Colorado-Specific Law (Essay)
Colorado-specific law (essay)
The Colorado-specific essay component tests state law and policy that the UBE does not: the Colorado Constitution, home-rule authority, water rights, employment and civil-rights statutes, governmental immunity, and open-government law. The questions reward precise use of Colorado authority and attention to how state law displaces or supplements general UBE rules.
Core rules
- Home rule: Colo. Const. art. XX gives home-rule municipalities charter and ordinance power over local matters. A home-rule ordinance is presumed valid, but state law prevails on matters of statewide concern and when express, implied, or operational conflict exists.
- Water: Colorado follows prior appropriation under Colo. Const. art. XVI. Rights are created by beneficial use and confirmed by decree; priority is “first in time, first in right.” A junior appropriator must curtail when a senior calls the water, absent a valid substitute supply or court order.
- Employment covenants: C.R.S. § 8-2-113 limits noncompetes to specified settings, including sale of a business, trade-secret protection, recovery of training costs, and certain high-level or highly compensated employees. Notice and choice-of-law rules matter.
- Civil rights: The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, C.R.S. § 24-34-401 et seq., prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations and generally requires administrative exhaustion before the Colorado Civil Rights Division.
- Governmental immunity: The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act waives immunity only for specified claims; notice-of-claim and willful-and-wanton issues are recurring.
Worked example
A home-rule city adopts a 90-day notice requirement for rent increases. A state statute sets a 30-day rule and expressly occupies the field of landlord-tenant law. A landlord challenges the ordinance. The city has art. XX authority, but the state statute expressly occupies the field and the subject is a statewide concern. The city’s longer period conflicts with the uniform state scheme, so the state law preempts. The ordinance is invalid. If the statute were only a floor, the city could impose a stricter local rule; the express field occupation controls.
Traps
Do not assume home rule always wins. Do not analyze water as riparian rights. Do not ignore CADA exhaustion or CGIA notice. Do not cite federal doctrine when the question asks for Colorado law. Do not treat a state statute as irrelevant to a home-rule ordinance.