado municipalities will not be bullied by an administration and legislature that gives lip service to local control but does not understand or respect home rule authority,” said Kevin Bommer, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League. “Local elected officials swore to uphold the same state constitution as state legislators and the governor. That includes the home rule amendment to the Constitution that guarantees local control over matters of local and municipal concern, such as land use authority. This was always going to end in litigation, given the refusal to respect the constitution and local officials’ obligation to defend their communities’ desires.”

Colorado is home to more than 100 home-rule municipalities, cities and towns that have the authority to manage their own affairs, rather than rely solely on state law.