Amendments change the state constitution and need 55% to pass. One that repeals something (like Amendment 87) only needs a simple majority, and the Blue Book counts 87 that way.
Propositions change regular state law and need a simple majority (50%).
The Blue Book is the state's nonpartisan voter guide. Page numbers are listed under each measure under "More."
Advance Colorado is behind 81, 82, 85, 86, 132 and 136, and tied to 84. The ballot language of most of these echoes plans from Project 2025.
Protect Kids Colorado, run by Erin Lee of Wellington, wrote 133, 134 and 135 as a package. Carmyn likes to call Erin Lee "NOCO's biggest loser."
Amendment 81: Vote No
Law Enforcement Reporting to Federal Authorities
Who's behind it
Advance Colorado
Advance Colorado is a conservative group that says it's here to "push back on the progressive policies that have put our state on the wrong track." It's behind 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 132 and 136, and it doesn't disclose its donors. Its main committee got $2 million of its $2.6 million from Common Sense America, a D.C. group that doesn't disclose its donors either.
This one's a NO for me. Local police would have to report people to ICE when they're charged with a violent crime, and an "unknown" status counts.
Also voting NO
No on 81 (Colorado Communities First)
Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition
ACLU of Colorado
COLOR Action Fund
Hands Off Colorado
One Colorado
Bell Policy Center
League of Women Voters
Common Cause Colorado
Colorado AFL-CIO
Working Families Party
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Colorado Democrats
Sen. Cathy Kipp
Larimer DA Gordon McLaughlin
AG Phil Weiser
Sen. Michael Bennet
The Denver Post and Daily Camera editorial boards
What it does
Local law enforcement would have to notify Homeland Security within 72 hours of charging someone with a violent crime, or any crime if they have a prior felony, when the person's immigration status is "unknown." It overrides existing limits Colorado put on local police collaborating with ICE.
Why I'm voting no
Racial profiling, yo! Being charged with a crime is NOT a conviction. People who haven't been found guilty of anything would get handed to ICE, and "unknown" covers citizens and green-card holders who don't carry papers around. Even the Blue Book's argument against it says officers may end up judging status by language or appearance. This changes our state constitution, which our legislature can't fix later.
"Voters should refuse to require our hard-working law enforcement officers in Colorado to investigate the citizenship or legal statuses of people and then pass on their suspicion about immigration status to federal agents."
"This would also effectively remove due process by turning over individuals before courts determine whether the individual has even committed a crime, which violates our constitutional rights."
Supporters say: Sanctuary laws protect repeat felons, and police should be free to tell the feds.
Talking points
Denver DA John Walsh: "Unless a person charged with a crime happens to be carrying their passport, or unless local law enforcement can verify their immigration status within 72 hours, Amendment 81 would require us to report that person to ICE." sentinelcolorado.com
The No on 81 campaign has 72 organizations and 72 elected and law enforcement leaders on board, including AG Phil Weiser, Sen. Michael Bennet and our DA.
61% of Coloradans see the mistreatment of immigrants as a serious problem (Colorado Health Foundation poll).
From the Blue Book
72 hours starts when someone is formally charged, before any finding of guilt.
The prior-felony trigger has no time limit and covers any new charge, including traffic violations and petty offenses.
Most of the new work falls on district attorney offices. State startup costs are small: $50,000 at Revenue and $10,000 at Natural Resources.
The Blue Book's argument against: officers left to judge "reasonable effort" and "lawful presence" on their own may lean on language or appearance.
Advance Colorado is a conservative group that says it's here to "push back on the progressive policies that have put our state on the wrong track." It's behind 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 132 and 136, and it doesn't disclose its donors. Its main committee got $2 million of its $2.6 million from Common Sense America, a D.C. group that doesn't disclose its donors either.
Gas is already legal. This writes a constitutional right for gas companies to use against safety rules. Concerned about jobs? Pivot to a different industry like renewables that ensure future energy independence. Miss me with this snowflake shit.
Also voting NO
No Pollution in the Constitution
Conservation Colorado
Western Resource Advocates
350 Colorado
Earthjustice
SWEEP
Bell Policy Center
League of Women Voters
Common Cause Colorado
COLOR Action Fund
Working Families Party
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Colorado Democrats
Boulder Progressives
Sierra Club Colorado
Sen. Cathy Kipp
AG Phil Weiser
Sens. Hickenlooper and Bennet
Reps. Neguse, Crow and Pettersen
The Denver Post, Daily Camera and Durango Herald editorial boards
What it does
Creates a constitutional right to buy natural gas for cooking and heating, and for utilities to sell it. The sparse ballot language leaves enough room for 40 elephants and your imagination to run wild.
Why I'm voting no
Once a "right to gas" is in the constitution, companies can sue over setbacks from schools, pollution limits and inspections, and we can't fix it by passing a new law. Towns like Crested Butte that require all-electric new homes could face legal costs to rewrite their codes. It slows down the move to cleaner, cheaper energy, and the pollution lands hardest on low-income neighborhoods. I believe natural gas is a PAST solution and we should be looking toward FUTURE solutions.
"I am voting no because this amendment locks in natural [gas] use as a "right" undoing existing laws and preventing any future transition away from fossil fuels, the burning of which contribute to climate change."
"We oppose this intentionally misleading measure that would permanently lock profits for corporate polluters into our state constitution, a radical and permanent change that could overturn essential health and safety protections."
COLOR Action Fund2026 Racial Justice Ballot Guide, p. 2PDF
"We shouldn't have to breathe dirty air so oil and gas companies can protect their profits."
"Providing monopoly utilities with a constitutional right to raise our energy prices would be a devastating blow to Colorado families and would be nearly impossible to undo."
Supporters say: Advance Colorado's Michael Fields: "Natural gas is a clean, reliable and affordable form of energy that more than 70% of Colorado homes use today." coloradosun.com
Talking points
Rep. Velasco and Sen. Roberts: "Why would huge corporations spend money to write themselves permanently into our constitution to protect something that's already legal in our state?" postindependent.com
They also point out that setback and inspection rules exist "because gas leaks and explosions have killed people." postindependent.com
The PUC already requires gas utilities to plan for a 41% cut in greenhouse emissions by 2035. The Blue Book (p. 19) says a constitutional right to gas "may limit" rules like that.
From the Blue Book
The PUC already requires gas utilities to plan for a 41% cut in greenhouse emissions by 2035.
A constitutional right to buy and sell gas "may limit" how the state and cities enforce rules like that.
Towns like Crested Butte that require all-electric new homes could face legal costs to rewrite their codes.
The International Order of T. Roosevelt, a Wisconsin group whose CEO used to run Americans for Prosperity (a conservative group by the Koch brothers), has put more than $1.5 million into this bill. Versions of this language are in 24 state constitutions.
Silly rabbit, hunting and fishing are already legal. This hands our wildlife decisions to the courts, rather than fish & wildlife experts. "Traditional methods" can be left in the past when we learn better, more humane ways to hunt.
Also voting NO
Humane World for Animals
Project Coyote
Common Cause Colorado
ProgressNow Colorado
League of Women Voters
Working Families Party
Larimer County Democrats
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Boulder Progressives
Keep Colorado's Voice
Gov. Jared Polis
AG Phil Weiser
Reps. Crow, Neguse and Pettersen
Sierra Club Colorado
Center for Biological Diversity
WildEarth Guardians
Indivisible Colorado
Sen. Cathy Kipp
The Denver Post, Daily Camera and Durango Herald editorial boards
What it does
Puts a right to hunt and fish "by traditional methods" in the constitution and makes hunting the "preferred" way to manage wildlife. "Traditional methods" is never defined. Non-game and endangered species, like wolves and lynx, are left out.
Why I'm voting no
Colorado voters already banned trapping, bear baiting and hounding. Vague constitutional words like "traditional methods" send new questions on those methods to a courtroom, and the sitting chair of the Parks and Wildlife Commission calls it a "lawyer bonanza." Wisconsin's version forced a wolf hunt that killed 218 wolves in under three days, 83% over quota. Even our fearless doormat Governor Polis wrote an op-ed against this one.
More
What people are saying
JT
Jay Tutchton, chair of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, speaking for himself kunc.org
"It'll be a lawyer bonanza, basically, which is a very ineffective way to manage wildlife."
GS
Gary Skiba, a retired state wildlife biologist who helps lead a hunters' group against 83 hcn.org
"It isn't a right. It shouldn't be a right, any more than the right to paddleboarding should be a right"
"Our Constitution is a statement of shared values, not a hiding place for cruelty."
Supporters say: It protects a Colorado tradition from future bans at the ballot box.
Talking points
Keep Colorado's Voice: "It changes who gets to decide Colorado's wildlife future." keepcoloradosvoice.com
On October 2, Safari Club International sued Parks and Wildlife over new limits on hunting coyotes, bobcats and foxes. 83 would invite a lot more lawsuits like that one.
The Blue Book expects more legal costs at Parks and Wildlife and says the amount can't be estimated.
From the Blue Book
There would be no immediate change to any hunting or fishing rule. What changes later depends on how courts read it.
Excludes nongame and endangered species and anything illegal to hunt under federal law.
Expect more legal costs at Parks and Wildlife. The Blue Book says the amount can't be estimated.
Advance Colorado is a conservative group that says it's here to "push back on the progressive policies that have put our state on the wrong track." It's behind 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 132 and 136, and it doesn't disclose its donors. Its main committee got $2 million of its $2.6 million from Common Sense America, a D.C. group that doesn't disclose its donors either.
I'm voting NO because Colorado already has an extremely low election fraud rate. We don't need to fix a problem that doesn't exist. This would put part of your Social Security or license number on the outside of your ballot envelope, creeeeepy.
Also voting NO
ACLU of Colorado
Common Cause Colorado
COLOR Action Fund
Bell Policy Center
League of Women Voters
Mi Familia Vota
Colorado AFL-CIO
Working Families Party
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Colorado Democrats
Boulder Progressives
Defend Our Ballots
Sen. Cathy Kipp
Daily Camera editorial board
What it does
Every mail ballot envelope would need your signature plus the last four digits of your Social Security number, Colorado driver's license or state ID. If you forget to write it or get a digit wrong, your ballot isn't counted unless you fix it within eight days. Colorado already checks every signature against state records.
Why I'm voting no
Colorado's fraud rate is somewhere between 0.0003% and 0.0025%. Texas tried this in 2022 and rejected ballots in bulk, and Black, Latino and Asian votes got tossed the most. Disabled, unhoused and older voters get their votes rejected first. On top of all that, I don't want my SSN digits riding through the mail on the outside of an envelope. Colorado is THE EXPERT in mail-in voting. It WORKS and it's EFFICIENT. Let's not make it harder.
"A handwritten "4" that resembles a "9," for instance, may lead to a flagged discrepancy that a voter would have to rectify before their vote will be counted."
"A 2024 study of states with strict voter ID laws found that nearly 50% of transgender people did not have an ID that matched their name and/or gender identity."
Supporters say: It makes sure people only fill out their own ballot.
Talking points
92% of Colorado ballots in 2024 were mail ballots. This touches almost everyone.
Signature checks and a cure process already exist. This adds one more way for a real ballot to get thrown out.
It costs up to $2.7 million the first year and $1.2 million a year after.
From the Blue Book
The last four digits of your SSN, Colorado driver's license or state ID go on the envelope, on top of your signature. A Colorado license or ID has to be Real ID compliant.
Forget to write out your number, or make a mistake and you have eight days after Election Day to fix it, or the ballot doesn't count.
92% of Colorado ballots in 2024 were mail ballots.
This would cost up to $2.7 million the first year and $1.2 million a year after. Business filing fees may go up to cover the state's share.
Advance Colorado is a conservative group that says it's here to "push back on the progressive policies that have put our state on the wrong track." It's behind 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 132 and 136, and it doesn't disclose its donors. Its main committee got $2 million of its $2.6 million from Common Sense America, a D.C. group that doesn't disclose its donors either.
TBH, I want easy-to-understand ballot language, but this one's SNEAKY. It promises "plain language" so it can remove the annoyingly detailed tax info that impacts our lives. Noooo thanks, sneaky conservatives. How about you say what you mean?
Also voting NO
Bell Policy Center
Common Cause Colorado
COLOR Action Fund
League of Women Voters
Colorado AFL-CIO
Working Families Party
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Colorado Democrats
Boulder Progressives
Vote Common Sense
Sen. Cathy Kipp
Daily Camera editorial board
What it does
This would require ballot questions to be at an eighth-grade reading level, and bars any law from requiring language in a citizen initiative's title that gets in the way of that. This could remove the tax-impact tables voters approved in 2022 (Prop GG, 72% yes) and a 2021 law that makes tax measures say how they'd impact state and local budgets.
Why I'm voting no
Jeeessuuuss Helvetica Christ. If you want clear ballot language, WRITE NON-DECEPTIVE BALLOT LANGUAGE. Say what you mean! I want the boring tax-impact tables. I want the DEETS (and proper education systems to TEACH the deets).
"This measure is a wolf in sheep's clothing. While it may seem to be about ensuring ballot questions are easily understood, it will actually make voters less informed by prohibiting future provisions that alert voters to the impacts of tax changes on their pocketbooks and state and local budgets."
"a billionaire-supported ballot initiative designed to weaken our ability to pass billionaire-unsupported ballot initiatives."
Supporters say: Ballot titles read like legalese, and voters deserve plain English. A few groups outside Advance's usual circle agree, like the African Leadership Group.
Talking points
Bell's Joshua Mantell says just using the word "fiscal" could push a ballot question over an eighth-grade level. coloradosun.com
The Blue Book (p. 27): "The measure does not define plain language or designate who will determine if ballot titles meet the standard."
From the Blue Book
This is a constitutional amendment and would need 55% to pass.
"The measure does not define plain language or designate who will determine if ballot titles meet the standard."
Current law makes tax-changing initiatives spell out the hit to taxpayers in the ballot title. The income table in 87's title is one. The Blue Book says laws like that could be prohibited.
The language ban applies only to citizen initiatives. Measures the legislature sends to the ballot keep their own rules.
Advance Colorado is a conservative group that says it's here to "push back on the progressive policies that have put our state on the wrong track." It's behind 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 132 and 136, and it doesn't disclose its donors. Its main committee got $2 million of its $2.6 million from Common Sense America, a D.C. group that doesn't disclose its donors either.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Colorado has no way to redraw its maps mid-decade and this adds unnecessary hurdles if we ever want to.
Also voting NO
League of Women Voters
COLOR Action Fund
Working Families Party
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Colorado Democrats
Larimer County Democrats
Boulder Progressives
Colorado Draws the Line
Sen. Cathy Kipp
What it does
Any congressional map drawn mid-decade would need approval from the independent commission and the state Supreme Court, and couldn't end up "purposefully favoring one political party." Colorado already has independent commissions and has no mid-decade process today.
Why I'm voting no
At least ten states have redrawn their congressional maps mid-decade since 2025. 86 makes it harder for Colorado to ever do that, and it adds a court review that a well-funded group can tie up in litigation. I don't want national Republicans writing the rules for our maps.
"I am voting No because conservative dark money groups are trying to make it impossible for Colorado to retaliate in cases where other states start redrawing congressional maps off-cycle for partisan political benefit."
COLOR Action Fund2026 Racial Justice Ballot Guide, p. 3PDF
"Our votes should decide who represents us, not politicians drawing maps to protect themselves."
Protect Colorado's Future, a coalition of more than 30 organizations: Bell, the Colorado Fiscal Institute, CCLP, Great Education Colorado, teachers, school boards and unions.
97% of us would get a tax cut. The richies at the very top pay more for schools, health care and child care. Tax the rich?? Yes pleaaase!
Also voting YES
Bell Policy Center
Colorado Fiscal Institute
Colorado Center on Law and Policy
Great Education Colorado
Colorado Education Association
SEIU Local 105
Colorado AFL-CIO
Working Families Party
COLOR Action Fund
One Colorado
League of Women Voters
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Colorado Democrats
Boulder Progressives
Protect Colorado's Future
Colorado PTA
Sen. Cathy Kipp
What it does
This would swap Colorado's flat 4.4% income tax for brackets: 3.7% up to $25K, 4.2% to $100K, 4.4% to $500K, 7.4% to $750K, 7.9% to $1M, and 8.4% above that. These are marginal rates, and corporations are included. About $2 billion a year goes into a TABOR-exempt fund for K-12, health care and child care, and is audited every year. A household making around $95K pays 4.07% instead of 4.4%.
Why I'm voting yes
Once you count sales and property taxes, Colorado's richest people pay a smaller share of their income than the rest of us (boooo). TABOR leaves our schools billions of dollars short every year. 87 cuts taxes for anyone under about $510K and asks the 46,000 filers making $1 million or more to pay about $26,000 more each.
NoteYES on 87 means NO on 136. If both pass, whichever gets more yes votes usually controls, and the Blue Book says a court or the legislature would have to sort it out. AG Phil Weiser says passing both could leave a "$600 million hole." coloradopolitics.com
"NoCo DSA recognizes that this is unfair, and we believe it is past time to ask the wealthiest Coloradans and the largest corporations to pay their fair share."
"those with greater means contribute a greater share"
Opponents say:
Gov. Polis: "Of all the amendments on the ballot, this is really the most dangerous for Colorado." denver7.com
Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute titled his column "a flat tax in disguise," because the brackets don't rise with inflation. coloradopolitics.com
Voting NO
Advance Colorado
Independence Institute
Gov. Jared Polis
The Denver Post editorial board
Talking points
Anyone with taxable income under about $510,000 pays less, up to $325 a year.
99.2% of Colorado veterans and 99.5% of Coloradans over 65 make under $500K.
It doesn't touch TABOR's rule that voters approve tax increases. You're the voter approving it.
A fair critique: the brackets aren't tied to inflation. The bracket amounts are in statute, so the legislature can fix that later.
From the Blue Book
Passes with a simple majority (over 50%).
Anyone with taxable income under about $510,000 pays less, up to $325 a year.
By income group, everyone under $1 million gets a cut on average. The 46,000 filers at $1 million and up pay about $1.2 billion more, around $26,000 each.
About $2 billion the first full year, added on top of current K-12, health care and early childhood spending. TABOR refunds don't change.
Referred by the legislature. The campaign, Yes for Colorado Kids, is led by the Colorado Education Association.
Better schools = better communities. This measure would keep the surplus in our schools, instead of going back to taxpayers as refunds (about $28 for a single filer making $100K). YES PLS.
Also voting YES
Yes for Colorado Kids
Colorado Education Association
Colorado Children's Campaign
Colorado Center on Law and Policy
SEIU Local 105
Colorado AFL-CIO
Working Families Party
COLOR Action Fund
Bell Policy Center
One Colorado
League of Women Voters
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Colorado Democrats
Boulder Progressives
Sen. Cathy Kipp
AG Phil Weiser
What it does
NN raises the TABOR cap by what the state spends on K-12, about $4.6 billion of room, with no end date. The state expects to actually keep about $330 million this budget year and $521 million next. For ten years at least half has to go to K-12 (teacher pay, smaller classes, career and tech ed) and the rest to kids' programs like preschool and child care. After that K-12 gets a set amount and the legislature decides the rest. No tax rate changes. A $100K single filer gives up about $28 of their 2027 refund.
Why I'm voting yes
Colorado has turned down four school-funding measures in ten years. This one doesn't raise anyone's taxes AND lets the state keep money it already collected to put in classrooms. I'd rather our schools have it than get $28 back on my refund.
NoteOpponents say only a quarter would reach schools. The Blue Book says at least half has to go to K-12 for the first ten years. If 137 also passes, NN keeps less, maybe nothing.
"NoCo DSA believes that the workers who choose to teach at public schools in our state deserve to be paid a respectable wage, teach in appropriately sized classes, and work in well-funded and well-staffed schools."
Advance Colorado is a conservative group that says it's here to "push back on the progressive policies that have put our state on the wrong track." It's behind 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 132 and 136, and it doesn't disclose its donors. Its main committee got $2 million of its $2.6 million from Common Sense America, a D.C. group that doesn't disclose its donors either.
I'm voting NO. This makes any fentanyl possession a felony, with prison sentencing for 8 to 32 years. We don't need more prison pipelines.
Also voting NO
CCJRC
COLOR Action Fund
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Bell Policy Center
League of Women Voters
One Colorado
Colorado Democrats
Colorado AFL-CIO
Boulder Progressives
No on 132
Sen. Cathy Kipp
Larimer DA Gordon McLaughlin
What it does
It would mean ANY amount of fentanyl becomes a felony, including first offenses, and sharing any amount gets the same 8 to 32 years as a drug trafficker. It throws out the defense for people who didn't know fentanyl was in what they took. It also orders treatment and pays for none of it.
Why I'm voting no
Across the country, fentanyl deaths have fallen by nearly half since they peaked in 2022, mostly thanks to naloxone, test strips and treatment. 132 goes back to locking people up. CCJRC puts the cost at $566 million over the first five years. Denver DSA points out that CoreCivic, a private prison company, funds Advance Colorado, the group that wrote it. Fuck fentanyl, and fuck Advance Colorado for pretending to care about fentanyl.
"I am voting No because zero tolerance policies don't stop crime or prevent substance abuse. Instead they fill up our jails and prisons and keep people from getting the substance abuse treatment they need."
"An 18-year-old sharing even one pill with a friend would face the same 8 to 32-year prison sentence as the highest-level drug trafficker even if they didn't know fentanyl was present."
"Increased sentences and penalties for drug related crimes do not reduce drug use or related overdose deaths."
Supporters say: Fentanyl is uniquely deadly, and the 2022 law went too easy on it.
Talking points
This law does nothing to prevent drug trafficking.
It orders treatment with no funding provided for it.
CCJRC estimates 1,718 more overdose deaths over five years if it passes.
From the Blue Book
Today, possessing under 1 gram means no prison. Under 132 it's up to a year. 1 to 4 grams goes to 2 to 4 years.
Any distribution, even under 4 grams, becomes a mandatory 8 to 32 years.
Removes the Good Samaritan laws protecting people who call in help for an overdose.
Judges no longer get to rule with nuance in fentanyl cases.
State costs: $0.9 million the first year, $68.2 million by year five, maybe new prisons. No funding source, so it comes out of the General Fund that pays for health care and schools.
Protect Kids Colorado is behind 133, 134 and 135. It's run by Erin Lee, a disgruntled Poudre School District mom in Wellington, and former state Senator Kevin Lundberg. Its biggest donors include Pikes Peak Citizens for Life, an anti-abortion group in Colorado Springs, and groups tied to Woodland Park evangelist Andrew Wommack. It raised $152,730 for all three through mid-September. In 2023, Erin Lee sued PSD, claiming they transed her kid. Federal courts threw the case out, and the Supreme Court declined to hear it in 2025. Angry angry Erin.
Colorado anti-trafficking groups say VOTE NO. I'm voting NO because 133 HURTS survivors.
Also voting NO
CCASA
COVA
Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network
National Survivor Network
ACLU of Colorado
COLOR Action Fund
Cobalt
League of Women Voters
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Colorado AFL-CIO
Laboratory to Combat Human Trafficking
Rose Andom Center
Colorado Children's Alliance
Sen. Cathy Kipp
What it does
133 makes sex trafficking of a minor a mandatory life sentence without parole. Today it's 8 to 48 years plus five years of parole, and judges get to weigh the facts. It also counts "trading anything of monetary value" for sex with a minor as trafficking, and never says what that phrase means. There's no exception for survivors whose traffickers forced them to recruit or transport other victims.
Why I'm voting no
Traffickers make their victims do some of the work, like recruiting. With no exception for them, a 14-year-old forced to recruit someone could face the same life sentence as the person trafficking them.
More
What people are saying
Onnastasia Cole, Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault ccasa.org
"Colorado already punishes minor human trafficking as a severe class 2 felony with sentences up to 48 years and NONE of Colorado's anti-sexual violence organizations support this measure."
"It has not been endorsed or supported by any legitimate anti-trafficking group."
Supporters say: Colorado has one of the higher trafficking rates in the country, and life sentences will scare off buyers.
Talking points
Bell says state staff project zero new child trafficking convictions from it.
Protect Kids Colorado wrote 133, 134 and 135 as a package. The same sponsors backed a 2025 bill calling driving to Colorado for gender-affirming care or an abortion "human trafficking."
A public defender testified that an 18-year-old who drives a 17-year-old friend so they don't hitchhike could be charged.
From the Blue Book
Today: class 2 felony, 8 to 48 years plus five years of mandatory parole. Under 133: class 1, life without parole, no judicial discretion.
Costs start in about 14 years, $180,000 in 2041-42 and growing every year after.
Its argument against: victims forced to help traffickers face life sentences, so fewer will come forward.
Protect Kids Colorado is behind 133, 134 and 135. It's run by Erin Lee, a disgruntled Poudre School District mom in Wellington, and former state Senator Kevin Lundberg. Its biggest donors include Pikes Peak Citizens for Life, an anti-abortion group in Colorado Springs, and groups tied to Woodland Park evangelist Andrew Wommack. It raised $152,730 for all three through mid-September. In 2023, Erin Lee sued PSD, claiming they transed her kid. Federal courts threw the case out, and the Supreme Court declined to hear it in 2025. Angry angry Erin.
"NOCO's biggest loser" wants trans kids out of sports and invasive "gender check" policies that hurt strong girls. I'm voting NO for sooo many reasons, the most exciting of which is to flip Erin Lee the bird.
Also voting NO
Families Not Politics
One Colorado
Rocky Mountain Equality
Inside Out Youth Services
Transgender Law Center
Cobalt
Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains
ACLU of Colorado
COLOR Action Fund
PFLAG
Colorado Education Association
Colorado AFL-CIO
Bell Policy Center
League of Women Voters
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Colorado Democrats
Colorado PTA
Gov. Jared Polis
AG Phil Weiser
Sen. Cathy Kipp
Poudre School District Board of Education
The Denver Post, Daily Camera and Durango Herald editorial boards
What it does
Every school team, kindergarten through college, public or private, intramurals included, has to be male, female or co-ed by "biological sex." It defines sex by whether a body is organized around producing sperm or eggs (gross?), but leaves no guidelines for schools or coaches to enforce the rule.
Why I'm voting no
Trans kids deserve to play sports as much as anyone. It puts any girl who's too tall or too strong at risk. Legislation like this can kill sports programs. For all the ways it hurts trans kids, there's a hundred more of how it hurts ALL kids.
"It also opens the door for witch hunts i.e. accusations that players are secretly trans and puts the government and schools in the disgusting position of investigating the reproductive organs of students who just want to play sports."
"It's so poorly written that any girl could face an invasive gender check if she's accused of being transgender. And with no appeals process, parents and families are left powerless to stop these invasive checks."
"The assumption that trans girls are automatically better than cis girls in sports is a misogynistic argument assuming that assigned sex at birth determines capability."
"Prop 134 would create an absolute mess. It would empower coaches and parents to question the gender of players who may look too tall or too strong or are simply too good."
"Trans people's humanity, dignity, and equal place in our communities are not up for debate."
Supporters say: It's about fairness and safety for girls.
Talking points
This would enact creepy " gender check" policies that put kids at risk.
Bell: "there is no sound evidence that transgender participation in youth sports negatively impacts the well-being of cisgender youth." bellpolicy.org
This is an imported template with language copied from other states.
From the Blue Book
Defines sex by whether the body is organized around producing sperm or eggs, then leaves verification to each school or district.
Covers public, charter, private and religious schools from elementary through college, including intramurals and school after-school programs. Youth leagues outside school aren't covered.
The education commissioner enforces it in public K-12. Nothing enforces it at private schools, colleges or athletic associations.
Colorado's anti-discrimination law currently lets students play on teams matching their gender identity, and the Blue Book says it's unclear how 134 would square with that. In June 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Title IX allows state laws like this one.
Protect Kids Colorado is behind 133, 134 and 135. It's run by Erin Lee, a disgruntled Poudre School District mom in Wellington, and former state Senator Kevin Lundberg. Its biggest donors include Pikes Peak Citizens for Life, an anti-abortion group in Colorado Springs, and groups tied to Woodland Park evangelist Andrew Wommack. It raised $152,730 for all three through mid-September. In 2023, Erin Lee sued PSD, claiming they transed her kid. Federal courts threw the case out, and the Supreme Court declined to hear it in 2025. Angry angry Erin.
This would broadly and confusingly ban gender-affirming care for trans youth. It puts the government between families and their doctors. Vote NO to protect BODY FREEDOM.
Also voting NO
Families Not Politics
One Colorado
Rocky Mountain Equality / Hands Off Colorado
Inside Out Youth Services
Transgender Law Center
Cobalt
Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains
ACLU of Colorado
COLOR Action Fund
Colorado Medical Society
Colorado AFL-CIO
Bell Policy Center
League of Women Voters
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Colorado Democrats
American Academy of Pediatrics Colorado Chapter
Colorado Nurses Association
Gov. Jared Polis
AG Phil Weiser
Sen. Cathy Kipp
The Denver Post, Daily Camera and Durango Herald editorial boards
What it does
Restricts surgery on anyone under 18 to change "biological sex characteristics" as gender treatment, and blocks public money and private insurance from paying for it. The ban is defined by the reason for a surgery, so the Blue Book says it may reach kids who aren't trans too. Its list of who can be punished comes from Colorado's malpractice law, and the sponsors added therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists to it. There's no appeal process defined.
Why I'm voting no
Medical decisions belong to kids, their parents, and their doctors. The type of surgery they seem to be targeting (genital surgeries on minors) is already near-non-existently rare and protected by medical best-practices. Adding therapists to the list tells me this IS NOT about surgery. 135 is about preventing trans kids from accessing age-appropriate care. Get your hands out of other kids healthcare, it's creepy as hell!
"I am voting no as this is another part of anti-trans agenda, the procedures are broad and ill-defined, and this opens the door for the government to intrude on the private medical care of individuals."
"Colorado's three large pediatric surgical providers report they do not perform these surgeries on transgender patients under 18. These decisions belong to families and doctors."
Supporters say: Surgery is irreversible, and minors can't consent to it.
Talking points
AG Phil Weiser: "I believe this is not for the government to tell doctors how to practice medicine and how to tell families what access to care they have." coloradopolitics.com
Bell: families with limited resources "would have to travel out of state for essential health care should this measure pass." bellpolicy.org
Twenty-seven states already ban gender-affirming care for minors, including most of our neighbors. New Mexico is the exception.
From the Blue Book
Children's Hospital Colorado, Rocky Mountain Children's and Denver Health say they don't do these surgeries on trans patients under 18.
Nationally, a Harvard study of 2019 insurance claims found about 2 in every 100,000 kids aged 15 to 17 had one, about 1 in a million at 13 and 14, and none at 12 or younger.
The ban turns on the reason for a surgery, and the Blue Book says it may also limit surgeries for kids who aren't trans.
Non-surgical care like social transition and counseling isn't restricted.
Advance Colorado is a conservative group that says it's here to "push back on the progressive policies that have put our state on the wrong track." It's behind 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 132 and 136, and it doesn't disclose its donors. Its main committee got $2 million of its $2.6 million from Common Sense America, a D.C. group that doesn't disclose its donors either.
This only exists to cancel out Amendment 87. NO on 136. Jared can kick rocks.
Also voting NO
Bell Policy Center
Colorado Fiscal Institute
COLOR Action Fund
League of Women Voters
Colorado AFL-CIO
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Colorado Democrats
Boulder Progressives
Sen. Cathy Kipp
AG Phil Weiser
What it does
This would cap the income tax at 4.4%, the rate we already have, starting in 2027. On its own it changes nothing. If 136 and 87 both pass, whichever gets more yes votes usually controls, but the Blue Book says the outcome is unclear and a court or the legislature would decide.
Why I'm voting no
The rate is already 4.4%, and the constitution already says only voters can raise it. The one thing 136 does is fight 87. If you want the 97% tax cut, vote NO on 136.
"I am voting No because this proposition acts directly against Amendment 87, as an attempt to maintain a regressive tax system and benefit the wealthy."
"The actual purpose of Prop 136 is to counter Amendment 87 by forcing the state legislature or courts to resolve conflicts if both measures are approved"
"Locking Colorado's rate at 4.4% shields corporations from future tax increases and means less state revenue for education, transportation, health care, and other public services."
Supporters say: Certainty for businesses, and protection from future tax hikes.
Voting YES
Advance Colorado
Gov. Jared Polis
Talking points
Bell's FAQ: "if both measures pass but Prop 136 gets more votes, nobody gets a tax increase and nobody gets a tax cut." bellpolicy.org
The argument against it in the Blue Book (p. 63): "After the 2026 election, Proposition 136 has no effect, since raising tax rates already requires voter approval and any future approval would override this measure."
Colorado's flat tax is regressive once sales and excise taxes count. A cap freezes that in place.
From the Blue Book
No fiscal impact: it doesn't change any rate.
The legislature or voters can still cut the rate later, and any increase already needs voter approval.
Its argument against, verbatim: "After the 2026 election, Proposition 136 has no effect."
Western Resource Advocates and The Nature Conservancy, with more than $4.5 million raised through September. Walmart heirs Olivia and Thomas Walton gave $125,000 each.
On its face, it's a good idea. We need to protect our state wildlife and need funds for it. But, in my opinion this is the wrong way to get it. I'm voting NO because this would lock our state budget into a $175 million-ish bill. I would vote for a more flexible solution.
Also voting NO
League of Women Voters
Colorado Democrats
Boulder Progressives
Denver DSA
NoCo DSA
Indivisible NOCO
Sen. Cathy Kipp
What it does
This would pull about $175 million a year (equal to the sales tax on sporting goods) out from under the TABOR cap and send it to water, land, wildfire and parks: 47.5% to wildfire, forest and watershed work, 47.5% to Great Outdoors Colorado, and 2.5% each to outdoor equity and the state's outdoor recreation office. All without a new tax. In surplus years, funds would come out of refunds, and in other years out of the General Fund.
Why I'm voting no
I DO want wildfire work funded. But, this locks $175 million a year into one set of programs, and nothing limits it to surplus years. When money's tight, the funds come out of the General Fund that pays for health care and schools. If NN passes too, 137 gets paid first and NN keeps less. Sen. Kipp and the Colorado Democratic Party both landed on no because of what it does to the already short budget.
NoteThis one splits progressive voters. Bell, the Working Families Party, Conservation Colorado, COLOR Action Fund, ProgressNow Colorado, Rep. Joe Neguse and AG Phil Weiser are voting YES. If wildfire is your top issue, a YES vote makes sense.
"Colorado is already facing annual billion dollar plus budget deficits, and we need to be able to make decisions while considering the entire budget, not one budget item at a time."
"The State Central Committee ultimately opposed the measure after hearing from Representative Sirota and Senator Amabile's concern regarding the budgetary impact."
"Boulder Progressives strongly supports wildfire mitigation and wildlife conservation. Unfortunately, this measure is poorly written and threatens to do more harm than good."
"Denver DSA recommends a no vote on Prop 137, as it would likely tie the legislature's hands on the budget by directing $175 million to a narrow set of purposes."
"Colorado faces rising economic costs from wildfires and other climate-related risks, while existing mitigation and conservation programs have significant unmet needs."
Voting YES
Bell Policy Center
Working Families Party
Conservation Colorado
COLOR Action Fund
ProgressNow Colorado
Western Resource Advocates
The Nature Conservancy
Rep. Joe Neguse
AG Phil Weiser
Sen. Michael Bennet
Larimer Commissioner Jody Shadduck-McNally
Talking points
League of Women Voters: "the wrong tool... Earmarking, however well-intentioned, locks in today's priorities at the expense of tomorrow's flexibility." denver7.com
Wildfire and forest work gets about $16.4 million a year from the state now. The fight is over how to fund more, and whether to lock it in.
In surplus years it costs a single filer $26 to $83 in refunds for 2027-28.
From the Blue Book
Pulls an estimated $175 million in 2027-28 and $180.2 million the year after, growing with sporting goods sales.
These programs get about $114 million now. Wildfire and forest work alone gets about $16.4 million a year from the state.
In surplus years it comes out of TABOR refunds: $26 to $83 per single filer, $52 to $166 per joint filer, in 2027-28. In other years it comes out of the General Fund, whose biggest pieces are health care, education and human services.
Referred by the county commissioners 2 to 0. Only Larimer County residents vote on this.
YES YES YES. Take my three cents on every $10 to protect our drinking water and get ahead of the inevitable next fire. YES.
Also voting YES
Ready Larimer
NoCo DSA
Larimer County Democrats
The Nature Conservancy
Sen. Cathy Kipp
Trust for Public Land
Coalition for the Poudre River Watershed
Peaks to People Water Fund
Commissioners Jody Shadduck-McNally and Kristin Stephens
Reps. Andy Boesenecker, Yara Zokaie and Lesley Smith
the mayors of Loveland, Estes Park, Berthoud and Wellington
What it does
This creates a 0.3% county sales and use tax starting January 1, 2027, raising up to $34.5 million a year. Groceries, gas, diapers, prescriptions and period products are exempt. The county rate goes from 1.05% to 1.35%. The money covers three areas: wildfire and watershed protection; county roads, bridges, trails and open space; and public safety and county services. It is independently audited every year, but has no end date.
Why I'm voting yes
Wildfires threaten our drinking water, and it's cheaper to mitigate than it is to fight and recover from wildfires. The commissioners say every dollar spent saves $6 to $13 in damage and emergency response later. Federal and state money for this work is already pulling back, and the county has already cut $6 million from its budget. With groceries, diapers and period products exempt, this is about as gentle as a sales tax gets.
The fair critiqueSales taxes hit lower-income folks harder, this one never ends, and the ballot wording for the third bucket is poorly defined: "justice center and other facility improvements" and "other county priorities and emerging community needs." I would not vote yes on this if there weren't an annual independent audit check on it.
"Given the importance of watershed protection and wildfire mitigation in Larimer County, which has over 650,000 acres of National Forest land, we encourage a Yes vote to help our county raise funds to do this important work."
"I am a Yes vote because I want Larimer County to be able to support our communities' needs and build strong foundations on which we can rely as we deal with the ongoing impacts of climate change."
"Every dollar invested in mitigation work reduces the cost of future damages and emergency response by $6 to $13."
Opponents say: No group has formed against it. One unsigned comment in the county's official tax notice is against it, partly because a recent county tax paid for child care, "of all things."
Talking points
On a $100 taxable purchase it's 30 cents. Groceries, gas, diapers, prescriptions and period products are NOT taxable.
The Ponds Fire west of Fort Collins was only 10 acres and still cost county taxpayers over $30,000.
Ballot Issue 7A: Vote Yes
Colorado Connector passenger rail
Who's behind it
Front Range Passenger Rail District
Referred by the district board 14 to 1. Because this is in Larimer County, only voters inside Fort Collins and Loveland city limits are in the district and can vote on it.
YES. I WANT A FRONT RANGE TRAIN! This proposes a third-of-a-cent tax to fund it. YES.
Also voting YES
NoCo DSA
Denver DSA
Colorado AFL-CIO
Conservation Colorado
COLOR Action Fund
Colorado Democrats
Larimer County Democrats
Boulder Progressives
Sen. Cathy Kipp
Boulder County Commissioners
Boulder Mayor Aaron Brockett
Larimer Commissioner Kristin Stephens
What it does
Adds a 0.333% sales tax inside the district (33 cents on $100), generating about $295 million a year with no end date, plus up to $580 million in debt ($785 million to repay). Money already in hand covers Fort Collins to Denver service starting in 2029. 7A would pay for the extension to Colorado Springs and Pueblo by 2032, another daily Fort Collins trip, operations, and a local return program for station towns. Gas, groceries, home utilities and prescriptions are exempt.
Why I'm voting yes
We need to GROW and offer transportation options that aren't car-dependent. It alleviates pressure on I-25, and it cuts an estimated 126,000 metric tons of emissions a year... (about 29,000 cars wort!!)
NoteAbout 800,000 voters outside the district got 7A on their ballots by mistake. If you're in Larimer County outside Fort Collins or Loveland city limits, your 7A vote won't count. Oooopsiiiiee.
"We support the development of more affordable and accessible transit options to improve mobility across the Front Range and throughout Colorado, so we recommend a Yes vote on Ballot Issue 7A in the 2026 election."
"Bringing rail to the front range will cut highway congestion and pollution, and connect job centers, and give people options when travelling along the front range."
I'm not voting for a U.S. Senator. Hickenlooper voted for 10 of Trump's nominees, voted against blocking bombs to Israel until this April, and says trans women shouldn't compete if other women object. He's a cuck for voters, and usually not in a good way.
On the ballot (6)
Mark Baisley (Republican), John Hickenlooper (Democratic), Bob Chew (Forward), Christopher Baum (Approval Voting), Blake Huber (Libertarian), Adam Withrow (Unity)
Representative to the 120th United States Congress - District 2
Joe NeguseDemocratic
Joe Neguse fights for reproductive freedom. He's fine.
Also running (2)
Kelley Anne Dennison (Republican), Gaylon Kent (Libertarian)
State
Governor / Lieutenant Governor
Phil Weiser / Lesley DahlkemperDemocratic
I'm voting Phil Weiser because he stands up for trans people, immigrants, and body sovereignty.
Also running (6)
Victor Marx / George Washington Markert (Republican), Stephen T. Hamilton / James K Treibert (American Constitution), Eric Mulder / Wayne Harlos (Libertarian), Jeff Peckman / T.J. Cole (Unity), Erik Underwood / Frank Atwood (Approval Voting), Greg Lopez / Taralyn Romero (Unaffiliated)
Secretary of State
Amanda GonzalezDemocratic
Amanda Gonzalez has been fighting for voting rights her whole career. She defends mail-in voting and wants campaign money to be TRANSPARENT. Vote for Amanda Gonzalez.
Also running (4)
James Wiley (Republican), Sean Vadney (Libertarian), Amanda Campbell (American Constitution), Celeste Landry (Forward)
State Treasurer
Jeff BridgesDemocratic
I'm voting for Jeff Bridges because he protects pensions for teachers and public workers.
Griswold has been accused of a "hostile and volatile workplace environment." This makes my yes vote veryyy reluctant. She says she'd still prosecute ICE agents who break the law. Do better, Griswold, and go punch some Nazis for us.
Also running (1)
Michael J. Allen (Republican)
Regent of the University of Colorado - Congressional District 2
Edie HootonDemocratic
Edie Hooton backs collective bargaining for CU workers and gets my vote.
Also running (2)
Marty Neilson (Republican), Richard Friend (Libertarian)
State Representative - District 52
Yara ZokaieDemocratic
Yara Zokaie is an all-around badass. Easiest YES on my ballot.
Also running (1)
Steve Yurash (Center)
Larimer County
County Commissioner - District 1
Shane AtkinsonDemocratic
I'm voting for Shane Atkinson, partially because he wants to extend the county's moratorium on data centers.
Also running (2)
Marc Roberson (Republican), Stephen Fowler (Center)
County Clerk and Recorder
Kenneth ForsytheDemocratic
The county clerk has been a Republican for the last 60 years. I'm concerned about election integrity and believe Republicans will be less likely to preserve fair elections.
Also running (1)
Tina Harris (Republican)
County Treasurer
Joann GinalDemocratic
I don't like Joann Ginal, but she's still better than Steve Olson (and I really don't like Steve). One (very) reluctant ballot for Ginal.
Also running (1)
Steve Olson (Republican)
County Assessor
Bob OverbeckDemocratic
I believe Bob Overbeck cuts the bullshit. . . even if it takes a couple years to see the results.
Also running (2)
Patrick Edwards (Republican), Sam Bradley (Forward)
County Sheriff
Leaving it blank
Feyen is a kind human, but his office shares Flock license plate data with 600+ out-of-state agencies. No vote from me.
On the ballot (1)
John J. Feyen (Republican)
County Surveyor
Leaving it blank
Tom Donnelly (R) is unopposed and not my pick. No vote from me. :)
On the ballot (1)
Tom Donnelly (Republican)
County Coroner
Stephen HanksDemocratic
NoCo DSA says Stephen Hanks has "an unproblematic record." Fiiineee.
Judges
All 10 judges on this year's ballot unanimously meet the state's standards. I disagree on some.
Schock ruled that police can watch file-sharing networks without a warrant, and he joined a ruling letting the police certification board hold back officer records. ACAB, including Schock.
This year, Sullivan wrote that a family suing over a jail suicide had to prove "deliberate indifference," and he joined the ruling that upheld Boulder's camping ban.
People who've been in Zehe's courtroom gave him 1.9 out of 4, the lowest of 108 judges in the state this year, and his score has dropped four years running. GTFO.