If the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Law passed in May 2024, made it national headlines. That was the law the primary of its kind In the US, it was a comprehensive attempt to regulate “high-risk” artificial intelligence systems in various industries before they might cause harm in the true world.
Gov. Jared Polis signed it reluctantly — but now, lower than a yr later, the governor is supporting a Federal pause on AI laws on the state level. Colorado lawmakers have delayed the passage of the law by June 2026 and seek to repeal and replace portions of it.
The legislature is under pressure Tech industry, Lobbyists and the associated practical elements Costs of implementation.
What Colorado does next will determine whether its early move becomes a model for other states or a lesson within the challenges of regulating latest technologies.
I study how AI and data science are transforming policymaking and democratic accountability. I'm interested to see what Colorado's groundbreaking efforts to control AI can teach other state and federal lawmakers.
The first state to act
In 2024, Colorado lawmakers decided to not achieve this Wait for the US Congress to act on nationwide AI policy. As a congress passes fewer laws due to polarization to stall the legislative processStates have increasingly taken the lead in shaping AI governance.
The Colorado AI Act defines “high-risk” AI systems as people who influence subsequent decisions in employment, housing, healthcare, and other areas of each day life. The aim of the law was straightforward but ambitious: Provide preventative protection for consumers from algorithmic discrimination while promoting innovation.
Colorado’s leadership on this regard is just not surprising. The state has a climate that embraces everyone technological innovation and a fast-growing AI sector. The state positioned itself on the forefront of AI governance, This is predicated on international models comparable to the EU AI law and from data protection frameworks like that 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act. With the initial effective date of February 1, 2026, lawmakers gave themselves ample time to refine definitions, establish oversight mechanisms, and construct capability for compliance.
When the law passed in May 2024, political analysts and advocacy groups hailed it as a breakthrough. Other states, including Georgia and Illinois, introduced bills closely modeled on Colorado's AI billalthough these proposals didn’t reach final adoption. The law was described by the Future of the info protection forum because the “first comprehensive and risk-based approach” to AI responsibility. The Forum is a nonprofit research and advocacy group that develops guidance and policy evaluation on privacy and emerging technologies.
Legal commentators, including attorneys general across the countrynoted that Colorado has created robust AI laws that other states could emulate within the absence of federal laws.
Politics meets processes and slows down progress
Praise aside: passing a bill is one thing, putting it into motion is one other.
Immediately after the signing of the bill Technology corporations and trade associations warned that the law could impose high administrative burdens on startups and discourage innovation. Polis warned in his signing statement: “a fancy compliance regime“That could slow economic growth. He urged lawmakers to reconsider parts of the bill.
Polis called a special session of the Legislature Reconsider parts of the law. Several bills have been introduced to vary or delay its implementation. Industry advocate pushed for narrower definitions and longer timelines. All the time, Consumer groups fought to take care of the protection of the law.
Meanwhile, other states watched closely and adjusted course on comprehensive AI policy. Gov. Gavin Newsom slowed California's own ambitious AI law after it faced similar concerns. In the meantime Connecticut has didn’t pass its AI laws amid a veto threat from Gov. Ned Lamont.
Colorado's early lead became precarious. The same boldness that made it the primary also made the law vulnerable – especially because, as has been seen in other states, Governors can veto, delay or limit AI laws if political dynamics change.
From a giant swing to a small ball
In my opinion, Colorado can remain a frontrunner in AI policy by specializing in “small ball” or incremental policymakingcharacterised by incremental improvements, monitoring and iteration.
This means focusing not only on ambitious goals, but in addition on the sensible architecture of implementation. This includes defining what is taken into account high-risk applications and clarifying compliance obligations. This could include introducing pilot programs to check regulatory mechanisms before full enforcement and producing impact assessments to measure the impact on innovation and equity. Finally, developers and community stakeholders might be involved within the design of norms and standards.
This incrementalism is just not a retreat from the unique goal, but quite realism. The longest enduring policy arises through gradual refinementno comprehensive reform. For example, the EU’s AI law actually implemented regularly and never all of sudden, in response to legal scholar Nita Farahany.
Effective control of complex technologies requires iteration and adaptation. The same was true for Data protection, Environmental regulation And Social media oversight.
In the early 2010s, social media platforms grew unabated, Non-profit, but in addition latest damage. Only after extensive research and public pressure Have governments began? Regulation of content and data practices.
Colorado's AI law could represent the start of an analogous evolution: an early, imperfect step that results in learning, revision, and eventual standardization across states.
The central challenge is to search out a workable balance. Regulations must protect people from unfair or unclear AI decisions without creating such burdens that corporations hesitate to develop or deploy latest tools. With its thriving tech sector and pragmatic political culture, Colorado is well positioned to model this balance through incremental, responsible policymaking. In this fashion, the state can turn a stalled startup right into a blueprint for the way states across the country might responsibly approach AI.
