Have you heard about the new progressive Colorado ballot measure enshrining in the state constitution a “right” to buy solar power? It states, “Consumers have the right to purchase solar power for cooking or heating in homes or businesses throughout the state.” It adds that utilities have the right to sell it.
This is a terrible idea because an alleged right to buy something imposes a duty on others to sell it. Compare: One person’s out-of-context “right” to buy a house imposes a duty on someone else to sell the person a house. Who has that duty, under what conditions, and at what cost? The ballot language promises legal chaos, great news for opportunistic lawyers.
It is also stupid to enshrine one particular sort of energy in the state Constitution. What if nuclear power becomes so cheap, reliable, and widespread that solar no longer is economically viable? Under the ballot language, will people still be able to sue to force others to sell them solar?
Oh, wait. I had that wrong.
You haven’t heard about the measure on solar power because it doesn’t exist. Instead, conservatives have proposed a measure, Initiative 177, to enshrine an alleged “right” in the constitution to buy natural gas. And it is a bad idea for exactly the same reasons a measure on solar power would be a bad idea.
I am not the only person to raise these concerns. Colorado’s Legislative Council issued a November 12, 2025, memorandum on a version of the language stating:
“A right creates a duty that is placed on other people. . . . Given that this proposed initiative grants rights: a. Who has these duties? b. What is the nature of these duties? Do they mean that the person with the duty must actively provide the energy, products and services, or natural gas? Do they mean that the person with the duty must not prevent the producer or utility from selling the energy, products and services, or natural gas?”
Generally, people do have a right to buy things that are legal to own, with the crucial proviso, from willing sellers. That is precisely the proviso the ballot measure lacks.
Imagine if, late in the 1800s, Coloradans had enshrined in the constitution a “right” to purchase covered wagons, even if in the future no one wanted to sell them. Would we today have a state-funded wagon store collecting dust to ensure compliance?
Let’s say a developer wants to provide only electric lines and not gas pipes. Or let’s say a developer wants to build a subdivision using entirely geothermal or nuclear energy, options that someday may exist. Under the ballot language, could someone sue to force the private developer also to provide natural gas lines? Obviously the language invites just this sort of legal wrangling. Who would win such a suit depends on how the courts interpreted the language.
Notably, the same crew behind Initiative 177, Michael Fields and Steven Ward of Advance Colorado, also proposed Initiative 19, which stated, in part, “State and local government shall not ban or restrict products or services powered by an energy supply in common use based on the energy source that powers or fuels that product or service.”
This measure was denied title setting “on the grounds that [the] measure does not constitute a single subject.” Elsewhere we can complain about the arbitrariness and resulting abuses of the single-subject rule. Here the point is that the alternate language clearly would have restrained government without confusing rights with positive duties.
The Independence Institute’s Sarah Montalbano claims, “Initiative 177 . . . simply bars the government from banning Coloradans from purchasing natural gas or prohibiting utilities from selling it.”
Sorry, but that’s not what the language says at all. The language doesn’t say anything about restraining government. It talks only about creating an alleged “right” to purchase. Now, could someone plausibly interpret the language to apply only to government bans? Sure. But someone also plausibly could interpret the language to allow for suits against private developers.
During a Nov. 14 hearing for the proposal (time stamp 10:11:34), legislative staff again brought up the point about positive duties. A lawyer for Advance Colorado claimed, “The duty is basically upon the government not to interfere with that right” to purchase natural gas.” But that simply is not what the language of the measure actually says.
In his January 23 interview with the Institute, Fields says that drawing up the matter as an “affirmative right” was partly a PR matter:
“There’s other times when it’s like, hey, do you want to pass something that bans local governments or state governments from doing X, Y, or Z? That language is a lot harder to pass. When you have an affirmative right that you’re saying, do you want to keep this right that you already have right now that’s being taken away from you? You have better numbers on that.”Amending the state constitution is serious business. It should not be about waging culture wars, getting out the vote, or any such thing.
The only relevant question is whether the language constitutes good law. Initiative 177 fails that test.
Ari Armstrong writes regularly for Complete Colorado and is the author of books about Ayn Rand, Harry Potter, and classical liberalism. He can be reached at ari at ariarmstrong dot com.