Reviewers flag timing and binding-language concerns in companion initiative on Pinnacle separation and carrier-of-last-resort language

A review-and-comment hearing on March 5, 2026 focused on drafting issues in proposed initiative 2-49, a companion measure to 2-48 that also envisions separating Pinnacle Assurance from the state to fund workforce development but removes a commissioner-adopted risk plan and adds a legislative declaration about a carrier-of-last-resort program.

Jennifer Berman of the Office of Legislative Legal Services read the major purposes of 2-49, which mirror 2-48 in many respects but differ by removing the commissioner-mandated risk plan and adding a declaration that the General Assembly, in consultation with the commissioner and insurers, may develop a carrier-of-last-resort program. Berman corrected one drafting error on the record and noted one previously listed purpose did not belong in the February version.

OLLS raised constitutional and drafting concerns. Staff cited the Colorado constitutional principle that one General Assembly cannot bind future General Assemblies and suggested the declaration should not read as a mandate. OLLS asked proponents to reword the declaration to express intent or expectation rather than a command; proponents agreed they would consider language along the lines of "the people intend that the General Assembly in consultation with the commissioner... assess appropriate options and pursue legislation."

Timing was a central issue. The measure sets Pinnacle's full separation as of July 1, 2027. OLLS asked what happens between that date and the next legislative session if no carrier-of-last-resort legislation is enacted; proponents replied that pending claims would remain obligations of Pinnacle and that the transition could rely on emergency rulemaking or temporary arrangements, but they acknowledged the schedule would be tight.

Fiscal staff and OLLS also clarified assumptions about premium-tax treatment and TABOR. A fiscal analyst said earlier assumptions that premium-tax revenue would be exempt from TABOR were not the proponents' intent; proponents confirmed that, except for the one-time $150 million, premium taxes were expected to be treated as typical premium-tax revenue and subject to TABOR unless otherwise specified.

The panel closed substantive questions for 2-49 after receiving the proponents' willingness to revise language on the declaration, timing, and implementation details; the hearing then adjourned. The review is intended to produce drafting changes so ballot language reflects clear legal effect and implementation mechanics.