Amendment 81 would permanently amend the Colorado Constitution to require state and local law enforcement, correctional officers and district attorney personnel to report a person charged with a violent crime, or any crime if they have a prior felony, to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within 72 hours if they are not lawfully present or their lawful presence cannot be determined.

Why we oppose Amendment 81

Amendment 81 would increase ICE activity in Colorado by overriding state protections and requiring collaboration with federal immigration authorities. Heightened ICE activity could carry spillover costs for Colorado’s economy, without clear evidence that it would improve public safety or create jobs or higher wages for U.S. citizens. In Colorado, every 1,000 arrests could leave 10,500 noncitizens and citizens without work, resulting in less tax revenue and greater strain on the state budget.

The vague language of the measure raises several concerns, including about the right to due process, because a person would be reported to the Department of Homeland Security before they are proven guilty or innocent. It removes law enforcement discretion, requiring only probable cause. The measure could also open the door to Coloradans being targeted by ICE based on their appearance, the way they speak or other personal characteristics. The amendment would hinder the shared prosperity of Coloradans, noncitizens and citizens alike.

Amendment 82 would create a constitutional right for consumers and businesses to purchase natural gas for cooking and heating, as well as a constitutional right for distributors and utility companies to sell natural gas.

Why we oppose Amendment 82

Over the years, CFI has endeavored to publish research to raise awareness among Coloradans on the risks climate change poses to our communities, shed light on our ability to avert the worst of the climate crisis, and provide policymakers with tools to make informed and equitable decisions on state climate and economic policy. CFI maintains the position that Colorado needs to accelerate our transition away from fossil fuels and raise funds to invest in mitigation projects and renewable energy.

Amendment 82 would take power out of the hands of consumers and constituents and put it in the hands of utility companies. It could force continued reliance on natural gas, whether it is Coloradans’ preferred method of powering our state or not.

Amendment 82 would also hinder Colorado’s transition away from natural gas. With very little clarification about what this new right to natural gas for both consumers and utility companies would entail, the measure could tie state government, local governments and even consumers up in litigation for years to come. Some municipalities that have already banned natural gas in new construction could have to rewrite codes or fight costly legal battles.

Amendment 84 would create a constitutional requirement adding new identification requirements to Colorado’s mail ballot system. Voters would be required to provide the last four digits of their Social Security number, Colorado driver’s license number or REAL ID number. It would also impose an estimated $2.5 million in additional state and local costs in the first year.

Why we oppose Amendment 84

Amendment 84 would create new barriers to voting in Colorado. Colorado already has a gold-standard voting system: a secure, accessible mail ballot system. Adding new identification requirements would create more opportunities for eligible voters’ ballots to be rejected or require additional steps to be counted. This measure would be inconsistent with CFI’s values of equity, inclusion and a people-powered economy. Additional voter ID requirements could disenfranchise voters who are less likely to have or readily access the required identification, including low-income Coloradans, communities of color and women.

In a state where the bottom of the ballot is full of important decisions, including how we set up our tax system, Colorado should focus on maintaining an accessible system in which every eligible voter can participate rather than making voting harder.

For CFI, the bottom line is straightforward: Colorado should protect and expand access to democracy, not create new barriers that could put eligible voters’ participation at risk.

Amendment 85 would amend the Colorado Constitution to require ballot titles to be written in plain language at no more than an eighth-grade reading level. It would also prohibit state laws from requiring language that conflicts with those requirements in ballot titles for citizen-initiated measures.

Why we oppose Amendment 85

Accessible voting information is important, but this measure would go beyond making ballot questions easier to read. It would restrict the ability to provide voters with important context about the fiscal impact of ballot measures. Because of TABOR, Coloradans are the sole decision-makers at the ballot box about taxes, revenues and public investments. Amendment 85 could limit voters’ ability to fully understand those choices and could lead to a more complicated and onerous process for ballot titling and elections moving forward.

Voters deserve ballot language that is not only accessible but also clear about what a measure would actually do and what it could mean for our communities. Plain language should not come at the expense of the fiscal information voters need to make informed decisions.

Amendment 87 would replace Colorado’s current income tax system, where a teacher pays the same rate as Target, with one that would lower rates for most Coloradans while asking those at the top to pay more. The measure would generate roughly $2 billion annually, which could only be used for education, child care and health care, with an annual audit.

Why we support Amendment 87

For roughly 97% of Colorado taxpayers, those with taxable income below $500,000, that would mean a tax cut. Someone with about $85,000 in taxable income would save roughly $300 a year.

Colorado currently taxes all taxable income at 4.4%. Amendment 87 would lower the rate to 3.7% on the first $25,000 and 4.2% up to $100,000, keep it at 4.4% from $100,000 to $500,000 and gradually raise rates above that, topping out at 8.4% above $1 million. These would be marginal rates: Becoming a millionaire would not cause the Department of Revenue to suddenly tax every dollar you ever made at 8.4%. Just like the federal income tax, each rate would apply only to the portion of income that falls within that bracket. The first $25,000 would still be taxed at 3.7%, even for a multimillionaire.

Importantly, Amendment 87 would not eliminate TABOR or TABOR refunds. The TABOR refunds Coloradans would otherwise receive under current law would remain in place. The official Blue Book similarly states that the measure would have no impact on current TABOR refunds or refund mechanisms.

As H.R. 1 transferred wealth to the highest-income earners and created tax loopholes for corporations that resulted in Colorado losing $1 billion in revenue, this measure would ask those same people to chip in more for health care, schools and child care.

More than a dozen statewide measures are headed to Colorado voters this November, and several could affect TABOR refunds. But a dollar locked in for wildfires is a General Fund dollar that cannot be spent on schools, health care or anything else. Everyone is fighting over their own sliver of an already too-small state budget. Amendment 87 would add significant new revenue to the system while cutting taxes for people earning less than $500,000.

Disclosure: The Colorado Fiscal Institute is a member of Protect Colorado’s Future, a statewide coalition of community, grassroots and policy organizations that helped collect signatures to qualify Amendment 87 for the 2026 ballot

Proposition NN would increase the Referendum C cap, also known as the TABOR cap, allowing the state to retain surplus tax revenue to fund K-12 public education.

Why we support Proposition NN

CFI supports Proposition NN because we know how critically important it is to invest in our public education system. Colorado’s education system has seen almost two decades of chronic underfunding due to an outdated cap that has not allowed our state to keep up with the needs of kids, teachers and families. CFI supports efforts to retain money for important General Fund priorities like K-12 education rather than return it through regressive rebates. We know the TABOR surplus is not really “extra” money, not when we still have a chronic teacher shortage, four-day school weeks in many districts and delayed changes to our school finance formula that would have made K-12 funding more equitable.

We also know that raising the TABOR cap alone does not solve the root problem: that the outdated TABOR limit does not allow the state to respond to changing needs not only in education, but also in health care, child care, transportation and other budget priorities. Additionally, we know that new tax revenue, not just redirected surplus dollars, is critical to addressing Colorado’s decades-long funding gap in K-12 education. Proposition NN is an important step in the right direction.

Proposition 132 would substantially increase prison sentences for drug offenses in which fentanyl is detected. Selling, sharing, manufacturing, distributing or possessing any amount of fentanyl would be a felony with a mandatory sentence of eight to 32 years in prison.

Why we oppose Proposition 132

CFI opposes Proposition 132 because it is highly inequitable and would be extremely costly.

Currently, eight- to 32-year sentences apply only to the most serious drug trafficking cases. Under Proposition 132, a teenager sharing even one pill with a friend would face the same eight- to 32-year sentence as the highest-level drug trafficker. Proponents of Proposition 132 cite the potency of the drug and the crisis in Colorado as reasons for these penalties. Yet the measure would not disrupt the drug supply, expand access to treatment or reliably reduce drug use and sales. In fact, projections show an expected 41% increase in overdose deaths in the first five years.

From a fiscal perspective, Proposition 132 would cost the state budget more than we can afford. Incarcerating more people for longer periods of time, as Proposition 132 would require, would cost more money. According to the Legislative Council’s Blue Book projections, Proposition 132 would cost $68.2 million by year five. This projection accounts for increased costs for the courts, public defenders and prisons. Incarcerating more people for longer periods without a dedicated funding source would not be feasible in our current budget situation.

Read more about the cost of Proposition 132 from our partners at the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition.

Proposition 133 would make human trafficking of a child a class 1 felony with a mandatory sentence of life in prison. The initiative would expand the definition of human trafficking to include knowingly paying for sexual activity with a child.

Why we oppose Proposition 133

The proposition would require more funding and capacity for the criminal legal system without addressing evidence-based factors that help prevent trafficking, such as housing stability, education and awareness of local partnerships. The proposition would remove judicial discretion, and people may be less likely to report these crimes or work with law enforcement because of the mandatory life sentence. Unintended consequences could include revictimizing survivors who are forced to participate in trafficking, including immigrants, members of tribal communities, individuals who hold LGBTQ+ identities and youth experiencing homelessness.

Proposition 134 would require K-12 schools, public colleges and universities to designate sports teams as male, female or coeducational. Students would generally be required to participate on teams that match their biological sex, although female students could participate on a male-designated team if no equivalent female team is available.

Why we oppose Proposition 134

Proposition 134 would require school districts, universities, colleges and athletic associations statewide to adopt policies determining which teams students may participate on based on biological sex rather than gender identity. The measure could subject students to sex-verification processes if their eligibility is questioned. With no appeals process specified in the measure, parents and families could have limited recourse to challenge those determinations.

Colorado schools and universities face chronic underfunding despite increasing needs. Sex-verification testing, often recommended by proponents of similar measures in other states, can cost between $1,000 and $15,000 per student. Legal compliance and the process of updating rules and practices also come at a cost. This far-reaching measure is intended to exclude a small number of children from playing sports. No Colorado child should have to go through an invasive process just to belong, participate and be part of a team. Using scarce public funds for this purpose is the wrong budget priority.

Proposition 135 would prohibit gender-affirming health care for minors and prohibit public or private health insurance from covering these procedures.

Why we oppose Proposition 135

Proposition 135 would restrict access to gender-affirming health care and interfere with private medical decisions that belong to families and their health care providers. It would give the government more power over private medical decisions, with no way for families to appeal if the government or an insurance company gets it wrong.

Proposition 135 is poorly written, with vague and sweeping definitions that could mean any child, not only transgender children, could be denied necessary medical care, including mental health care. Families could be denied coverage for their care by their insurance company and have no recourse. All families deserve access to quality, affordable health care that meets their individual needs. All children and their parents deserve privacy in personal health matters, free from government and corporate interference. Proposition 135 would take these basic rights and freedoms away.

Proposition 136 would cap Colorado’s individual and corporate income tax rates at 4.4% beginning in 2027. It would not change the current tax rate, state revenue or state spending. Colorado voters already must approve any future increase in state tax rates.

Why we oppose Proposition 136

From a fiscal perspective, Proposition 136 would not address Colorado’s existing budget challenges or generate additional resources for schools, health care, child care or other public services. Instead, it would put the state’s current 4.4% income tax rate into statute as the maximum rate, even though the Colorado Constitution already requires voters to approve future tax increases.

The measure also directly conflicts with Amendment 87, which would create a graduated income tax with rates above 4.4% on taxable income over $500,000. If both measures pass, the two could conflict where their provisions overlap.

CFI opposes Proposition 136 because it would preserve Colorado’s current flat income tax structure without addressing the state’s need for sufficient, sustainable revenue to fund public services.

Proposition 137 would allow the state to retain sales tax revenue collected on sporting goods and direct it to Great Outdoors Colorado, wildfire mitigation, forest and watershed projects and outdoor recreation programs. The measure would not create a new tax. Instead, it would allow the state to keep and spend revenue that would otherwise count toward TABOR refunds.

Why we support Proposition 137

CFI supports Proposition 137 because investments in wildfire mitigation and outdoor recreation support Colorado’s economy. Outdoor recreation contributes about $18 billion to Colorado’s GDP and supports 137,000 jobs, and investments in wildfire mitigation can produce significant long-term savings.

At the same time, dedicating existing revenue to specific programs without raising new revenue puts additional pressure on the General Fund. That tradeoff matters because Colorado is already facing significant budget pressure and growing costs for health care, education and other state obligations. Three decades of TABOR have left us unable to invest adequately in programs that we know help our state thrive, including our outdoor recreation industry and preventing wildfires.

Proposition 137 would support investments that are important to Colorado’s long-term economic health, but it would not solve the larger problem of ensuring the state has sufficient, sustainable revenue to fund all of its priorities.

Ballot Measure 7A would create a 0.333% sales tax in participating Front Range communities to fund the Colorado Connector passenger rail system, with service ultimately connecting Fort Collins, Denver, Colorado Springs and Pueblo along the I-25 corridor.

Why we support Ballot Measure 7A

CFI supports Ballot Measure 7A because expanding public transit would give Coloradans another way to travel along the Front Range and an alternative to congested highways. At the same time, the measure has a significant drawback: Sales taxes are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of the household budgets of lower-income families than of higher-income families.

We wish there were a less regressive way to fund this investment, but TABOR limits the options available for making major public investments like a passenger rail. We do not want the perfect to become the enemy of the good. Policies like a robust Earned Income Tax Credit and Family Affordability Tax Credit are also important ways to use the income tax system to put money back into working families’ pockets and help offset the disproportionate burden of sales taxes like this one.