Skip to main content
Independent and nonpartisan. SaveYourState is a civic information resource. It is not a government website and is not affiliated with any government agency, party, or campaign.

Colorado · 2026 Regular Session · Bill

SB 149: Pathways for Individuals with Mental Health Disorder

Enacted Official data

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed one chamber
  4. Passed both chambers
  5. Enacted

Last official action: ·Record last updated:

Plain-language summary

SB 149 is a bill introduced in the Colorado Senate on March 26, 2026. According to its official title, it concerns: Pathways for Individuals with Mental Health Disorder. Primary sponsor: Julie McCluskie (Democratic), Jarvis Caldwell (Republican), Cleave Simpson (Republican), Judy Amabile (Democratic). It lists 62 additional sponsors. Most recent recorded action (May 21, 2026): Governor Signed.

Generated automatically from the official title, sponsor list, and status record only. It does not characterize the bill’s purpose or effects. How summaries are written

Official summary

Abstract published by the legislature (via Open States). Text as published by the legislature; reproduced verbatim.

Under current law, if a defendant is found incompetent to proceed and the defendant will not be restored to competency in the foreseeable future, the court is required to dismiss charges against the defendant and the defendant, in limited circumstances, may be referred for certification for short-term treatment through a civil court process. The act maintains the requirement for the court to dismiss the charges against a defendant if the defendant's highest charged offense is among certain misdemeanor offenses, and the act maintains certification for short-term treatment as an option for the defendant. However, if the defendant is unrestorable or the defendant has reached the statutory maximum time permitted to be restored, the act authorizes the district attorney or county attorney (prosecution) to notify the court that the prosecution seeks civil commitment or an enhanced protective placement of a defendant if the prosecution can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant:Has a mental disability or developmental disability;Committed an act that, in the absence of any mental disability or developmental disability, would constitute homicide, a crime of violence, or a felony that constitutes unlawful sexual behavior, and the act is or was charged in a criminal case in Colorado in which competency was raised; and Poses a substantial risk of serious harm to others.     If the prosecution seeks civil commitment or an enhanced protective placement, the court is required to stay the order dismissing the defendant's case, set a trial within 91 days after the date the written notice was filed, and order the department of human services (CDHS) to identify an appropriate provider and placement for the defendant in the event a civil commitment or enhanced protective placement is granted. The defendant may stipulate that the court order a civil commitment or enhanced protective placement.     If the court finds the prosecution has not met its burden, the court is required to deny the prosecution's request to civilly commit the defendant or order an enhanced protective placement of the defendant; except that the court may consider whether to order other civil proceedings. If the court finds the prosecution has met its burden, the court is required to order the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement of the defendant, place the defendant and issue any related orders, transfer jurisdiction of the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement to an appropriate civil court with jurisdiction, and dismiss the defendant's criminal case. When the court orders the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement, the court shall make a finding of the defendant's primary diagnosis that constitutes the mental disability or developmental disability. The court shall order the defendant civilly committed to the legal custody of CDHS unless the defendant's primary diagnosis is an intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) or a neurocognitive disorder, in which case, the court shall order an enhanced protective placement and legal custody of the defendant to the department of health care policy and financing (HCPF). If CDHS proposes placing the defendant into inpatient care, the court shall order, without further court review, that the defendant be placed into inpatient care at the discretion of CDHS if the court ordered a civil commitment or that the defendant be placed into inpatient care at the discretion of HCPF if the court ordered an enhanced protective placement. If CDHS has not identified an appropriate provider that is willing to accept placement of the defendant, the court shall set a review hearing within 35 days after the order for civil commitment or enhanced protective placement and order CDHS, in consultation with the behavioral health administration (BHA), to identify at least one appropriate provider.     Upon receiving jurisdiction of a civil commitment or enhanced protective placement, the act requires the civil court to supervise the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement by notifying the county attorney, appointing an attorney to represent the respondent, and setting a review hearing. At the hearing, the respondent has the right to request modification of the terms of the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement and the right to periodic review, including whether the respondent qualifies for termination of the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement. The court is required to ensure the respondent is placed in the least-restrictive setting adequate to protect the victims and community. If the respondent is not placed into inpatient care at the discretion of CDHS, or if CDHS proposes to move the respondent into or out of inpatient care, the court shall, prior to modifying the civil commitment or enhanced protective placement to change the respondent's provider or placement, review the appropriateness of the proposed provider or placement. The provider charged with the physical care and custody of the respondent is required to submit a report to the court and the parties annually by the date the respondent was civilly committed or ordered into enhanced protective placement unless a substantially similar examination was ordered by the court within the previous 12 months.     The act requires the court to terminate the respondent's civil commitment or enhanced protective placement if the respondent no longer poses a substantial risk of serious harm to others or the respondent does not have the applicable disorder or disability that is likely to cause the respondent to be a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others and the respondent has demonstrated sufficient capacity and willingness to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. If the respondent does not meet the criteria for termination, the respondent is not entitled to another termination trial within one year after the conclusion of the previous trial.     The court shall convert a civil commitment to an enhanced protective placement if the respondent does not meet the criteria for termination but the respondent has a mental health disorder that is an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder, without having any other mental health disorder that is not an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder and that substantially contributes to whether the respondent is a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others, or is gravely disabled. If the defendant does not meet the criteria for termination and has co-occurring mental health disorders that include an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder, the court may, upon the recommendation of CDHS, convert the civil commitment to an enhanced protective placement.     The court shall convert an enhanced protective placement to a civil commitment if the respondent does not meet the criteria for termination and the respondent no longer has an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder that substantially contributes to whether the respondent is a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others, or is gravely disabled. If the defendant does not meet the criteria for termination and has co-occurring mental health disorders that do not include an IDD or a neurocognitive disorder, the court may, upon the recommendation of CDHS, convert the enhanced protective placement to a civil commitment.     Under current law, an emergency mental health hold (M1 hold) may be initiated against a person for not more than 72 hours if the person appears to have a mental health disorder and, as a result of the mental health disorder, appears to be a danger to the person's self or others, or appears to be gravely disabled. A person detained for an M1 hold and transported to an emergency medical services facility or facility designated by the commissioner (facility) of the BHA is required to receive an evaluation as soon as possible after the person presents to the facility. The act authorizes a person who has an M1 hold initiated against them while in confinement to receive an evaluation at the person's place of confinement rather than being transported to a facility. If the person is released from confinement while under an M1 hold, the person responsible for the confinement is required to coordinate with the BHA to transfer the person to a facility.     Under current law, if a person under an M1 hold meets the criteria for certification for short-term treatment, the person may be certified for not more than 3 months. Rather than requiring an M1 hold as a prerequisite to short-term certification or certification for long-term care and treatment, the act authorizes a person to be certified if the person:Has been advised of the availability of, but has not accepted, voluntary treatment or with consideration of all reasonably available information, is believed will not remain in voluntary treatment; and By clear and convincing evidence, has a mental health disorder and, as a result of the mental health disorder, the person is a danger to the person's self, a danger to others, or gravely disabled.     A person may not be certified for short-term treatment or long-term care and treatment if the person has an IDD or neurocognitive disorder without any other mental health disorder that is not an IDD or neurocognitive disorder and that substantially contributes to whether the respondent is a danger to the respondent's self or a danger to others, or is gravely disabled. If a respondent is certified, the court shall order CDHS to provide care coordination and make diligent efforts to find a provider for the respondent that is willing to hold the certification. The respondent may be certified for long-term care and treatment if the respondent continues to meet the criteria and standards for certification for short-term treatment. The certification terminates when the professional person in charge of the respondent's treatment and the BHA determine the respondent no longer meets the criteria for certification. To terminate a short-term treatment certification less than 30 days after the initial certification, two professional persons are required to individually consult and review the respondent's case and agree that the respondent no longer meets the criteria for certification.     A court may order the short-term or long-term protective placement of a person:Who, by clear and convincing evidence, has a neurocognitive disorder;When reasonable grounds exist to believe that the person will not remain in a voluntary treatment program; andWho, by clear and convincing evidence, is a danger to the person's self, a danger to others.     The act aligns the provisions for short-term and long-term protective placement with certifications for short-term treatment and long-term care and treatment.     No later than October 1, 2027, the act requires CDHS to construct and operate an outpatient treatment facility for adults with behavioral health needs, including adults who are found incompetent to proceed and unlikely to be restored to competency.     To implement the act, for the 2025-26 state fiscal year, the act appropriates to CDHS $535,934 from the general fund and $4,777,898 from the capital construction fund.     To implement the act, the act makes the following appropriations for state fiscal year 2026-27:$17,802,360 to CDHS from the general fund, of which $242,323 is reappropriated to the department of law and $52,644 to the office of information technology;To the judicial department, $26,296 from the judicial department information technology cash fund and $5,401,437 from the general fund, of which $1,719,409 is for use by the office of state public defender and specified independent agencies;$842,808 to HCPF from the general fund; and$150,000 to the department of law from the general fund.(Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 43 · Republican 22

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Julie McCluskiePrimary sponsorDemocraticHouse13
Jarvis CaldwellPrimary sponsorRepublicanHouse20
Cleave SimpsonPrimary sponsorRepublicanSenate6
Judy AmabilePrimary sponsorDemocraticSenate18
Jennifer BaconCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse7
Mark BaisleyCo-sponsorRepublicanSenate4
Matt BallCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate31
Carlos BarronCo-sponsorRepublicanHouse48
Andy BoeseneckerCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse53
Scott BrightCo-sponsorRepublicanSenate13
Kyle BrownCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse12
Sean CamachoCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse6
John CarsonCo-sponsorRepublicanSenate30
Marc CatlinCo-sponsorRepublicanSenate5
Chad CliffordCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse37
James ColemanCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate33
Monica DuranCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse23
Regina EnglishCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse17
Cecelia EspenozaCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse4
Ava FlanellCo-sponsorRepublicanHouse14
Meg FroelichCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse3
Lorena GarcíaCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse35
Lindsay GilchristCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse8
Lori GoldsteinCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse29
Julie GonzalesCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate34
Ryan GonzalezCo-sponsorRepublicanHouse50
Eliza HamrickCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse61
Tony HartsookCo-sponsorRepublicanHouse44
Jamie JacksonCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse41
Iman JodehCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate29
Junie JosephCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse10
Rebecca KeltieCo-sponsorRepublicanHouse16
Cathy KippCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate14
Barbara KirkmeyerCo-sponsorRepublicanSenate23
Chris KolkerCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate16
Sheila LiederCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse28
Mandy LindsayCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse42
Meghan LukensCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse26
Janice MarchmanCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate15
Bob MarshallCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse43
Matt MartinezCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse62
Tisha MauroCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse46
Karen McCormickCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse11
Kenny NguyenCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse33
Amy PaschalCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse18
Rod PeltonCo-sponsorRepublicanSenate35
Byron PeltonCo-sponsorRepublicanSenate1
Jacque PhillipsCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse31
Janice RichCo-sponsorRepublicanSenate7
Naquetta RicksCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse40
M. RutinelCo-sponsorNot applicable (committee)——
Lori Garcia SanderCo-sponsorRepublicanHouse65
Emily SirotaCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse9
Lesley SmithCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse49
Matt SoperCo-sponsorRepublicanHouse54
Rebekah StewartCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse30
Katie StewartCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse59
Tammy StoryCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse25
Larry SucklaCo-sponsorRepublicanHouse58
Rick TaggartCo-sponsorRepublicanHouse55
Brianna TitoneCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse27
Alex ValdezCo-sponsorDemocraticHouse5
Katie WallaceCo-sponsorDemocraticSenate17
Lynda Zamora WilsonCo-sponsorRepublicanSenate9
Ty WinterCo-sponsorRepublicanHouse47
Dan WoogCo-sponsorRepublicanHouse19

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

  1. Governor Signed
  2. Signed by the President of the Senate
  3. Signed by the Speaker of the House
  4. Sent to the Governor
  5. Senate Considered House Amendments - Result was to Concur - Repass
  6. House Third Reading Passed with Amendments - Floor
  7. House Third Reading Laid Over Daily - No Amendments
  8. House Committee on Appropriations Refer Amended to House Committee of the Whole
  9. House Second Reading Special Order - Passed with Amendments - Committee, Floor
  10. House Committee on Judiciary Refer Amended to Appropriations
  11. Senate Third Reading Passed with Amendments - Floor
  12. Introduced In House - Assigned to Judiciary

Showing 12 most recent of 17 actions. Full history

Sources

  1. Open States / Plural (data from the official legislature website)
  2. Official legislature source