AURORA | It’s a big, big ballot. Much of the girth this year comes from a whopping 14 statewide ballot questions. Here’s the short take from Colorado Public Radio reporters on what each question does, doesn’t and could.
These analyses were first published at Colorado Public Radio.
Proposition 132: Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes
This measure would increase penalties for fentanyl possession and distribution in the state of Colorado.
The number of fentanyl-related deaths in Colorado was 980 deaths in 2025, up from a five-year low of 761 in 2024. According to data collected by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, most were people between the ages of 25 and 64, most were men, and most were people who have never been married.
And most of those who died were not homeless.
Supporters cite the toll these deaths have taken on Colorado families and a desire to decrease overdoses, while opponents argue measures like this penalize addiction, do not solve the underlying problem, and could lead to an increase in overdoses.
A yes vote would change Colorado’s laws to be stricter on possession and distribution of fentanyl. The proposal would make it a felony to possess any amount of fentanyl. Additionally, those convicted of having the drug with the intention of distributing it would receive a level 1 drug felony, which carries a mandatory prison sentence ranging from 8 to 32 years.
Possession of 1 gram or less (which is currently a misdemeanor for first, second and third offenses) would become a level 4 felony, with an option for the conviction to be vacated if the person completes a treatment program.
The measure would also increase penalties for people who possess a substance but do not know it contains fentanyl. Under current law, a person who provides evidence that they didn’t know about the presence of fentanyl can have the offense treated as a misdemeanor. If voters approve the measure, that would no longer apply. A person could face a felony punishment depending on the amount of the substance.
A no vote would keep Colorado’s fentanyl laws the same. Currently, knowingly possessing more than 1 gram and up to 4 grams of fentanyl or a compound that contains fentanyl is considered a level 4 drug felony. If the defendant provides evidence that they did not know the substance contained fentanyl, it can be treated as a misdemeanor.
A legislative analysis estimated implementation would cost the state around $9 million as more people are sent to prison. It estimated that those costs will increase as people are incarcerated for longer periods, with an estimated total state spending increase of roughly $68 million.
Fentanyl is responsible for hundreds of overdose deaths in Colorado every year, more than any other street drug, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. In 2025, the agency reported fentanyl was involved in 980 overdose deaths.
Two milligrams of fentanyl is considered a lethal dose, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. This measure would change the penalties for people in possession of and distributing fentanyl.
The conservative political nonprofit Advance Colorado is behind the initiative. The group has support from some parents whose children overdosed on fentanyl.
“In many cases, their teenagers didn’t even know they were taking fentanyl. They thought they were buying a Xanax or something like that. It contained fentanyl, and they died,” said Kristi Burton Brown, the executive vice president of Advance Colorado.
Burton Brown said she thinks the measure’s option to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor with the completion of treatment would encourage low-level users to seek treatment.
“The sooner you can get people into treatment, the more likely that their lives are going to be saved,” she said. “Literally a piece of fentanyl that could fit on the tip of a pencil can kill you.”
District Attorney for the 23rd Judicial District George Brauchler said he thinks this measure strikes the right balance between punishment and getting people help. He said he thinks the legislature has been too lenient on the punishments, and he attributes some of the fentanyl crisis in Colorado to harm-reduction practices.
Opponents, like the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, disagree with the premise that this measure will prevent overdose deaths.
Kyle Giddings, the deputy director of the organization, said the measure doesn’t include funding for the treatment options mentioned in order to bump the penalty down from a felony to a misdemeanor.
“It doesn’t fund any of the things we know work, which is funding treatment and access to community resources to avoid overdoses,” he said.
He worries that if passed, the proposal will lead to more overdoses as fewer people call 911 for help when someone around them needs medical attention. And that could mean more overdose deaths.
“People get really scared about staying and getting caught up in the system. And so they tend to leave, which causes overdoses to go up,” he said. “It’s a big step backwards, not forward, in dealing with the crisis.”
Giddings also said the measure would impose harsh sentencing minimums to low-level users. He said the measure sets up people experimenting with drugs, which the individual may not know whether it contained fentanyl, for a mandatory minimum sentence in prison of 8 to 32 years.
“No money exchange, no dealing intent, nothing. Just simple experimentation,” he said.
Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty opposes the measure. He said he thinks it would divert law enforcement resources to low-level possession cases, increasing jail and prosecution costs and leaving fewer resources to prosecute higher-level threats to public safety.
— Ava Kian, CPR News
Amendment 82: Constitutional Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas
Amendment 82 enshrines a right to buy and sell natural gas in Colorado’s constitution and is being proposed by the conservative advocacy group Advance Colorado. It will need the support of at least 55% of voters in November to pass.
If passed, the measure could be grounds to challenge Colorado climate policies that limit the use of natural gas, also known as methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. In a report, Advance Colorado has said that phasing out natural gas, which is required under Colorado climate goals, would lead to higher energy bills.
Environmental groups, on the other hand, say the measure would be a first-of-its-kind for any state and could undercut rules that prevent planet-warming pollution. Colorado’s climate policies require the reduction of statewide greenhouse gas emissions, and some cities, like Denver, have passed rules limiting the use of some gas-fired appliances in new commercial construction.
Because this is a constitutional amendment proposal, it requires 55 percent of voters’ approval to pass.
Advance Colorado believes that state laws should not limit the use of natural gas, which is widely used to heat homes throughout the state and generate electricity. “Clearly, there’s been an effort by the PUC [Public Utilities Commission] and elected officials to go after natural gas,” said Michael Fields, Advance Colorado’s president, in an interview with CPR News.
He also framed the measure as one that protects consumer choice to use the type of energy they prefer.
A coalition of environmental groups, including Conservation Colorado, 350 Colorado, the League of Women Voters, and more, strongly oppose the measure. They believe the wording is “intentionally misleading” and may provide legal cover to overturn rules that prevent air and water pollution, according to Katie Farnan, a managing director at the Bighorn Company, which is coordinating the campaign against the measure.
“We believe that corporate polluters and monopoly utilities will use [the amendment] to overturn lots of different things that are in place now to protect our communities.”
— Ishan Thakore, CPR News·
Amendment 81: Requires local law enforcement to communicate with ICE
The proposal would change the state’s constitution and require local law enforcement to explicitly communicate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which would overrule current state laws banning the practice. The constitutional amendment mandates communication with federal officials when local law enforcement charges a person with a crime and it’s unclear whether that person is in the country legally.
Colorado has state laws in place strictly limiting police cooperation and communication with federal immigration authorities. However, that doesn’t mean federal law enforcement can’t get most information. Crime records, arrests, charging affidavits, when people post bail, and more are usually available on shared criminal databases, which can be accessed by federal law enforcement.
Some law enforcement leaders, including Denver District Attorney John Walsh, say this constitutional amendment would create a “recipe for abuse” that could mean racial profiling.
Because this is a constitutional amendment proposal, it requires 55 percent of voters’ approval to pass.
A yes vote means the state’s constitution would be amended to require local and state law enforcement to notify the U.S. Department of Homeland Security when a person is charged with either a violent crime or any crime if the person has a prior felony conviction if it’s unclear whether that person is in the country with legal status.
A no vote would mean the state constitution would remain unchanged on this front. It would leave in place current laws that prohibit Colorado peace officers from sharing information and cooperating with DHS.
Because it’s a constitutional amendment proposal, it requires 55 percent of voters’ approval to pass.
The vast majority of Coloradans would be unaffected by this directly.
For police officers and prosecutors, it is a little unclear how they would verify whether someone charged with a crime is in the country without authorization. The measure says officers are required to make a reasonable effort to determine whether any person they’re charging with a crime is lawfully present in the United States, but “reasonable effort” is not defined. Also, charging decisions are ultimately made by offices of the elected district attorneys — not law enforcement officers. So it’s unclear what happens if a law enforcement officer sends a case of a questionably lawful citizen to the DA’s office and they don’t take the case up and file formal charges. Will the law enforcement agency report them to DHS anyway?
For undocumented immigrants, current law prohibits Colorado peace officers from sharing information and cooperating with ICE. That would change if this passes because a constitutional amendment would supersede a state law. Currently, state and local law enforcement don’t consider or keep track of immigration status when enforcing state and local laws, even for people charged with violent crimes.
Michael Fields from Advance Colorado, a conservative advocacy organization behind most of this year’s ballot measures, said this keeps Immigration and Customs Enforcement focused on criminals and getting rid of violent criminals who are in the country illegally.
“At least rhetorically, most politicians in the state have said we should basically report and get rid of violent criminals who are in the country illegally. And this current state law prevents that from happening,” he told CPR News.
Civil rights and immigration rights advocates say communities are less safe when local police are required to work with ICE agents because victims of crime and residents don’t make calls for service if they’re afraid they’ll get deported.
ICE already knows who is in jail and what charges they are facing. It’s up to that agency to determine who among them is not lawfully present in the U.S. and to make arrangements to pick them up when released and put them in removal proceedings before, during, or after their criminal cases are complete.
Denver District Attorney John Walsh said the amendment “undermines trust in state and local law enforcement by making them an arm of ICE … Let Colorado law enforcement do its job protecting the people of Colorado without forcing us to report to the federal government.”
— Allison Sherry, CPR News·
Amendment 83: Constitutional right to hunt and fish
Coloradans voted on a ballot measure in 2024 to ban the hunting and trapping of big cats. It failed by a decisive 11 percentage points. At the time, hunting advocates said that measure would not have made it to the ballot if Colorado’s state constitution protected hunting rights.
In 2026, they’re trying to accomplish that goal, with an amendment giving similar rights to hunters as those guaranteed in the constitutions of most neighboring states.
Because this is a constitutional amendment proposal, it requires 55 percent of voters’ approval to pass.
A yes vote guarantees hunting and fishing rights in the state constitution, making efforts to limit certain practices much more difficult. It would make hunting and fishing the state’s preferred means of managing wildlife, which is fundamentally already the state’s current position. The measure does not establish the right to trespass on private property when hunting or fishing.
A no vote leaves the state constitution unchanged. Hunting and fishing would remain legal and regulated under existing state law as well as Colorado Parks and Wildlife rules.
Initially, there would likely be little noticeable change for the average Coloradan. Hunting and fishing would continue under existing licenses, seasons and rules. However, larger impacts could be seen down the road.
Most prominently, future laws or ballot initiatives restricting hunting would be subject to a constitutional challenge.
The state projects no “near-term” change to revenue, expenditures or staffing if the amendment passes. Yet, if CPW sees an increase in legal challenges regarding current rules in light of the new amendment, CPW litigation expenses will rise. The department may also see increased workload as the state looks to take the amendment into account when developing future regulations.
Supporters include the Wisconsin-based Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance and Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management (CRWM), the latter being the main opponent of a 2024 cat hunting ban.
They say the amendment reinforces the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation in the state. It would provide a much higher level of protection against initiatives seeking to restrict it, what they call “ballot box biology.”
Advocates say the inclusion of “traditional methods” in the amendment language would not conflict with or overrule Amendment 14 of the state constitution. That amendment, passed by voters in 1996, prohibited certain types of trapping, like leghold traps, poisons and snares.
Groups, like Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation, lean right into the “traditional methods” provision of the amendment as the linchpin for their opposition. They argue the wording is vague enough to open the door to certain trapping and baiting practices they say Coloradans are against.
Another group, Protect Colorado’s Constitution, argues putting a right to hunt in the state constitution would “prioritize the interests of one specific group” above the rights of other Coloradans, “stripping voters of their voice in future wildlife management decisions.”
Opponents also point to examples of costly lawsuits in other states following the passage of right-to-hunt and right-to-fish amendments, like in Wisconsin and North Carolina. The Wisconsin lawsuit used that state’s amendment in part to force a wolf hunt in the state.
However, in North Carolina, the amendment was used to “protect fisheries for the benefit of the general public” after commercial operations depleted fish and shrimp populations.
— Dan Boyce, CPR NEWS·
Amendment 84: Mail Ballot Voter Identification
Voter fraud happens rarely in Colorado, but a conservative advocacy firm wants to add an additional layer of security to voting. This measure would require voters to provide the last four digits of their driver’s license or Social Security number along with a signature.
Advocates say it will essentially bring two-step verification to mail ballots. But others, like the League of Women Voters, oppose the measure as potentially disenfranchising voters when fraud is rare.
Other states that have experimented with similar provisions saw a high number of rejected ballots. Proponents of this constitutional amendment say Colorado’s systems are better equipped to avoid some of those problems and could actually lead to fewer rejections than relying on a signature alone.
Because this is a constitutional amendment proposal, it requires 55 percent of voters’ approval to pass.
A ‘yes’ vote supports an amendment to the state constitution to require voters to provide additional identifying information on mail ballots, either the last four digits of their driver’s license or Social Security number.
A ‘no’ vote would keep the status quo, where signature matching alone is the method elections officials use to verify the identity of voters.
If this measure passes, mail-ballot voters would be required to take an additional step to verify their identity by writing the last four digits of their Social Security number or driver’s license.
“This is basically a two-factor authentication,” said Suzanne Taheri, an attorney and former deputy secretary of state. She said signature matching is subjective, and providing a partial Social Security or driver’s license number will add an additional layer of security.
In Texas, a similar measure resulted in a spike in ballot rejections in 2022. Voters there either left the number section blank or entered the wrong identification number.
Taheri said that in Colorado, the voter database already includes both Social Security and driver’s license numbers, and either number would authenticate the ballot. She added that the addition of the number could allow election officials to turn down the sensitivity of the signature matching on ballot counting machines, which she contended could result in fewer signature mismatch rejections.
Taheri cited a case in 2024 in Mesa County, where a postal worker and another individual stole and submitted 16 ballots with fraudulent signatures. Both were successfully prosecuted, with election officials citing Colorado’s “many layers of security” in uncovering the fraud.
The initiative is backed by the Colorado Voter Trust Initiative, a state issue committee whose biggest donor is the Coalition for American Prosperity and Growth, a group that does not publicly disclose its donors.
“We already have a secure and reliable system for verifying mail ballots through signature comparison and bipartisan election judge review,” said Beth Hendrix, executive director of the League of Women Voters. “This will not make our elections safer. It just makes them harder to navigate for voters.” The League of Women Voters is a nonpartisan election advocacy organization.
Hendrix added that this was a solution in search of a problem, adding that voter fraud is “infinitesimal.” And this proposal, she added, will put legitimate votes in jeopardy of rejection because of clerical errors and mismatches.
— Ben Markus, CPR News·
Amendment 85: ‘Plain Language Ballot Questions’
Many agree that the Colorado ballot is too complex. Some studies and an analysis by Ballotpedia have pegged it at a 20th-grade-plus reading level. This constitutional measure seeks to make it easier to understand by requiring ballot questions be written at an eighth-grade level.
The measure comes from a conservative advocacy group called Advance Colorado, which is responsible for many of the questions on a big, complicated ballot. It doesn’t mandate which formula to use for reading level or who ultimately decides if language qualifies. Those issues led the Colorado League of Women voters to oppose the measure.
This proposed constitutional amendment has an additional wrinkle to it — it would prohibit the legislature from mandating specific language in citizen-initiated ballot questions if that language conflicts with the eighth-grade reading-level requirement. Colorado lawmakers in recent years have added required language for tax measures, for instance, describing the consequences of reduced tax revenue on state services.
Because this is a constitutional amendment proposal, it requires 55 percent of voters’ approval to pass.
A ‘yes’ vote supports an amendment to the state constitution to require all future ballot questions be written at an 8th-grade reading level. The measure would also ban the state from mandating specific phrases in citizen-initiated ballot questions if they conflict with that requirement.
A ‘no’ vote would keep existing state standards for ballot language. The state Title Board will continue setting ballot language for citizen initiatives using existing plain-language guidelines, and ballots can continue to require tax impact warnings.
Colorado voters are confronted with many weighty and complex questions, and this initiative seeks to simplify the language on the ballot. The change could be dramatic; even opponents of this measure admit that the current written level is too advanced for many ballot questions.
“People want their ballot to be less confusing. They want it to be something that they can understand,” said Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, a conservative advocacy group. He added that if this measure passes, it will help ordinary voters and people who speak English as a second language.
Two dozen states have ballot readability laws, and the measures generally have bipartisan support. But the proposed amendment in Colorado could require changes to warnings enacted by the state legislature about the impact of tax cuts on state programs if they conflict with the eighth-grade standard.
Fields acknowledged that the legislature passed House Bill 26-1320 this year that mandates “accessible language” on ballot titles for state-level citizen initiatives. He said this amendment to the state constitution sets a reading level standard, which the state law currently does not. And this measure would apply to all state and local ballot questions.
“Plain language on the ballot, that’s a worthy goal, but it’s already the law and putting it in the constitution will limit our ability to improve on it later,” said Beth Hendrix, executive director of the League of Women Voters. “There’s no reason to lock a specific fix permanently into the state constitution.”
Hendrix said the issue of ballot language readability should be left to the legislature, which has flexibility to make changes over time. She said Colorado’s ballot language is far too advanced for many voters, and that’s in part why the League of Women Voters supported HB 26-1320.
— Ben Markus, CPR News·
Amendment 86: Congressional Redistricting
Amendment 86 places more restrictions on redrawing congressional maps in Colorado in an attempt to keep the state from joining the nationwide gerrymandering fight.
Since it’s a constitutional amendment, it will require at least 55% of the vote to be adopted.
Voting yes would require any mid-decade redistricting to be approved by both the independent redistricting commission and the Colorado Supreme Court. It would likely prevent a partisan map from being drawn mid-decade.
Voting no means voters could engage in mid-decade redistricting with a partisan slant, in theory, through a ballot initiative. Although it would be difficult given the redistricting process currently enshrined in the state constitution.
A Democratic-aligned group submitted ballot language earlier this year so Colorado could redistrict with a potential 7-1 map favoring Democrats. But the effort failed after the measure was challenged in court and not allowed to move forward.
If passed, not much would change for the typical Coloradan because it would further strengthen standards already in place for our congressional maps. It would potentially prevent Colorado from reacting to redistricting fights or being dragged into the gerrymander war started by Texas at Donald Trump’s urging.
Those redistricting battles have continued between states run by Republicans and Democrats. Some Democrats have urged Colorado to counter gerrymanders in Republican states.
Supporters argue this constitutional amendment “upholds and affirms” the independent redistricting commission. Michael Fields with Advance Colorado, a conservative political nonprofit that backed the initiative, said Coloradans don’t want hyperpartisan maps.
“Our measure would say that if at any point you do mid-cycle redistricting — which I don’t think is a good idea to start with — it has to go through the same process with the Independent Redistricting Commission and get approved by the Colorado Supreme Court,” he said.
The measure was originally created to counter three measures submitted for the ballot that could have led to a congressional map that favored Democrats 7-1. Those efforts were not approved.
The Colorado Democratic Party is urging a no vote on the amendment.
“Republican interests are pushing it to disarm Colorado,” said Shad Murib, chair of the state party, noting the redistricting war that has played out this cycle across the country, started at the behest of Republican President Donald Trump. “We shouldn’t be rewarding their efforts to diminish the votes of Coloradans.”
He added this is wasting millions of dollars “on a problem that doesn’t need to be fixed.” Instead, he thinks efforts would be better spent to make the independent redistricting commission more independent and less prone to influence, such as strict prohibitions on lobbying.
— Caitlyn Kim, CPR News·
Amendment 87: Graduated Income Tax
Amendment 87 would amend TABOR (the Taxpayer Bill of Rights) and create a new graduated state income tax. The move would lower the rate for the least wealthy Coloradans and raise it for the wealthiest.
The dividing line between households and business that would see their tax bill go up versus those is that would see their tax bill go down is around $500,000 per year, while some estimates have that line as high as $1 million per year depending on the business or household. The initiative is expected to raise $2.7 billion a year for the state.
While this is a constitutional amendment, this ballot question only requires a simple majority to pass.
A yes vote means Amendment 87 passes, and Colorado’s income tax will transition from the current flat 4.4% rate to the graduated income tax. The new system would include eight ascending rates.
With TABOR amended, Colorado would keep $2.7 billion in tax revenue. A yes vote authorizes Colorado to retain and spend that money for services such as K-12 public schools, health care, early childcare, and education programs.
A no vote means the graduated income tax won’t go into effect, and Colorado’s flat income tax rate will stay the same at 4.4% for people making $25,000 a year as well as people making more than $500,000 a year.
It depends on your income.
Any individual or small business making less than $500,000 per year will see their income tax rate drop. The vast majority, 97% of Coloradans, are expected to pay less in taxes under this proposal.
Any individual or company making taxable income in Colorado above $500,000 per year will see their income tax rate go up. However, policy experts say many high rate earners making between $500,000 and $1 million a year would likely also save money on their taxes due to deductions and current tax rules.
For the most precise answer, you can visit the website of Protect Colorado’s Future. It has a tax calculator to compare what you pay today with what you’d pay under Amendment 87.
Opponents and supporters are divided on how it’ll affect the state in general. Opponents say it’s a tax increase, which will harm the state’s economy. Backers say it’s fairer than the current system, asking people who make more money to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, which will go to things like education and health care.
Advocates argue that under current law, a teacher earning $50,000 a year pays the same tax rate as a large corporation or millionaire.
Meanwhile, Colorado faces a budget crisis, driven in part by steep federal cuts to government programs like Medicaid and SNAP. They blame the TABOR requirement that sets a single flat rate for state income tax and caps annual growth in state revenue. That forces budget cuts, even in years when the state’s economy is growing; something a graduated income tax will fix, proponents say.
Advocates say this measure would raise more money for public services, like K-12 public schools, health care, childcare and early education.
“This is our chance to build a state where the wealthy pay what they owe and where young people can actually see a future here,” said Christina Soliz, executive director of New Era Colorado.
Opponents argue Coloradans should keep the current single-rate income tax instead of moving to the graduated income tax. Some opponents are backing a rival measure that would keep the state’s income tax capped at 4.4% for everyone, from working-class to millionaires.
“Most Coloradans don’t want to grow government,” said Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, which backs the flat tax ballot measure.
The Colorado Chamber of Commerce also opposes the graduated income tax. It says tax competitiveness in Colorado is already eroding, and the state is losing companies to other states.
“As Colorado works to reverse these trends and attract new investment, significant changes to our tax structure would present a competitive disadvantage,” it said in a press release.
— John Daley, CPR NEWS·
Proposition NN: TABOR Revenue Cap Increase for K-12 Education Measure
Proposition NN would increase K-12 funding by up to 50% over the next 10 years by allowing the state to retain revenue it already collects, without raising taxes. The money could be spent on teacher pay and retention, reducing class sizes and creating funding for career and technical education.
The measure also includes an annual independent audit that will allow voters to see exactly where every dollar is being spent, and every school district also has to publish how they’re using the funding. The three most recent ballot initiatives to raise money for public education were defeated by voters.
A yes vote means the state’s current TABOR cap would increase, making possible the use of surplus funds for K-12 education expenses.
It would make available about $4.6 billion.
The proposition directs the money to be used on educational programs for the next 10 years. That includes increasing teacher pay, reducing teacher turnover, smaller class sizes, and resources to prepare students for the workforce.
A yes vote would not raise taxes; it would allow the state to keep $4.6 billion in surplus tax money. However, that could make some future TABOR refunds unavailable or decrease their dollar amount the next time the state has a tax surplus. The raising of the TABOR cap does not expire.
A no vote turns down increasing the TABOR cap and keeps education funding at current levels.
Some policymakers say Colorado’s schools have been chronically underfunded for the last decade. U.S. Census data consistently puts Colorado’s per-student funding in the bottom 20 states.
Colorado’s overall budget saw a shortfall of more than $1.2 billion last year. However, lawmakers were able to avoid making major cuts to K-12, early childhood, and higher education funding.
If passed, schools in your community could see better funding and resources, smaller class sizes, lower teacher turnover, and more competitive teacher pay.
With a higher TABOR cap, the state government would have more money for education. But future TABOR refunds to families and small businesses would likely decrease or not occur.
Proponents say Colorado’s schools are struggling and the state has the money to help fix that problem — it just has to be allowed to use that money.
“A yes vote could mean increased investment in Colorado’s critically underfunded schools – Colorado ranks 50th in the nation for teacher pay,” according to Erin McCann, spokesperson for the Colorado Education Association, citing Newsweek magazine. The CEA is the largest union of educators in the state, representing nearly 40,000 K-12 teachers, education support professionals, higher education staff, and retirees.
According to Newsweek, Colorado is 43rd for teacher pay competitiveness and 41st in teacher funding.
“What’s exciting is reduced class sizes, which allows teachers to spend more time with each child. Prop NN also promises to increase teacher pay. That usually leads to a reduction in teacher turnover,” Madeleine Ashour, director of K-12 education policy at the Colorado Children’s Campaign, told CPR News. “Rural and small districts could gain some resources … The additional funding would allow rural schools to afford special education staff … It’s very popular among Colorado families.”
Colorado Children’s Campaign is a non-profit, nonpartisan advocacy and research organization dedicated to improving public policies and programs for children in Colorado.
Opponents say raising the TABOR cap will effectively eliminate TABOR refunds for the foreseeable future and grow the government. They note the cap increase does not expire and that Prop NN directs the money to education for the first 10 years but does not specify after that.
“Prop NN supporters are using sympathetic arguments about children and teachers to justify a permanent, irrevocable transfer of billions in taxpayer money to state government — with no guarantee any of it reaches a classroom,” Your Family’s Future Alliance, a conservative pro-TABOR political issue committee, wrote on their campaign website.
Opponents also worry the money won’t go to teachers.
Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, a Denver-based libertarian think tank, says the purported benefits could be deceptive. “It could go to administration; it could go to school supplies; it could go to buy basketballs; it could go to buy new playgrounds; it could go to anything but teachers,” he cautioned.
“I put forth an amendment saying if prop NN were to pass, then you will guarantee that half (the money) is going to the teachers and the students,” Republican State Rep. Rebecca Keltie told CPR News. “They killed my amendment … [Her colleagues in the state legislature] said they cannot guarantee that the money will go to the teachers and students.”
— Elaine Tassy, CPR News
Proposition 134: Male and Female Participation in School Sports
Proposition 134 would establish a set of statewide rules requiring participation in school sports based on a student’s sex as defined by their “biological reproductive system.” The measure would require schools to designate athletic teams as male, female or coed. The schools would then only allow participants with corresponding traits to participate on that team, with a few exceptions.
The proposition does not create an enforcement mechanism, nor does it create a standard for determining a student’s “biological reproductive system.”
The measure would apply to interscholastic and intramural sports at schools and colleges in Colorado, from elementary school through higher education.
A yes vote would require school and athletic-association sports teams to be designated as male, female or coeducational, defining each by aspects of the human biological reproductive system. Student athletes would then be allowed to participate “based on the participant’s sex as determined by certain aspects of their biological reproductive system.” The measure defines the biological reproductive systems based on cells, with male oriented around sperm production and female oriented around ova production.
The measure creates the system of categorization but does not specify enforcement. The measure does not specify how the new rules would be monitored or how students might be questioned or examined.
Additionally, the measure would bar governments and athletic organizations from investigating schools for maintaining separate teams.
Teams designated for girls or women would not be open to students assigned male at birth or with certain reproductive systems.
Teams designated for boys or men would not be open to students assigned female at birth unless the school does not offer or does not have an available girls’ or women’s team for that sport.
The measure would apply to interscholastic and intramural sports at schools and colleges in Colorado, from elementary school through higher education — including public, private, and religious schools.
The measure would require schools to adopt policies implementing the new rules. The Colorado education commissioner could take remedial action against a school district that intentionally refuses to comply.
The proposition would take effect Jan. 1, 2027.
A no vote would leave current Colorado law unchanged. Under current state laws and policies, transgender students generally have the right to participate in school sports consistent with their gender identity. However, the rules are not uniform across Colorado.
Colorado’s anti-discrimination law also prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation in places of public accommodation, which include educational institutions.
Additionally, the Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA), which runs high school sports in the state, requires schools to allow students to play on sports teams and use facilities that match their gender identity, not their sex assigned at birth.
Some school districts allow transgender students to compete on teams matching their gender identity, while others have adopted policies based on sex assigned at birth or make decisions on a case-by-case basis. A 2025 settlement between 8 Colorado school districts CHSAA allows those districts to maintain sex-assigned-at-birth-based sports policies without facing CHSAA penalties.
The NCAA, the largest collegiate sports association, requires athletes competing in women’s sports to be assigned female at birth. For students and families, the measure would affect which sports teams a student is eligible to join based on their biological reproductive traits.
Because the measure does not define an enforcement mechanism, it is unclear what kind of scrutiny student athletes might face or if athletes might be subject to physical inspections — or what those might look like. Opponents of the measure warn that all girls or women could be discriminated against by parents or other teams for how they look or how well they compete.
The change could also affect students’ ability to participate alongside their friends or classmates and, depending on the circumstances, could require some students to switch teams or stop participating in a particular sport.
It would affect local schools and athletic associations, which would have to adopt policies implementing the new requirements and could face penalties from the state education commissioner for intentional noncompliance.
The proposition could also increase costs for the Colorado Department of Education, school districts, schools, and athletic departments as they navigate new policies, legal challenges, and enforcement.
Supporters of Proposition 134 say the measure is intended to protect opportunities for cisgender girls and women to compete fairly in school sports. They argue that biological differences between male and female athletes can affect athletic performance and safety. They say sex-specific teams are necessary to preserve competitive opportunities for female athletes.
Lori Gimelshteyn, a board director of Protect Kids Colorado and founder of the Colorado Parent Advocacy Network, two organizations that advocate on behalf of parents and vow “to protect children from ideological and institutional overreach,” said the issue has not been adequately addressed by federal policy or individual school districts. She said some districts have adopted policies similar to this ballot measure but then faced lawsuits as a result.
Supporters argue the measure would create a consistent statewide standard rather than leaving individual schools and athletic associations to determine eligibility.
“This initiative is about fairness, and it’s about safety, and it’s about girls and keeping female athletics female, and we want everyone to be able to participate,” Gimelshteyn told CPR News. “We don’t want bigger, stronger biological males invading girls’ sports in Colorado and taking away their opportunities.”
Gimelshteyn said the goal is not to exclude students from athletics.
“It’s a birth certificate or a cheek swab,” Gimelshteyn said when asked about how a student’s sex would be determined. “It’s not genital inspections.”
Opponents believe the measures would take decisions away from parents, schools, physicians, and trusted professionals.
“It’s government overreach, and it takes decisions out of families,” One Colorado Executive Director Nadine Bridges said. One Colorado is an advocacy organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQIA+) rights.
Bridges said the measure is poorly written and vague about how schools would determine a student’s eligibility, raising questions about how the rules would be enforced. A lack of standardized enforcement could also lead to different policies in different districts and uneven rules for students, which could lead to discrepancies between districts on costs or invasiveness.
She said the lack of clarity could affect students beyond those who are transgender. She pointed to the possibility that a female athlete could be questioned or scrutinized because of how she looks or performs athletically.
“If a young girl is too tall or too strong or looks older, then any parent could just make a decision, or any official can make a decision to say that a girl is — or assume that a girl — is trans,” Bridges said. “That’s unfair.”
Opponents say that possibility could create an invasive environment for students and put schools in the position of determining who qualifies as a boy or girl under the measure. They argue the proposition does not clearly establish who would make those determinations or what process schools should follow.
One Colorado says the measure would “subject young people to invasive gender checks.”
— Molly Cruse, CPR News·
Proposition 135: Prohibit Certain Surgeries on Minors
Proposition 135 would prohibit certain surgeries on people under 18 when the purpose of the surgery is to alter the minor’s biological sex characteristics. It would also prohibit state and federal funding, Medicaid reimbursement and insurance coverage for those surgeries.
Colorado has in recent years been known as a “sanctuary state” where families of trans youth can go for treatment. But a Kaiser Health News story shows that the reputation is changing. Since President Donald Trump issued an executive order asking federal agencies to stop funding research or education grants to states that provide gender-affirming care, health care organizations in Colorado have announced they would comply. That includes Children’s Hospital Colorado, which provided treatment but never provided surgeries on minors.
A yes vote would make it unlawful for healthcare professionals to knowingly perform, prescribe, administer or provide certain surgeries intended to alter a minor’s sex characteristics. The proposal’s language is unclear on how the law would be enforced.
It would also prohibit private health insurance from covering such surgeries, and it would make it illegal to use state or federal funds for prohibited surgeries, including Medicaid coverage.
The proposition defines “certain surgeries” as treatment in response to a minor’s perception of sex or gender. It includes exceptions for “treatment of people born with a medically verifiable disorder of sex development or certain acquired physical or chemical abnormalities.” The measure also states the definition does not include male circumcision.
The proposition would take effect Jan. 1, 2027.
Colorado law currently defines gender-affirming health care to include surgical procedures and requires health benefit plans to cover “medically necessary gender-affirming care” when it is prescribed by a health care provider and provided according to generally accepted standards of care.
Current law does not require doctors to perform gender-affirming surgeries on minors. Colorado’s three largest pediatric surgical providers do not perform gender- or sex-based surgeries on transgender patients under 18.
Colorado medicaid policy covers some gender affirming care but not surgeries for minors.
Proposition 135 would primarily affect minors, their families and health care providers.
If approved, health care professionals could face legal penalties for knowingly providing surgeries to minors that fall under the measure’s definition of altering sex characteristics.
For families with a transgender child, the measure would limit their ability to access healthcare in Colorado before the child turns 18.
For the majority of Coloradans, the measure would not directly change access to other types of health care. The initiative specifically excludes treatment for certain medically verifiable disorders of sex development and acquired physical or chemical abnormalities, as well as male circumcision.
Supporters of Proposition 135 say minors should not undergo surgeries they consider permanent and irreversible before they are adults. Proponents argue children lack the maturity to make life-altering medical decisions and the state already restricts minors from making other decisions involving potentially serious or permanent consequences.
Lori Gimelshteyn, a board director of Protect Kids Colorado and founder of the Colorado Parent Advocacy Network (conservative organizations that advocate on behalf of parents who espouse ‘to protect children from ideological and institutional overreach’), said the measure is intended to prevent what she considers “irreversible harm to children.” She argues that minors are not developmentally equipped to provide informed consent for permanent procedures.
“We are preventing harm,” Gimelshteyn said of Proposition 135. “We are preserving a child’s future, their reproductive future.”
According to Gimelshteyn, the measure does not prohibit counseling, hormone treatment or other forms of medical care. She said supporters believe surgery is a line the state should draw because of the procedures’ permanence.
Opponents argue Proposition 135 puts the government between families and their doctors by prohibiting certain surgeries for people under 18 — regardless of a family’s decision or a physician’s recommendation.
They say the measure targets a relatively small population. In a 2025 report, the Williams Institute estimates that less than 4% of minors (children from the ages 13-17 years old) in Colorado identify as transgender. The Williams Institute is a think tank that conducts research on sexual orientation, gender identity and public policy.
One Colorado executive director Nadine Bridges said decisions about medical care should remain with parents, young people and health care professionals. One Colorado is an advocacy organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQIA+) rights. The organization is also part of the Families Not Politics coalition opposing propositions 134 and 135.
“It’s giving too much power [to the] government over decisions where trusted professionals and families should be making decisions — medical decisions — for their young people,” Bridges said.
Opponents also argue the measure could have consequences beyond transgender youth. In an interview with CPR News, Bridges said its language could put other minors at risk of losing access to what she described as medically necessary care.
“We could be risking medically necessary care for all kids because it won’t just impact transgender kids,” she said. “These measures will impact all kids.”
Opponents also point to Colorado’s existing role as a destination for families seeking gender-affirming care. Bridges said some families have moved to Colorado because of its protections for access to that care and said she wants those families to know they remain welcome.
— Molly Cruse, CPR News
Proposition 136: Income Tax Rate Cap
Colorado voters will decide on rival ballot measures on taxes this November.
One of them is Proposition 136, which would cap the income tax rate at 4.4% of federal taxable income for individuals and corporations.
“TABOR has been one of the most popular citizen initiatives ever,” said Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, a major conservative advocacy group that does not disclose its donors, that’s spearheading the initiative. He said the measure ensures taxes can’t go up without voter approval.
“What we need to do is protect TABOR. And by protecting TABOR, we will help Colorado’s economy for years to come,” said Fields.
Opponents are running a rival measure, Amendment 87.
A yes vote means Colorado’s income tax will be capped at 4.4% permanently unless voters change it through another ballot measure in the future.
Starting Jan. 1, 2027, neither the individual income tax rate nor the corporate income tax may exceed 4.4% of a taxpayer’s federal taxable income. This would apply to all future years.
A no vote means the measure fails and the 4.4% income tax cap won’t go into effect. That means the income tax would remain flat but could be adjusted down by the state government. Any increase would still require voter approval.
If passed, things would stay the same regarding your state income tax bill.
A capped flat tax would also achieve a long-time goal of TABOR fans: It would limit the state’s ability to raise taxes and limit what Colorado could spend in the future, which could dramatically affect things like healthcare, roads, and other government services.
The Colorado Chamber of Commerce supports Proposition 136, saying it would provide a predictable and competitive tax structure for businesses and individuals.
“Colorado’s relatively low 4.4% flat income tax has been a major draw for businesses and young professionals,” The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board wrote, arguing it helped the population surge.
The tax cap proposal “is being funded by billionaires who have no interest in funding healthcare, child care and K-12 education,” said Chris deGruy Kennedy, co-chair of the Protect Colorado’s Future coalition. That coalition is made up of several organizations focused on passing the graduated tax measure, Amendment 87.
Opponents say due to inequities in the tax system, Colorado’s current flat income tax rate does not work anymore. They believe it makes sense to implement a graduated income tax through Amendment 87. That would mean the richest Coloradans would pay more income tax while the middle and working class would pay less.
Deep federal budget cuts to things like health care and food programs have hit Colorado hard, so the state needs new funds, which the flat tax would limit.
Abandoning a flat tax for a graduated one will make things more affordable, opponents say.
— John Daley, CPR News
Proposition 137: Sporting Goods Sales Tax for Conservation
The proposition would redirect sales tax revenue already collected on sporting goods purchases. The money would go toward conservation measures, parks and wildlife, and wildfire prevention. State estimates show the measure will result in $175 million a year of taxes being redirected.
The measure would not raise existing taxes on the purchase of outdoor goods ranging from bicycles, boats and golf clubs to hunting and fishing equipment to gear for skiing and camping.
In order to do that, the measure would reduce taxpayer refunds when Colorado is above its TABOR limit by an estimated $26 to $83 for single filers. When the state is below that limit, the transfer would reduce money available for other programs in the General Fund.
A yes vote means the state may redirect this sales tax revenue gathered from sporting goods purchases toward the conservation efforts mentioned in the measure.
Opponents worry the money would be used to fund clearcutting of Colorado forests.
A no vote means that sales tax revenue would continue going into the general fund, where the legislature would decide its distribution. The money would also continue to be subject to TABOR rules.
If Prop 137 passes, there will be no change at the register when buying sporting goods. Taxes stay the same. The most immediate direct impact most voters would likely see is a smaller TABOR refund. If the state didn’t collect enough revenue to enact TABOR refunds, the money for Prop 137 that year would be taken from the General Fund. With a portion of the General Fund already earmarked for conservation projects, the state would be left with less money for other priorities like health care and schools.
In time, residents could see more wildfire mitigation projects like forest-thinning and prescribed burns. Opponents worry activities like clearcutting could increase substantially. Watershed restoration initiatives could increase, as well as work on parks, trails and wildlife habitat.
Supporters say the state needs a reliable funding source for conservation measures, particularly as drought and wildfire damage increases. They note the state invests in already existing programs like Great Outdoors Colorado, the Colorado Water Conservation Board Construction Fund and the Wildfire Mitigation Capacity Development Fund.
The measure is supported by former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, former U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, and former Gov. Bill Ritter. Advocates point to a Pew Research study showing every $1 invested in disaster mitigation saves $6 long-term.
Opponents are concerned Prop 137 would finance substantively more tree cutting. The measure “encourages the use of wood for traditional forest products and biomass energy.” It describes using funding for “large-scale projects to reduce the amount of potential wildfire fuel.”
Protect Colorado’s Land, Communities and Tax Dollars claims Prop 137 would route millions of dollar per year from a tax on sporting goods and equipment for industrial logging.
“Including clearcutting and contractors selling large-diameter trees—across Colorado’s public lands, and another $83 million towards industrial recreation programs, several of which also fund logging,” the group argued on their Facebook page. They also worry the money would go “away from effective home hardening, other essential government services, or a refund to taxpayers through Taxpayer Bill of Rights, aka TABOR).”
Protect Colorado’s Land, Communities and Tax Dollars is registered as an opposition group to Prop 137.
“Even supporters of Prop. 137 should understand that the measure would set a precedent for special interests to route taxpayer dollars away from TABOR refunds and/or the general fund for their own benefit, which may or may not be in the public interest,” a spokesperson for Protect Colorado’s Land, Communities and Tax Dollars told CPR News in a statement. “The consensus of peer-reviewed science reveals it is impossible for tree cutting in the forest to “prevent wildfire,” as 137 backers falsely claim.”
According to state policy, the underlying guidelines of the Colorado State Forest Service follow scientifically supported forestry practices. Projects financed under the measure should remain subject to existing rules and environmental laws.
The Colorado Smokescreen, a pre-existing group with connections to the Protect Colorado’s Land, Communities and Tax Dollars issue committee that claims to protect Colorado residents from wildfire disinformation, has said the measure would lead to “clear-cutting and industrial logging in endangered species habitats.”
Meanwhile, the League of Women Voters of Colorado opposes the measure due to its fiscal implications. While the group said it recognizes “the urgency of conservation needs” in Colorado, it opposes limiting lawmakers’ ability to distribute funding that would otherwise go into the general fund.
— Dan Boyce, CPR News