Law Enforcement Communication with Federal Immigration Authorities
Why: This is a basic public-safety and rule-of-law issue. When someone is charged with a violent crime, or has a prior felony conviction, local governments should not be able to block law enforcement from notifying federal immigration authorities when lawful presence cannot be established. Amendment 81 creates a uniform statewide requirement while leaving the ultimate questions of guilt, detention, and deportation to the courts and federal government.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Requires specified law-enforcement and district-attorney personnel to make a reasonable effort to determine lawful presence after a person is formally charged with a violent crime, or with any crime if that person has a prior felony conviction. If the person is unlawfully present or lawful presence cannot be established, authorities must notify the U.S. Department of Homeland Security within 72 hours of filing charges.
What changes: Colorado currently permits cooperation with federal criminal enforcement but restricts some participation in civil immigration enforcement and the sharing of certain nonpublic information. The amendment creates a mandatory, statewide notification rule for the specified cases, replacing local discretion where it conflicts. A prior felony conviction can trigger the rule even when the new charge is a minor offense.
What voters should know: Notification occurs after charges, not after a conviction; the presumption of innocence still applies. The measure does not itself order detention or deportation, which remain matters of federal law. Supporters cite coordination and public safety; opponents raise due-process concerns, unclear standards for determining status, and possible effects on community trust. Passage requires 55%.
Constitutional Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas
Why: Coloradans should be free to decide how they heat their homes, cook their food, and power their businesses without politicians or local governments taking that choice away. Amendment 82 would place the right to purchase and sell natural gas in the Colorado Constitution, creating a stronger safeguard against future efforts to ban or restrict access to it.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Adds a right to the Colorado Constitution for consumers to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in homes and businesses and for utilities and distributors to sell it for those purposes. It addresses access to natural gas rather than creating a new utility or guaranteeing a particular price.
What changes: Colorado currently regulates gas utilities, emissions, building codes and appliance installation. Some municipalities restrict gas appliances in new construction or certain renovations. A constitutional right to buy and sell natural gas could limit state and local restrictions that conflict with that right; the exact boundaries would depend on future implementation and court interpretation.
What voters should know: The central issue is consumer and business choice versus the authority of state and local governments to set energy and building policies. Supporters emphasize fuel choice, reliability and affordability; opponents emphasize local control, emissions policy and uncertainty about which existing regulations could be challenged. The amendment does not specify a subsidy, fixed gas rate or a universal obligation to extend service. Passage requires 55%.
Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish
Why: This is a constitutional backstop against future political efforts to erode Colorado’s hunting and fishing traditions. The amendment would protect those activities as rights, not privileges that a future legislature could simply vote away, while still allowing reasonable wildlife-management regulations.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Establishes a Colorado constitutional right to hunt, fish and harvest covered wildlife using traditional methods. It also declares hunting and fishing the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations. Nongame and endangered species, and species that federal law prohibits hunting, are excluded.
What changes: Hunting and fishing are currently permitted and regulated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife under statutes and agency rules. This amendment elevates the activity to constitutional protection but expressly preserves state regulation when necessary for scientific conservation and management, public safety, or future hunting and fishing opportunities. It does not change existing trespass law or automatically cancel seasons, licenses or bag limits.
What voters should know: Supporters see lasting protection for outdoor traditions and wildlife-management practices; opponents question whether constitutional language could complicate future wildlife policy and decisions about nonlethal management. The measure does not create an unrestricted right to hunt on private land or override federal wildlife protections. Courts may ultimately determine how the new right interacts with particular future regulations. Passage requires 55%.
Mail Ballot Voter Identification
Why: Secure elections require more than simply comparing signatures. Amendment 84 adds an identifying-number check before a mail ballot can be counted, creating another barrier against fraudulent ballot submission while preserving a cure process for legitimate voters who make a mistake. It does not solve every election-integrity concern, including proof of citizenship, but it strengthens voter authentication and adds a safeguard that does not exist today.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Requires voters returning mail ballots in federal and state elections to sign the ballot envelope and provide either the last four digits of their Social Security number or their Colorado driver's license or identification-card number. Election officials must verify the identifying information before counting the ballot, with a process for voters to correct missing or mismatched information.
What changes: Colorado's current mail-ballot system relies primarily on signature verification, with a cure process for questionable signatures. The amendment adds an identifying-number check to that process and requires election offices to notify affected voters and hold ballots until discrepancies are resolved. Voters may use alternative identification during the cure process; in-person voting remains available under applicable identification rules.
What voters should know: This is an identity-verification measure, not a new requirement to produce documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. Supporters argue that a second check could increase confidence in mail voting; opponents point to privacy concerns, added administration costs and the risk that eligible voters make errors or fail to cure them in time. The official fiscal analysis estimates up to $2.7 million in initial state and local costs and about $1.2 million annually afterward. Passage requires 55%.
Plain Language Ballot Titles
Why: Ballot language should inform voters, not confuse them. Requiring ballot titles to be written in plain language should make it harder for complicated legal wording to obscure what a proposal actually does. The amendment is not perfect, and there is room for improvement, but we expect it will ultimately do far more good than harm.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Requires state and local ballot questions to use plain language at no higher than an eighth-grade reading level. It places the standard in the Colorado Constitution and prevents statutes from requiring conflicting language in titles for citizen-initiated measures.
What changes: Colorado law already calls for clear ballot titles, but it does not set a uniform numerical grade-level requirement. The amendment would apply a more measurable standard to future questions, including complex constitutional, tax and statutory proposals. Election officials and title-setting bodies would need to revise wording practices to comply.
What voters should know: Readable ballot language can help voters understand choices without relying solely on campaign advertising. The tradeoff is that some legally important details may be difficult to express at an eighth-grade level, potentially producing disputes about accuracy or compliance. The amendment concerns how questions are written, not the substance of the measures being proposed. Passage requires 55%.
Requirements for Off-Cycle Congressional Redistricting
Why: Congressional districts should not be redrawn simply because the party in power sees a political advantage in doing so. Amendment 86 requires independent commission review, public hearings, and Colorado Supreme Court approval before an off-cycle congressional map can take effect, while prohibiting maps intentionally drawn to favor a political party.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Establishes explicit constitutional requirements for changing Colorado's congressional district boundaries outside the regular post-census redistricting cycle. Any off-cycle map must be approved by the Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission and adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court, following at least three public hearings.
What changes: Colorado already uses an independent commission and Supreme Court review for ordinary redistricting after the census. The amendment extends procedural safeguards to mid-decade changes, barring maps intentionally drawn to favor a political party or unnecessarily divide communities of interest. It does not categorically prohibit an off-cycle map if the required process and standards are satisfied.
What voters should know: The issue is how to preserve independent review and public participation if congressional boundaries are revisited between censuses. Supporters emphasize constraints on partisan mapmaking; opponents argue that the additional procedures could limit flexibility or delay changes that become necessary. It applies to congressional maps, not every local or legislative boundary. Passage requires 55%.
Graduated Income Tax
Why: Colorado does not need another excuse to collect and spend more of your money. Amendment 87 would replace the flat tax with rates reaching 8.4% and bring state government an estimated $2 billion more each year, outside the normal TABOR limit. Government spending is the problem. Raising taxes is not the solution.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Replaces Colorado's single 4.4% income-tax rate with graduated brackets for individuals and businesses. The proposed rates are 3.7% on the first $25,000 of taxable income, 4.2% from $25,001 to $100,000, 4.4% from $100,001 to $500,000, 7.4% from $500,001 to $750,000, 7.9% from $750,001 to $1 million, and 8.4% above $1 million. Each rate applies only to income within its bracket.
What changes: The measure repeals the constitutional uniform-rate requirement and authorizes the state to retain the additional revenue outside the existing TABOR limit. Additional proceeds must supplement, rather than replace, funding for K-12 education, health care, and early childhood care and education; lawmakers decide the precise allocations. Legislative analysts forecast roughly $2 billion in added revenue in the first full year, while the ballot question states a statutory maximum estimate of $2.7 billion.
What voters should know: Taxpayers below roughly $500,000 in taxable income generally see a reduction, capped at about $325, while higher-income taxpayers pay more. The brackets are not indexed to inflation, so their effect could change over time. Existing TABOR refund mechanisms are not directly changed by this measure. It conflicts with Proposition 136's 4.4% statutory cap; if both pass, their conflicting provisions depend on which receives more affirmative votes. Because the constitutional change repeals existing language, it requires a simple majority.
Keep and Spend Money for Education and Other Purposes
Why: Allows the state to keep money that would otherwise be returned to taxpayers under TABOR under the guise of K-12 funding. Current estimates show it eliminating TABOR refunds in the first two budget years covered by the forecast, reducing taxpayer refunds by roughly $330 million in 2026-27 and $521 million in 2027-28.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Raises the amount of revenue Colorado may keep and spend under TABOR, tying the additional capacity to education spending. For the first ten years, the retained money goes to K-12 education and programs supporting children, including teacher pay and retention, smaller classes, career and technical education, school services, disability services and early-childhood programs.
What changes: Under current law, revenue above the TABOR limit generally must be refunded unless voters authorize a change. Proposition NN permits the state to retain more of that revenue without changing tax rates. School districts and charter schools would report how designated money is used, and the proposal calls for independent auditing. After the initial ten-year period, a set amount continues for specified K-12 purposes, but lawmakers gain broader discretion over remaining retained revenue.
What voters should know: The principal tradeoff is more dedicated public spending versus potentially smaller TABOR refunds. Actual amounts depend on future revenue: in years below the current TABOR limit, there would be no refunds to reduce. Legislative analysts estimate increased net state spending of about $330 million in 2026-27 and $521 million in 2027-28. If Proposition 137 also passes, it may reduce the revenue available to retain under NN. This statutory measure requires a simple majority.
Increase Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes
Why: The lethality of fentanyl justifies stronger criminal consequences. Prop. 132 substantially increases criminal penalties for fentanyl, including felony treatment for possession of any amount and mandatory prison sentences for distribution.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Increases penalties for fentanyl and certain other synthetic-opioid offenses. Possession of any amount becomes a felony, while distribution of any amount generally carries a mandatory prison sentence of 8 to 32 years. It also requires treatment for certain possession offenses and narrows or removes some sentencing reductions and exemptions.
What changes: Current law differentiates possession and distribution by quantity and circumstances and permits treatment or alternative sentencing for some offenses. Under this proposition, possession of less than one gram may carry six months to one year of imprisonment, while one to four grams may carry two to four years; treatment is mandated for certain lower-quantity cases. Distribution of less than four grams would face the same mandatory 8-to-32-year range as larger distribution cases.
What voters should know: Supporters argue stronger penalties could deter trafficking and hold dealers accountable; opponents question whether mandatory sentencing reduces overdose deaths and warn of higher incarceration costs and reduced judicial discretion. The proposal narrows some Good Samaritan-related reductions, although protections for some low-level possession cases remain. Legislative analysts project substantial criminal-justice costs that increase over time. This statutory measure requires a simple majority.
Penalties for Human Trafficking of a Minor
Why: Children are not commodities, and adults who knowingly buy or sell access to minors for sex should face the most serious consequences the law can impose. Proposition 133 expands Colorado’s child sex-trafficking law to cover knowingly trading anything of monetary value for sexual activity with a minor and makes the penalty life in prison without parole. CFF’s position is simple: when someone deliberately participates in the sexual exploitation of a child, Colorado law should treat that crime with the severity it deserves.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Expands the statutory definition of human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude to include knowingly exchanging anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor. It also makes life imprisonment without parole or release the required sentence for a conviction under the expanded offense.
What changes: Existing Colorado law already criminalizes child sex trafficking and provides serious penalties, with sentencing ranges and judicial discretion depending on the case. This proposition broadens the covered conduct and replaces the existing sentencing framework for the specified offense with a mandatory life sentence. Prosecutors would still have to prove the statutory elements in court.
What voters should know: Supporters argue that the severity of child sex trafficking warrants a uniform lifetime sentence. Opponents warn that mandatory sentences remove consideration of individual circumstances and could complicate prosecutions involving coerced victims. Legislative analysts anticipate increased prison costs primarily in later years as people who would otherwise have been released remain incarcerated. This statutory measure requires a simple majority.
Male and Female Participation in School and Collegiate Sports
Why: Protecting women’s sports means preserving meaningful female athletic categories. Proposition 134 would establish a statewide biological-sex standard for school and collegiate competition and protect schools that maintain female-only teams from government or athletic-association penalties.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Requires school and collegiate athletic teams, including intramural teams, to be designated male, female or coeducational, with participation generally determined by specified biological sex characteristics. It permits a female athlete to join a male-designated team when no corresponding female team is available.
What changes: The proposition would establish a statewide statutory eligibility rule in place of differing school, athletic-association and institutional practices. It also restricts government agencies and athletic organizations from penalizing schools solely for maintaining separate female teams, and gives the state commissioner of education an enforcement role for K-12 schools.
What voters should know: Supporters emphasize competitive fairness, privacy and safety in sex-separated sports; opponents emphasize equal participation, privacy in eligibility determinations and the effects on transgender students. Interactions with Colorado anti-discrimination law and federal requirements may generate litigation. The measure governs school and collegiate athletics, not all recreational sports. This statutory measure requires a simple majority.
Prohibit Surgery on Minors in Response to Perception of Sex or Gender
Why: Some decisions are simply too permanent to be made before adulthood. Proposition 135 would prohibit minors from undergoing surgeries intended to alter their biological sex characteristics, while leaving counseling and nonsurgical care untouched. It also ensures public funds and insurance coverage cannot be used to pay for surgeries the law would prohibit.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Prohibits health-care professionals and others from knowingly performing or providing surgery to a minor for the purpose of altering the minor's biological sex characteristics in response to a perception of sex or gender. It also restricts the use of public funds, Medicaid reimbursement and insurance coverage for surgeries covered by the prohibition.
What changes: Current law permits gender-related medical care subject to applicable professional, consent and insurance requirements. The proposition creates a specific statutory surgical prohibition for people under 18, with limited exceptions set out in the measure. It focuses on surgery rather than creating a general ban on counseling or every form of nonsurgical care.
What voters should know: Supporters cite the permanence of surgery and questions about consent before adulthood; opponents cite family and medical decision-making and concern that narrowly drawn exceptions could affect care beyond the intended procedures. Colorado's major pediatric surgical providers do not currently perform gender-affirming surgeries on transgender patients under 18. The measure's practical reach could depend on interpretation of its exceptions and any litigation. This statutory measure requires a simple majority.
Income Tax Rate Limit
Why: This is not a tax cut, but it is a guardrail. Proposition 136 would set Colorado’s current 4.4% income-tax rate as the statutory maximum for individuals and corporations, giving taxpayers another line of defense against future efforts to push rates higher. With Amendment 87 on the same ballot proposing rates as high as 8.4%, this measure draws a clear line: Colorado should make it harder to raise income taxes, not easier.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Sets a statutory ceiling of 4.4% on Colorado's state income-tax rate for individuals and corporations. The cap matches the state's current flat rate; the proposition does not itself lower today's tax rate or change the tax base.
What changes: Colorado currently has a constitutional requirement for a uniform income-tax rate but no separate statutory ceiling at 4.4%. This proposition would prevent lawmakers from setting a higher rate without changing the cap through a later legal process. It directly conflicts with Amendment 87's proposed graduated brackets above 4.4%.
What voters should know: Supporters cite predictability and a limit on future tax increases; opponents argue a statutory cap could constrain responses to future budget needs or changes in revenue. If Amendment 87 and Proposition 136 both pass, the conflicting provisions would be resolved according to which receives more yes votes. Unlike a constitutional amendment, this statutory cap could generally be changed by a future legislature, subject to applicable TABOR requirements. A simple majority is required.
Direct Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation
Why: This is exactly the kind of end-run around TABOR we oppose. Proposition 137 does not increase the sales-tax rate, but it would redirect an estimated $175 million in existing revenue away from the normal TABOR calculation, reducing taxpayer refunds when the state exceeds the revenue limit. Conservation is worthwhile, but it should be funded through an honest budget process, not by weakening the protections that require excess revenue to be returned to taxpayers.
Expand for a Full Summary +
What the measure does: Redirects a calculated portion of existing state sales-tax revenue from sporting goods purchases and rentals to conservation, wildfire-risk mitigation, forest and watershed projects, and outdoor recreation programs. It exempts the designated revenue from TABOR's state revenue limit without changing the sales-tax rate on sporting goods.
What changes: Under current law, these sales-tax receipts enter the general state budget and remain subject to TABOR's refund rules. The proposition would dedicate an estimated $175 million in 2027-28, including substantial allocations to Great Outdoors Colorado and wildfire, forest and watershed work. The amount can be limited in years when retaining it would affect specified tax credits for lower- and moderate-income households.
What voters should know: The choice involves dedicated conservation and wildfire funding versus flexibility in the general budget and potential TABOR refunds. Legislative analysts estimate a reduction in 2027 refunds if revenue exceeds the TABOR limit. If Proposition NN also passes, the revenue redirected by 137 could reduce how much NN allows the state to retain. The measure does not add a new sporting-goods tax; it changes where existing revenue goes. This statutory measure requires a simple majority.