Legal Corner - House Bill 26-1039: A path to better lawmaking

On April 27, 2026, Gov. Jared Polis signed House Bill 26-1039 into law, effective Aug. 12, 2026. This act is evidence of a rare occurrence—agreement between CML and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Perhaps this occurrence was aided by the lack of municipal jails in the state of Colorado, but this bill still required many hours of conversation and negotiation before the parties reached this place of agreement. HB26-1039 highlights that it is possible for stakeholders with differing perspectives, as well as bill sponsors, to work together and pass a bill that achieves the goals of the proponents while satisfying the concerns of other stakeholders. This bill is a heartening example of what can be accomplished when everyone is willing to truly listen and put in the hard work. 

 

 

HB26-1039 aligns municipal jail requirements with county jail requirements that were first adopted in 2022. HB22-1063 created a legislative oversight committee concerning Colorado jail standards and a jail standards commission that recommended standards for county jail operations to the committee. The standards address everything from communication, food service, and recreation, to security, health care, and disciplinary processes. 

 

In 2024, HB24-1054 directed every county jail to comply with the oversight committee’s standards by July 1, 2026. The 2024 act also repealed the commission and established a smaller jail standards advisory committee in its place to plan assessments of jails, provide recommendations for revising jail standards, and establish a process to grant variances from the standards. 

 

HB26-1039 requires municipal jails to comply with the standards adopted by the legislative oversight committee beginning July 1, 2027, as well as the requirements imposed on county jails in Article 26 of Title 17, which address treatment of pregnant persons in custody, medical care, housing, examination of the jail by the city’s governing body, reporting, and more. HB26-1039 adds a nonvoting municipal representative to the jail standards advisory committee to provide a municipal perspective and adds a definition for “municipal jail” to C.R.S. § 31-15-401(1)(j). 

 

 

Given the lack of municipal jails in Colorado, one may be wondering why anyone cared about HB26-1039 in the first place. While there are no municipal jails in the state based on the common understanding of what constitutes a jail, the City of Aurora operates a detention facility that, from time to time, holds individuals up to 72 hours. The ACLU and some Aurora legislators took an interest in passing legislation that would apply county jail standards to Aurora’s detention facility despite that there are certain state standards that already apply to all municipal jails as well as standards that apply to detention facilities. 

 

And, while the legislation was aimed at Aurora’s facility, the proponents also wanted to ensure that any municipal jails erected in the future would also have to comply with these standards. Given the impact to Aurora as well as the impact that this legislation would have on future municipal jails, it was important for CML to play a role in shaping the bill. 

 

 

The introduced version of HB26-1039 would have restricted municipal jails from holding a person for more than 72 hours and did not establish any kind of definition for what constitutes a municipal jail. Together, these provisions raised concerns about not only the impact to future municipal jails, but on temporary holding cells that many police departments currently utilize after arresting an individual and before transporting them to a county jail. While it seemed reasonable to align standards for true county and municipal jails, it is unreasonable to apply those standards to temporary holding facilities not designed for long term care and keeping of individuals. Additionally, to the extent a municipality chooses to open a municipal jail in the future, municipalities should have the ability to operate jails where individuals can serve their entire sentence for a violation of a municipal offense which, depending on the nature of the offense, could be up to 364 days. 

 

Through conversations, the bill sponsors clarified that their intent was to require bond hearings within 72 hours and that they were not seeking to apply county jail standards to temporary holding facilities. While some proponents appeared to push the idea that county jail standards should apply to anyone in custody, the bill sponsor’s logic ultimately won out. 

 

Because bond hearings already must occur within 48 hours under existing law, the 72-hour limitation was simply omitted. The concept of applying the county jail standards to Aurora’s detention facility but not to temporary holding cells presented more of a challenge, particularly given the lack of statutory definitions for these different terms. The ACLU’s proposed definition for “municipal jail” raised concerns, but after numerous conversations to negotiate the details, the ACLU accepted one of CML’s proposed definitions: 

 

“‘[M]unicipal jail’ means a city or town jail, detention facility, correctional center, or other penal institution that is operated by a municipality and that is used to detain persons facing criminal charges and persons convicted of crimes. A municipal jail does not include holding cells at court facilities, police stations, or reform schools.” 

 

This definition sought to encapsulate the concept that a jail is a place that holds both individuals charged with and convicted of crimes, while specifically exempting holding cells that may from time to time briefly hold individuals in varying stages of the judicial process (e.g., after arrest but before transfer to a county jail, as well as after a court conviction but prior to transfer to the facility where they will serve their sentence). 

 

While CML was also able to obtain agreement from the bill proponents to add the municipal representative to the jail standards advisory committee, the negotiation of the definition for “municipal jail” was the real success story. While it was not easy to accomplish this agreement, it would not have happened but for the many conversations with all parties taking the time to listen to the goals and concerns of others and find a path forward to satisfy those goals while resolving most concerns. This type of negotiation does not always happen as evidenced by the passage of many bills with outstanding opposition. CML hopes to continue to see this type of engagement and commitment from bill proponents and sponsors going forward. While it is not always easy, it is the best path to better lawmaking.