WhatItMeans.org
Cheat sheet · Election Day: Tuesday, November 3, 2026

The 2026 Colorado Ballot

All 14 measures on one page. What each one does, what your vote means, the strongest argument on each side, and who is paying.

Full explanations

This is the short version. Every line here is drawn from the full explanation, and nothing on this page is a recommendation — we do not tell you how to vote.

A81

Law Enforcement Communication with Federal Immigration Authorities

Police and prosecutors would have to report certain people they charge to federal immigration authorities, before any trial.

Strongly conservative Needs 55% to pass
YES

Law enforcement must notify federal immigration authorities after filing certain criminal charges against people who are not confirmed to be lawfully present.

NO

Current law stays: cooperation with federal authorities on some criminal matters, but limits on state and local involvement in civil immigration enforcement.

Strongest case for

People here unlawfully who are charged with violent crimes or are repeat offenders should be reported so federal authorities can act, which improves public safety without targeting otherwise law-abiding residents.

Strongest case against

It undermines due process and the presumption of innocence, because reporting happens before a court decides guilt - and legally present people could be caught up in it if they cannot prove their status inside 72 hours.

Watch out: It triggers at charging, not conviction. And the 'prior felony' branch covers any new charge however minor - the Blue Book specifically names traffic violations and petty offenses.

Who brought it: Conservative — citizen initiative (initiative #95) Biggest money for: Eagle County Republican Women Club, not reported Against: Colorado Communities First, $200,000+ Full explanation (3 min) →
A82

Constitutional Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas

Writes a right to buy and sell natural gas into the Colorado Constitution.

Strongly conservative Needs 55% to pass
YES

Creates a state constitutional right to purchase and sell natural gas for use in homes and businesses.

NO

Current laws and regulations on buying and selling natural gas stay as they are.

Strongest case for

Natural gas is affordable, widely available and reliably heats homes through extreme cold, and most Colorado households already depend on it - this guarantees continued access without state or local interference.

Strongest case against

Burning natural gas drives climate change and air pollution and should not be given constitutional protection, because that limits efforts to cut emissions, improve air quality and let local communities set their own public health and energy priorities.

Watch out: The measure is two sentences, but it goes in the constitution - so its real reach would be settled by courts. The Blue Book says only that it 'may limit' the ability to enforce existing and future gas regulations.

Who brought it: Conservative — citizen initiative (initiative #177) Biggest money for: Energy Freedom Alliance of the Rockies, no contributions reported Against: No Pollution in the Constitution, $317,000 Full explanation (2 min) →
A83

Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish

Adds a constitutional right to hunt and fish, and makes them the state's preferred way to manage wildlife.

Leans conservative Needs 55% to pass
YES

Establishes a state constitutional right to hunt and fish.

NO

Hunting and fishing continue as allowed under existing state and federal law.

Strongest case for

It gives lasting protection against future attempts to restrict hunting and fishing, and would put Colorado alongside the 24 other states that already protect this in their constitutions.

Strongest case against

The constitution should protect fundamental rights, not recreational activities, and Colorado is already a leader in wildlife conservation - so this is unnecessary and elevates one management method above others.

Watch out: The Blue Book is explicit that there is no immediate change to any law. The whole effect is about how courts and the wildlife commission read it in the future.

Who brought it: Conservative proponents, sportsmen's and hunting-conservation funding — citizen initiative (initiative #302) Biggest money for: Vote Yes on 83, $1.8 million Against: Protect Colorado's Constitution, not separately reported Full explanation (2 min) →
A84

Mail Ballot Voter Identification

Adds an ID number requirement to mail ballots, on top of the signature.

Strongly conservative Needs 55% to pass
YES

Voters must provide identification information with their mail ballot, in addition to their signature.

NO

Mail ballots continue to be verified by signature alone.

Strongest case for

Government-issued ID numbers are more consistent and less subjective than comparing signatures, and most voters either have an eligible ID or know their Social Security number.

Strongest case against

It adds a burden to voting without meaningfully improving security, and eligible voters' ballots could go uncounted over minor mistakes.

Watch out: The eight-day cure window mirrors today's signature-discrepancy process, so the mechanism is familiar - but this creates a whole new way for a ballot to land in that pile. Any Colorado ID used must be Real ID compliant.

Who brought it: Republican — citizen initiative (initiative #362) Biggest money for: Colorado Voter Trust Initiative, $4.2 million (through Sept 21) Against: Defend our Ballots Issue Committee, no contributions reported Full explanation (3 min) →
A85

Plain Language Ballot Titles

Requires ballot titles to be written at an eighth-grade reading level.

Leans conservative Needs 55% to pass
YES

Ballot titles must be written in plain language at no more than an eighth-grade reading level, and no law may interfere with that requirement.

NO

Current law stays: titles must be plain language, but with no specific grade-level standard.

Strongest case for

It gives real content to 'plain language' by naming an eighth-grade standard, which should help voters understand complicated and technical measures.

Strongest case against

State law already gives ample guidance on plain-language titles, and adding a constitutional standard with no guidance on how it differs could just generate more title challenges and clog the initiative process.

Watch out: The restriction on required title wording applies only to citizen initiatives, not to measures the legislature refers. Today's law forces tax-related initiative titles to spell out the impact on taxpayers and state spending - exactly the kind of language this could strip out.

Who brought it: Conservative — citizen initiative (initiative #234) Biggest money for: A Brighter Colorado, $311,000 (slate total) Against: Vote Common Sense, ~$500,000 (slate total) Full explanation (2 min) →
A86

Requirements for Off-Cycle Congressional Redistricting

Any mid-decade redraw of Colorado's congressional map would need the independent commission's approval and the Supreme Court's sign-off.

Mixed or non-partisan Needs 55% to pass
YES

The Colorado Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission must approve any new congressional districts proposed outside a scheduled redistricting year.

NO

Current requirements continue, with congressional districts changing every ten years.

Strongest case for

It protects public participation and keeps partisan politics out of any off-cycle map change, affirming the independent commission voters approved overwhelmingly in 2018.

Strongest case against

If Coloradans ever do want new districts mid-decade - whether responding to partisan redraws elsewhere or to changed priorities - this puts a constitutional barrier in the way.

Watch out: It does not create a process for off-cycle redistricting - it adds hurdles to one. The context is the wave of mid-decade congressional redraws in other states since 2025.

Who brought it: Conservative proponents, anti-gerrymandering content — citizen initiative (initiative #256) Biggest money for: Fair Redistricting Colorado, not separately reported Against: nobody registered Full explanation (2 min) →
A87

Graduated Income Tax

Replaces Colorado's flat 4.4% income tax with brackets - a small cut below $500K, a steep increase above it.

Strongly progressive Needs a simple majority
YES

Creates a graduated state income tax, spends the additional revenue on K-12 education, health care and early childhood care, and exempts that revenue from the state's constitutional revenue limit.

NO

Keeps the constitutional requirement for a single flat income tax rate.

Strongest case for

It cuts taxes for 97 percent of taxpayers, including most households and small businesses, and raises them only on top earners who can afford it - a dollar taxed on someone earning $30,000 is a far bigger hardship than a dollar taxed on someone earning $1 million.

Strongest case against

It is a multibillion-dollar tax increase that makes Colorado less competitive for starting and growing a business and may push high earners and employers out of the state, costing jobs at every income level.

Watch out: Two things voters most often get wrong. First, it does not touch TABOR refunds - the new money is exempt from the limit, so refunds stay as they are. Second, the brackets are not indexed to inflation, so bracket creep pulls more income into higher rates over time. And if Proposition 136 passes too, the Blue Book says the outcome is unclear.

Who brought it: Progressive / Democratic-aligned — citizen initiative (initiative #195) Biggest money for: Protect Colorado's Future Coalition + Great Education Colorado Action, $1.07 million combined Against: Americans For Prosperity Colorado + Your Family's Future Alliance, $65,417 combined Full explanation (4 min) →
NN

Keep and Spend Money for Education and Other Purposes

Lets the state keep money it would otherwise refund under TABOR and spend it on schools and children's programs.

Strongly progressive Needs a simple majority
YES

The state may keep some or all of the revenue TABOR would otherwise refund, spending it on K-12 education, children's programs, and after ten years any other purpose.

NO

Current TABOR refunds and current funding levels for schools, children's programs and other state purposes stay as they are.

Strongest case for

It raises teacher pay, reduces class sizes and improves career and technical education in every district in the state, against a state-identified shortfall of $3.5 billion - about $4,000 per pupil.

Strongest case against

It is essentially a tax increase: it permanently eliminates or reduces TABOR refunds, which are a taxpayer right and real money for households already stretched thin.

Watch out: The headline ceiling and the real amount are very different. The measure lets the state keep up to $4.6 billion above the TABOR limit in year one, but it is only expected to actually keep about $500 million - because that is all the state is projected to collect above the limit. Also: after ten years the children's earmark loosens to 'any purpose,' and if Proposition 137 also passes it can shrink what NN actually keeps.

Who brought it: Democratic — a party-line referral — referred by the legislature — senate bill 26-135, state public k-12 education funding Biggest money for: Yes for Colorado Kids, $2 million Against: A Brighter Colorado, $311,000 (slate total) Full explanation (3 min) →
132

Increase Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes

Makes possessing any amount of fentanyl a felony and requires a mandatory 8-year minimum for distributing any amount.

Strongly conservative Needs a simple majority
YES

Possession of any amount of fentanyl becomes a felony, distributing any quantity carries a mandatory minimum 8-year prison sentence, and options to reduce penalties for certain offenses are eliminated.

NO

Minor possession stays a misdemeanor, distribution penalties stay tiered by quantity, and options to reduce penalties for certain offenses remain.

Strongest case for

Fentanyl is uniquely potent and deadly and warrants stronger penalties than other drugs; mandatory sentences target traffickers, keep them off the street and give victims' families a greater sense of justice.

Strongest case against

It is unlikely to reduce fentanyl use, crime or overdose deaths, and fear of prosecution may stop people from seeking treatment or calling for help during an overdose.

Watch out: 'Distribution' covers transferring or sharing, not just selling - and the measure removes the Good Samaritan reduction for distribution cases, which today protects someone who reports an overdose and stays until help arrives.

Who brought it: Conservative — citizen initiative (initiative #85) Biggest money for: Eagle County Republican Women Club, not reported Against: Coloradans For Real Safety Solutions, $1.1 million Full explanation (2 min) →
133

Penalties for Human Trafficking of a Minor

Mandatory life in prison without parole for child sex trafficking, and buyers would be covered too.

Leans conservative Needs a simple majority
YES

Penalties for child sex trafficking increase to life in prison without parole, and the crime expands to include buying sexual activity with a minor.

NO

Existing penalties stay: a class 2 felony with 8 to 48 years in prison plus mandatory parole.

Strongest case for

Child sex trafficking causes serious, lasting harm, and someone who commits it deserves a life sentence rather than a shorter term or probation - a clear, definite punishment that ensures offenders cannot hurt more children.

Strongest case against

Harsher sentences are unlikely to deter trafficking and may end up punishing victims - many are pressured or forced by traffickers to commit crimes, and fear of a life sentence makes them less likely to report or cooperate with police.

Watch out: Current law already provides legal defenses and protections for charged individuals who are themselves trafficking victims. The argument against turns on how a mandatory life sentence with no judicial discretion interacts with that.

Who brought it: Conservative — citizen initiative (initiative #108) Biggest money for: Protect Our Children, no contributions reported Against: Vote Common Sense, ~$500,000 (slate total) Full explanation (2 min) →
134

Male and Female Participation in School and Collegiate Sports

School and college teams must be designated by biological sex, with each school deciding how to verify it.

Strongly conservative Needs a simple majority
YES

All school-based athletic teams must be designated for biological males, biological females, or as mixed, and schools and districts must adopt sex-eligibility policies.

NO

Schools, districts and athletic associations may keep setting their own eligibility policies under current state and federal law.

Strongest case for

Females should compete against females; biological males on girls' teams gain an unfair advantage and can cost female athletes wins, records, podium spots and scholarships.

Strongest case against

It turns athletic eligibility into a body inspection and creates new grounds for discrimination, potentially affecting many athletes, not only transgender ones.

Watch out: It sets a standard with no verification method, and the Blue Book says outright that it is 'unclear at this time' how the measure interacts with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Enforcement is specified only for public K-12 - there is none for private K-12, colleges, or athletic associations.

Who brought it: Conservative — citizen initiative (initiative #109) Biggest money for: Protect Our Children, no contributions reported Against: Families not Politics, $1.4 million Full explanation (3 min) →
135

Prohibit Surgery on Minors in Response to Perception of Sex or Gender

Bans gender-related surgery on minors and bars public money or insurance from paying for it.

Strongly conservative Needs a simple majority
YES

Prohibits surgeries on minors that alter biological sex characteristics in response to the minor's perception of sex or gender, and prohibits government funds or insurance from paying for them.

NO

Colorado law continues to protect access to these surgeries and allows public and private insurance to cover them.

Strongest case for

Minors lack the maturity to make permanent, life-altering medical decisions, and like other age-restricted activities this should wait for adulthood, with less invasive non-surgical care used until then.

Strongest case against

The ban is overly broad and keyed to the minor's purpose rather than to specific procedures, so it could limit surgeries for non-transgender minors too - and insurers may use it to cut coverage broadly while doctors pull back for fear of legal exposure.

Watch out: The ban is defined by the reason for the surgery, not a list of procedures - which is precisely why opponents argue it could reach beyond transgender care. And the practice it prohibits is already essentially not happening at Colorado's major pediatric hospitals.

Who brought it: Conservative — citizen initiative (initiative #110) Biggest money for: Protect Our Children, no contributions reported Against: Families not Politics, $1.4 million Full explanation (3 min) →
136

Income Tax Rate Limit

Caps the state income tax rate at today's 4.4% - mainly a block on Amendment 87.

Strongly conservative Needs a simple majority
YES

Establishes the current 4.4 percent income tax rate as the maximum rate.

NO

The rate stays 4.4 percent, with no new statutory limit.

Strongest case for

It reinforces voter support for the current rate, which voters approved overwhelmingly in 2022 and which keeps Colorado's income tax among the lowest in the country.

Strongest case against

It is designed to put Amendment 87 into legal jeopardy, causing confusion and a potentially costly legal battle.

Watch out: This is a statute; Amendment 87 is a constitutional amendment. If both pass, the Blue Book says the outcome is 'unclear' - normally the measure with more votes prevails, but the legislature or a court would have to resolve it.

Who brought it: Conservative — citizen initiative (initiative #232) Biggest money for: A Brighter Colorado, $311,000 (slate total) Against: Vote Common Sense, ~$500,000 (slate total) Full explanation (2 min) →
137

Direct Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation

Routes about $175 million a year of existing sporting-goods sales tax to conservation and wildfire work, exempt from TABOR.

Leans progressive Needs a simple majority
YES

Existing sales tax revenue from sporting goods is directed to conservation, wildfire mitigation and outdoor recreation programs, and exempted from the state revenue limit.

NO

That revenue stays in the general budget and subject to the TABOR limit, spent on priorities the legislature sets each year or refunded to taxpayers when required.

Strongest case for

It directs needed money to recreation access, land protection, wildfire mitigation and watershed restoration without raising tax rates or changing the price of anything, funding trusted programs like Great Outdoors Colorado, which has run conservation projects for over 30 years.

Strongest case against

It is a tax increase in disguise, because it reduces or eliminates future TABOR refunds - every dollar the state keeps is a dollar less in refunds or in spending on health care and education.

Watch out: This is not a new tax - the money is already being collected. The real change is the TABOR exemption, which is why opponents call it a tax increase. Also, in some years the full amount will not be directed, if doing so would reduce two tax credits for low- and moderate-income households. And if Proposition NN also passes, Proposition 137 can reduce or eliminate what NN actually keeps.

Who brought it: Conservation coalition — not a party measure — citizen initiative (initiative #308) Biggest money for: Protect Colorado's Land and Water, Prevent Wildfires, $3.5 million Against: Protect Colorado's Land, Communities and Tax Dollars, $1,787 Full explanation (3 min) →

Every description traces to 2026 Colorado State Ballot Information Booklet (the "Blue Book"), Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, Research Publication No. 842. Campaign-finance figures are a late-September 2026 snapshot from TRACER filings and will have moved. A committee working several measures at once is not counted as spending on any single one. Political lean is our editorial estimate, not a measurement — 13 of these 14 measures are citizen initiatives, which have no party sponsor at all.