Colorado lawmakers are one step away from securing guaranteed unpaid leave from their day jobs during the legislative session after the House narrowly approved the proposal Thursday.

Senate Bill 087 would require businesses to allow employees who are members of the Colorado General Assembly to take unpaid leave during the regular legislative session and special sessions.

The sponsors said it would make it easier for working‑class residents to serve in the Colorado General Assembly. Critics said serving in the legislature is a public service — meaning it warrants sacrifice for those who want to be a legislator.

Several other states require employers to allow for unpaid legislative leave, including Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, and Nevada.

The bill — sponsored by Sens. Katie Wallace, D-Longmont, and Byron Pelton, R-Sterling, and Reps. Kenny Nguyen, D-Broomfield, and Mandy Lindsay, D-Aurora — passed on a 33-31 vote in the House, with all Republicans and nine Democrats voting against it. It cleared the Senate on a 23-11 vote, with all Republicans, except Pelton, voting no. It now heads to the governor’s desk for signature.

The bill, as proposed, would exempt small businesses and employees who make more than 120% of their area’s median income.

Wallace previously told Colorado Politics that the bill is intended to diversify the Colorado General Assembly, where the average member is currently over 50 and either retired or working a high-paying job.

“The predominant folks we’re trying to make sure are included in this bill are public sector employees, like teachers, firefighters, and county employees,” Wallace said. “Those folks who really are experts in their issue-areas because of their direct experience in them, but they can’t access this because they would have to give up their job. You need people from all these different career backgrounds to inform the policy, but they can’t come here because of their careers. It kind of defeats the point.”

Republicans argued that being an elected official is a sacrifice and one that will likely come with a pay cut.

“We must remember that this job is a public service,” said Rep. Ava Flanell, R-Colorado Springs. “It’s not meant to be easy, and we are here to serve our constituents, not ourselves. You are a public servant, and there is some sacrifice that has to be made when taking this position.”

Flanell also argued that if lawmakers stuck to the five-bill limit, they would have more time to do their outside jobs.

During the House debate, Lindsay told her colleagues, “A representative democracy works best when the people making decisions reflect the full range of experiences, backgrounds, and economic realities of the communities they serve. The General Assembly should include working-class residents, caregivers, public service employees, small business owners, and people in hourly or non-traditional jobs, not just those who can afford to serve.”

Colorado lawmakers are paid just over $40,000 a year — nowhere near enough to support a family without a second job or income, she said.

Employers are required to provide leave to individuals performing other civil duties, such as military service or jury duty, Nguyen added.

Colorado lawmakers who began their term before 2025 are paid $43,977, while those who started after get $47,561. The legislature is in session for 120 days, starting in January and ending sometime in May, so lawmakers are tied to the state Capitol only several months a year, though some have interim committees after the session is over.

That pay also doesn’t count legislators’ per diem — allowances that they get for showing up at the state Capitol — and mileage reimbursement.

In 2025, legislators approved an increase — to $71 per day for lawmakers who live within 50 miles from the state Capitol. Legislators who live more than 50 miles from the Capitol get $254 per day.

Many have argued that this pay situation leaves some, especially younger legislators who are single or have families, with a difficult choice — find a job that allows them to be absent for four months of the year or live on less than the state’s median income per person.

Others have argued that Colorado has a citizen-legislature — it’s supposed to be a part time duty, a way of giving back to the community, and not a career.

Republicans who oppose the legislation said they agree that changes are needed to make running for office more accessible to people across different age groups and socioeconomic backgrounds, but they don’t believe this bill is the way to do so.

While the session is 120 days, being a state lawmaker is undoubtedly a full-time job, said Rep. Matt Soper, R-Delta. He believes lawmakers should be paid accordingly but feels SB 087 took a “scary approach” to solving the issue, he said.

“To me, it’s difficult to vote yes on a bill to preserve jobs for legislators when legislators make a choice to run,” added Rep. Lori Garcia Sander, R-Eaton, saying that she believes the bill equates to lawmakers “patting themselves on the back” and ensuring they keep their own jobs while their constituents worry about holding down a job.