State digital accessibility laws

Why state laws matter

The federal 2024 DOJ rule is the most visible source of digital accessibility obligation for state and local public entities, but it is not the only one. Several states have enacted accessibility laws that apply directly to state agencies and to entities receiving state funding. These state laws operate independently of the federal rule.

Two practical consequences follow:

1. An entity covered by a state law has accessibility obligations regardless of federal regulatory activity. State law continues to bind even if the federal rule is delayed or rescinded.
2. State law exceptions and exemptions are different from federal ones. A document that qualifies for a federal exception (archived web content, preexisting electronic documents) may not qualify for a state-law analog because no analog exists in state law.

States with codified accessibility laws

Several states have laws that mandate WCAG 2.1 AA (or earlier standards) for state agencies, recipients of state funding, or specific categories of entity. The most consequential for current operations:

• California: Government Code §§ 11135 and 7405, plus CCCCO Memo ESS 26-17 for community college districts
• Colorado: HB21-1110, mandating WCAG 2.1 AA for state agencies with civil penalties
• Texas: 1 TAC Chapter 213, the state's accessibility administrative rule, harmonized with federal Section 508 standards
• Minnesota: Statute § 16E.03, requiring state agencies to comply with WCAG and other accessibility standards
• Illinois: Information Technology Accessibility Act (IITAA), requiring state agencies and recipients to provide accessible web content

Other states have introduced bills, adopted executive orders, or implemented procurement-based requirements that function as accessibility floors without rising to general statutory mandates. The state-by-state landscape changes regularly.

California

California has multiple overlapping sources of digital accessibility obligation for state and local public entities.

Government Code § 11135

Government Code § 11135 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by any program or activity conducted by, funded by, or receiving financial assistance from the State of California. The non-discrimination obligation includes accessibility of digital communications and electronic information technology.

Government Code § 7405

Government Code § 7405 requires state entities and entities receiving state funding to comply with accessibility standards for electronic and information technology, referencing federal Section 508 standards as the operative baseline. This includes universities, community colleges, K-12 districts that receive state funds, and many other state-funded entities.

CCCCO Memo ESS 26-17 (February 27, 2026)

The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office issued Memo ESS 26-17 directing all 73 community college districts to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA conformance for digital documents (Source: CCCCO Memo ESS 26-17, February 27, 2026 ) . The memo is explicit about scope: PDFs, Word, Excel, LMS content, SharePoint, email, HR portals, mobile apps, and social media. The memo operates independently of the federal rule and would persist regardless of federal regulatory activity.

AB 1757 (died in committee, August 2024)

California's proposed AB 1757 would have explicitly mandated WCAG 2.1 AA across all state agencies and recipients, with a private right of action for noncompliance. It died in committee in August 2024. The underlying Government Code provisions above remain in force regardless.

AB 1757's failure does not eliminate California's accessibility obligation; it simply means the obligation continues to be enforced through the existing Government Code framework rather than the more explicit (and more aggressively enforceable) framework AB 1757 proposed.

Colorado

Colorado HB21-1110 requires Colorado state agencies to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA conformance for digital content. The law took effect for state agencies on July 1, 2024.

Key features:

• WCAG 2.1 AA is the codified technical standard
• Civil penalties up to $3,500 per violation
• Private right of action under the law
• Coverage of state agencies; political subdivisions of Colorado may be reached separately under state nondiscrimination law

The Colorado approach (statutory mandate plus civil penalties plus private right of action) is more aggressively enforceable than the California framework, which relies on the existing nondiscrimination administration. For entities operating in both states, the Colorado obligation is typically the more constraining of the two.

Procurement-based floors

Beyond statutory mandates, many states impose accessibility requirements through procurement law. State purchasing rules frequently require that information technology procured by the state meet Section 508 or WCAG-derived accessibility standards. These procurement floors function as accessibility floors for the products and services the state buys and deploys.

For public entities receiving state IT through cooperative purchasing, joint powers arrangements, or state contracts, the procurement-floor accessibility requirement is part of the operational landscape regardless of general statutory law in the state.

States without specific accessibility statutes

Most U.S. states do not have a codified digital accessibility statute analogous to Colorado HB21-1110. In those states, public entity accessibility obligation comes from:

• Federal ADA Title II (the underlying statute and the 2024 rule)
• Federal Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (for entities receiving federal funding)
• State nondiscrimination law applied to digital communications
• Procurement-based accessibility requirements where state IT or state-funded IT is involved
• Specific state administrative rules where adopted

A state without a specific accessibility statute is not a state without accessibility obligation. The federal framework continues to apply, and state nondiscrimination law typically reaches digital communications under general principles even without explicit codification.

The contingency value

The current political environment around the 2024 DOJ rule (the February 2026 OIRA submission; see Current rule status) makes state law more important, not less, for compliance planning. Three scenarios:

Federal rule unchanged

Federal and state obligations stack. Entities subject to both meet the more stringent of the two on any given criterion.

Federal rule modified or delayed

State obligations continue in force unchanged. Entities in states with codified accessibility law continue to be bound by that law regardless of federal modification.

Federal rule rescinded

The 2024 rule's specific WCAG 2.1 AA mandate would no longer be the federal floor. The underlying ADA nondiscrimination obligation in 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. continues. State law continues to bind state-law-covered entities. Private litigation continues. Pre-2024 DOJ settlements remain valid law-of-the-case for the entities involved.

In all three scenarios, state-level obligation persists. For entities in California, Colorado, and the other states with codified accessibility law, the practical compliance posture does not change meaningfully based on what happens to the federal rule.