Colorado's SCR 25-002 would authorize the state legislature to remove civil statutes of limitations for sexual abuse claims entirely. A yes vote in November 2026 could make Colorado one of the strongest civil accountability states in the country.
Reviewed by Survivor Justice Alliance · Updated 2026-07-10
State-level civil SOL reform activity in 2026 reflects a sustained national movement toward survivor access to courts. Sources: Shubin Law (2026); Andreozzi + Foote (2026); Sokolove Law (2026).
Colorado's SCR 25-002 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution placing a constitutional amendment question before voters in November 2026. If approved, the amendment would lift existing constitutional barriers that prevent the legislature from passing laws eliminating civil statutes of limitations for sexual abuse claims. In practical terms, it would clear the legal path for a follow-on bill that could permanently remove the civil filing deadline for childhood and adult sexual abuse survivors in Colorado.
Current Colorado law gives childhood sexual abuse survivors until age 24 to file a civil claim, or three years after they discover the connection between their abuse and any resulting injury, whichever occurs later. For many survivors, those deadlines pass before they are ready or able to come forward. Decades of psychological research on trauma responses consistently shows that survivors often cannot process or disclose abuse until well into adulthood, sometimes long after the abuse occurred. A permanent SOL elimination would mean the legal system no longer closes a door based on a timeline the survivor could not control.
The ballot-measure route also offers legal durability that a stand-alone statute does not. When legislatures pass lookback windows or deadline extensions as ordinary bills, those measures can face constitutional challenges on retroactivity grounds. By amending the constitution first, Colorado would establish the legal authority to act before the legislature passes any specific reform, making subsequent laws substantially harder to challenge in court. This procedural design is one reason civil justice advocates have pushed for the constitutional amendment approach rather than direct legislation.
SOL reform efforts in many states have faced opposition from insurers, religious institutions, and school systems arguing that the financial exposure from revived historical claims is unpredictable and potentially disruptive. Those opponents have significant lobbying influence in state legislatures, which has delayed or blocked reform in states including Pennsylvania and Connecticut for years. The ballot-measure process takes a different path: it asks voters directly rather than routing the question through legislative committees where institutional opposition has more leverage.
Colorado is not the first state to pursue constitutional amendment as a foundation for civil accountability reform. The ballot-measure approach removes the question from the legislative horse-trading environment and places it in front of the general electorate, where public support for survivor civil justice tends to be consistently high. The measure that Colorado voters will see in November is not itself a law that opens any window; it is a grant of legislative authority. The actual policy work follows, but the constitutional foundation has to come first.
Advocates believe that asking voters directly tends to produce stronger outcomes than negotiating through legislative bodies where individual institutional interests can concentrate their opposition. The November 2026 Colorado ballot is attracting attention from survivor advocacy organizations nationally as a test of whether the constitutional amendment strategy can succeed in a politically mixed state and serve as a model for others.
Colorado's vote comes in the context of significant SOL reform activity across the country in 2026. Rhode Island enacted legislation creating a two-year civil revival window that opened July 1, 2026, and runs through June 30, 2028, allowing previously time-barred childhood sexual abuse claimants to file lawsuits. California's AB 250 opened a two-year lookback window for adult survivors of sexual assault on January 1, 2026, with the window running through December 31, 2027. New York City's Gender-Motivated Violence Act revival window opened in March 2026 and runs through March 2027.
Delaware's pending HB 75 would go further than any of those measures: it would completely eliminate the civil SOL for childhood sexual abuse claims with no window and no deadline, meaning survivors could file at any point in their lives. Arkansas presents a different situation, where the state Supreme Court is weighing whether to reopen or extend a previously established lookback window. Each state represents a different model and a different stage of reform activity.
The institutional accountability stakes are visible in the settlements these reforms have enabled. The Archdiocese of San Francisco reached a proposed $395 million settlement in 2026, and the Archdiocese of New York put an $800 million proposed settlement on the table to resolve approximately 1,300 claims. Those figures emerged from the conditions created by California's earlier lookback windows. If Colorado voters approve SCR 25-002 and the legislature subsequently acts, institutions operating in Colorado, including dioceses, schools, and youth-serving organizations, would face civil exposure for historical claims that have been off the table for years.
The window between now and the November 2026 election is a meaningful period for Colorado survivors who believe they may have a civil claim. Consulting with a civil sexual abuse attorney does not require filing anything; it is an opportunity to understand what a claim would look like, what evidence matters, and how the current and potential future legal landscape applies to a specific situation. Many attorneys who handle civil sexual abuse cases work on a contingency basis and provide initial consultations at no cost.
Documenting relevant information now is also worthwhile regardless of any ballot outcome. Journal entries, prior correspondence, records of earlier disclosures, and other contemporaneous materials can all be valuable to an attorney assessing a potential claim. The passage of time tends to erode available evidence, and building a record now strengthens any future case. Survivors should not wait for the ballot result to begin that process.
SCR 25-002's passage would not itself create a cause of action; it would only permit the legislature to do so. Even if voters approve the measure in November, it would likely take additional legislative action before a new law is on the books. That means Colorado survivors looking at a potential window have a planning horizon of at least a year before any new legal path is formally open. Attorney consultation now allows survivors to be prepared rather than reactive when that path becomes available. This article is general information and does not constitute legal advice; survivors should speak with a licensed attorney about their individual circumstances. Attorney advertising.
Colorado is one of multiple states where the legal landscape for civil sexual abuse claims is actively shifting in 2026. Here is a state-by-state overview of the most significant changes and pending actions.
The Survivor Justice Alliance is an attorney alliance and advocacy organization, not a law firm; nothing here is legal advice. Attorney advertising. Referrals and consultations are free, and alliance attorneys work on contingency. Support is available 24/7 at the RAINN hotline, 800-656-4673.
SCR 25-002 is a Senate Concurrent Resolution placing a constitutional amendment question before Colorado voters in November 2026. If approved, the amendment would authorize the state legislature to pass laws eliminating civil statutes of limitations for sexual abuse claims, a step the current constitution does not permit.
No. The ballot measure would only grant the legislature the constitutional authority to eliminate the civil SOL. The legislature would then need to pass a separate bill creating any specific lookback window or deadline change. The measure is the first step in a two-step process.
States like Rhode Island and California passed laws directly opening lookback windows. Colorado's constitutional amendment approach is slower but establishes a firmer legal foundation, reducing the risk that the resulting legislation would be struck down in court on constitutional grounds.
Consulting with a civil sexual abuse attorney is a practical step regardless of the ballot outcome. An attorney can assess current legal options, identify what documentation matters, and explain how the situation would change if SCR 25-002 passes. This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Attorney advertising.