Colorado's Voting Rights Act Forbids Judges to Ask the Question the Supreme Court Now Requires

When voters in a town split along party lines, and those party lines also follow racial lines, is that discrimination?

The U.S. Supreme Court says a judge has to ask. Colorado's new law says a judge may not.

The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 lets voters challenge election rules that deny minority voters an equal chance to elect the candidates they prefer. For about forty years, courts decided those cases using a test the Supreme Court set out in 1986. In April 2026, in a case called Louisiana v. Callais, the Court made that test stricter. A year earlier, Colorado had gone the opposite direction.

SB25-001 creates the "Colorado Voting Rights Act." It applies to every county, city, and town in the state. School districts and special districts, such as water or fire districts, are left out.

1. Results are enough. A local government may not do anything that "results in, will result in, or is intended to result in a material disparity" between a "protected class" and other voters. A protected class is a racial, color, or language minority group. The key word is "or." Intent to discriminate is one way to break the law, but it is never required.
2. The bar is very low. The law defines "material disparity" as "a non-trivial difference." In plain terms, any difference that is more than tiny can count.
3. The city or county has to prove itself innocent. Once someone shows that non-trivial difference, the burden flips. The local government must prove, "by clear and convincing evidence," that its rule is "necessary to further an important, particularized governmental interest." That is a hard standard to meet. Even if the government meets it, a judge can still throw out the rule if the person suing shows another option would produce a smaller difference.
4. Judges may not ask why. When a lawsuit claims that voting is "polarized," meaning different groups vote in clearly different ways, the court "shall not consider the causes of or reasons for polarized voting, including partisan explanations or discriminatory intent." The court may also find a violation "based on any number or combination of elections, including one election."
5. The money favors the people suing. Any "aggrieved person," including an organization, can sue. The state Attorney General can sue and can demand records from local governments. If the person suing wins, the city or county pays their lawyers. If the city or county wins, it cannot get its legal costs back unless the court finds the lawsuit "frivolous."
6. The court can override other laws. If another law would block the fix a judge wants, "the court may nonetheless order a political subdivision to implement the remedy that is inconsistent with that provision of law."

Now set SB25-001 beside what the Supreme Court decided on April 29, 2026.

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana's second majority-Black congressional district was unconstitutional, because it was drawn mainly by race and the Voting Rights Act did not require it. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. He said a claim under the federal law requires facts that "give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred." The Court also said people bringing these cases must show "racial-bloc voting that cannot be explained by partisan affiliation." In other words, they must show that people are voting by race, after ruling out political party.

That last phrase is the heart of the case. The Supreme Court now requires people suing to rule out politics. Colorado's law orders its judges not to look at politics at all.

Picture a Colorado town where most Hispanic voters vote for Democrats, most white voters vote for Republicans, and Republicans usually win the city council seats. Under Callais, a federal court asks whether that pattern is about race or about party. Under SB25-001, a Colorado court is not allowed to ask. The law counts a party split as a racial split.

A law that forbids a judge to consider the most obvious explanation for a pattern has already decided what the pattern means.

The law applies to elections starting January 1, 2026. The first lawsuit came six months later.

On June 25, 2026, Common Cause Colorado, Citizens Project, and the League of Women Voters of the Pikes Peak Region sued Colorado Springs in Denver District Court. They argue that holding city elections in April, separate from November's state and federal elections, lowers turnout among Black and Hispanic voters. They say turnout for those voters in the city's last six April elections was about half the turnout of white voters. They want city elections moved to November. A similar federal lawsuit filed in 2022 under the federal Voting Rights Act was dismissed. Colorado Springs Mayor Yemi Mobolade says "every active registered voter has the same opportunity to vote," and the city will defend its schedule.

Notice what is being challenged: the calendar. There is no district map or closed polling place in this case. Every registered voter in Colorado Springs is mailed the same ballot. Under SB25-001, a date on the city calendar can be enough to start a lawsuit, and the city must prove by clear and convincing evidence that April is "necessary."

Supporters make fair points. Some election systems really have been used to weaken minority votes, and that history is why the federal Voting Rights Act exists. Local elections held on their own, away from November, do draw far fewer voters, and moving them to November usually raises turnout for everyone. A city council chosen by a small slice of its residents is a real problem.

Those points are fair. They skip past the real question, which is who decides. Colorado Springs voters chose their election calendar. SB25-001 hands that decision to a judge using a "non-trivial difference" test, with party explanations off the table, lawyer fees that favor one side, and the power to override other laws. If moving elections to November is a good idea, the city's voters can make that change. This law lets an outside organization skip them.

Imagine a future Legislature passed a law letting any group sue a city whenever a rule produced a "non-trivial difference" in turnout between rural and urban voters. Imagine it also banned judges from asking why, and made only the city pay lawyers' fees. Today's majority would call that a lawsuit machine aimed at local control. They would be right.

There is also a question Colorado has not answered. SB25-001 pushes courts toward fixes meant to help a protected class elect the candidates it prefers. After Callais, a race-based fix ordered under a state law that never required proof of intent could face its own challenge under the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. No court has ruled on that yet.

SB25-001 passed the Senate 22-12 and the House 43-22. The Senate accepted the House's changes and passed the final version 20-12. Its lead sponsors were Senator Julie Gonzales and Representatives Jennifer Bacon and Junie Joseph, among ten lead sponsors, all Democrats. Governor Jared Polis signed it May 12, 2025. It did not carry a "safety clause," so voters could have gathered signatures to put it on the ballot. No one did.

The Supreme Court now asks whether a voting pattern is about race or party. Colorado wrote a law so its judges never have to answer.

This is our read of the law. We encourage you to read it yourself and reach your own conclusions.