Leadership of Colorado’s General Assembly introduced the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Legislative Appropriation bill, HB26-1333, at $75.72 million. That will be the budget to run the state legislature next year. About $74 million comes out of the general fund and the remainder from other sources.

The allocation works out to about $12.80 per Colorado resident at 5.9 million people. The General Assembly works for 120 days every year and runs roughly 660 bills. In 2025, one-third of introduced bills passed.

The legislature’s budget covers legislator salaries at $44,000 per year plus from $99 to $248 per diem depending on how far the members live from the state Capitol. Each legislator gets one paid aide so others are volunteers or are paid out of other funds. Legislators are supported by bill writers and policy staff, attorneys and budget experts, and committee administrators and chamber staffers. Leadership of both parties are allowed more staff to handle their responsibilities.

Colorado has a low number of legislator aides compared to other states. Texas, which meets every other year and pays its legislators $7,000 per session to serve 30.5 million residents, has three to five aides. California and New York pay up to 20 aides with populations at 40 million (California) and 20 million (New York). Texas runs 7,000 to 8,000 bills in its every-other-year session. California runs 4,000 to 5,000 bills every year and New York takes the tops at 15,000 to 20,000. Some legislatures run matching bills in both chambers that can pump up the totals. That way, they can do parallel committee bill hearings to save time.

Every year, legislators run what are called message bills. The minority party, in our case Republicans, want to get the opposition, that is majority Democrats, on the record as voting against Second Amendment rights, in support of various contentious civil rights, for criminal justice reform, etc.

Democrats run bills to push the envelope on some of these issues by supporting more regulation of gun purchases, gender rights in public schools and higher education and adjustments to criminal law and corrections budgets. Republican bills in these areas fail as do some Democratic bills, often depending on how willing the governor and moderate Democrats are to hang their hats on progressive issues.

As an example, Democrats this year are running a pro-labor bill to rid labor organizers of a “second election” to form labor unions. Last year the governor vetoed this same bill. He may again if labor and business interests can’t figure out a way forward.

Beyond these contentious social considerations are other highly complex problems the state faces an legislators must negotiate based on resources provided by $75 million. The state’s budget is thorny. Twenty budget analysts have to sort through the billion-dollar deficit along with six legislators in the Joint Budget Committee in a balance of three members from each party. The majority party leads this committee that bounces back and forth between House and Senate chambers in alternating years. Budget constraints will no doubt lower the total number of bills introduced this year because there will be little to no money for bills with a fiscal note.

The session is more than half over with 472 introduced bills as of March 15. Often the most contentious and difficult bills are saved to later as legislators negotiate with “stakeholders,” meaning the interest groups and lobbyists representing concerned parties.

Colorado has 1,100 registered lobbyists to work 100 legislators, or an 11:1 ratio. Texas is at the same ratio. California has 3,200 registered lobbyists for 120 legislators and New York has 6,100 for 213 legislators. Our Wyoming neighbor has 90 legislators and about 150 lobbyists so they all must be friendly. That may or may not be a good thing.

Given Colorado’s term limits, legislators have a maximum of eight years in either chamber. Lobbyists have no term limits. Many politicos have noted term limits give lobbyists and their clients an advantage due to their historical knowledge and experience.

As an example, AI legislation is both complex and contentious. Most legislators are not technologists or prognosticators with expertise in the wide array of issues connected to AI, from individual privacy, employment considerations, discrimination, economic development, energy use, water resources, etc. It’s clearly difficult for the state’s limited number of legislative policy analysts to have deep expertise in each AI issue. That leaves lobbyists and their interest groups as sources of information.

Interest groups will say they are legislators’ educators, which is true. But they are educators with self-evident biases. Legislators can obviously seek other sources for information to test what comes their way. That effort requires time to read, consult, ponder, sort and decide on issues as unrelated as regulating oil-and-gas drilling and massage parlors. Just reading bills that can run many pages of text is a time-consuming task. Another bill, HB26-1331 sponsored by leadership, will take out $400,000 from interim committees and reduce their analytical work. That reduction cuts to the heart of how informed legislative work is conducted. Interim committees seek expertise from many sources to frame bill language. HB26-1331 may be penny wise but foolish by pounds.

Paula Noonan owns Colorado Capitol Watch, the state’s premier legislature tracking platform.