Follow Us On Social Media

In Colorado, voters play a crucial role in influencing public policy. Thanks to the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), the state’s constitution designates Colorado voters as the sole decision-makers regarding any increases in taxes, revenues, or debt through ballot measures. Acknowledging the importance of state budget and tax policies for a robust economy, voters in Colorado will encounter 14 statewide ballot measures in 2024. Our goal is to keep you informed about these essential fiscal policy decisions.

At the Colorado Fiscal Institute (CFI), we strongly advocate for voters to have access to all the necessary information to make educated choices on issues that deeply affect our lives, communities, and the future of our state. Consequently, we are sharing our recommendations on several key measures. The CFI team utilized an equity-focused analysis to develop this guide.

We encourage you to pass along this important resource to your friends, family, and personal networks so they, too, can make informed decisions regarding these significant ballot issues. CFI has opted to provide insights on 9 out of the 14 statewide measures, in addition to a regional RTD measure. Below is a brief guide outlining our recommendations.

Quick Reference

• Amendment G: Modify Property Tax Exemption for Veterans with Disabilities
• Amendment J: Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban
• Proposition JJ: Retain Additional Sports Betting Tax Revenue
• Proposition KK: Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax
• Amendment 79: Constitutional Right to Abortion
• Amendment 80: Constitutional Right to School Choice
• Proposition 128: Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence
• Proposition 130: Funding for Law Enforcement
• Proposition 131: Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative 
• Local Measure 7A: RTD Revenue

Amendment G: Modify Property Tax Exemption for Veterans with Disabilities

• What Would It Do: Broaden the eligibility criteria for the Homestead Property Tax Exemption to include veterans living with a service-related disability who are unable to work. This expansion would encompass veterans with a service-related disability rated at 60% or higher, or those with two or more disabilities that together total a 70% or greater rating, provided at least one of the disabilities is rated at 40% or more.
• CFI’s Position: Yes
• Why: CFI advocates for the expansion of the Homestead Property Tax Exemption to encompass more veterans with service-related disabilities. This exemption is designed for eligible seniors, veterans, and Gold Star spouses, allowing them to reduce their property taxes by exempting 50% of the first $200,000 of their primary residence’s value. CFI endorses Amendment G because broadening this exemption to cover additional veterans with disabilities more effectively addresses the needs of lower-income Coloradans. We recommend voting yes.

Back to Top

Amendment J: Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban 

• What Would It Do: Amendment J strikes language from Colorado’s Constitution stating marriage is only valid between one man and one woman.
• CFI’s Position: Yes
• Why: In 2006, Colorado voters approved a measure to incorporate a ban on same-sex marriage into our Constitution. However, in 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court declared that this language violated the U.S. Constitution, a ruling that the US Supreme Court upheld in 2015. The wording in Colorado’s Constitution is now outdated and ineffective, and its removal would be a crucial step toward safeguarding same-sex marriage in our state should federal law change and protections for same-sex marriage be revoked.

  Marriage provides essential benefits such as access to healthcare coverage, social security entitlements, and tax advantages. These opportunities should be accessible to all, as everyone deserves the right to create a life and home with the person they love. We recommend voting yes.

Back to Top 

Amendment 79: Constitutional Right to Abortion

• What Would It Do: Add the right to abortion to the Colorado Constitution and repeals an existing ban on the use of government funds for abortion services, expanding access to Medicaid users and government employees using their employer-provided insurance.
• CFI’s Position: Yes
• Why: Reproductive rights are an essential part of the ability for women and all pregnant people to achieve socio-economic independence. Colorado has long been at the forefront when it comes to protecting access to abortion, contraception, and other reproductive healthcare. We were the first state to loosen abortion restrictions — even before the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade — making it a groundbreaking setting for reproductive rights advocacy and legislative decisions.
  
  In 2022, Colorado lawmakers codified the right to abortion with The Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA). Though Colorado is one of the most progressive states in the country for reproductive health, there’s still more we can do to implement further protections to ensure that reproducing people have control of what happens to their bodies regardless of the color of their skin, where they were born, or how much money they make. We recommend voting yes.

Back to Top

Amendment 80: Constitutional Right to School Choice 

• What Would It Do: Create a constitutional right to school choice for K-12 children and their parents. 
• CFI’s Position: No
• Why: Though Amendment 80 sounds harmless, it’s the first step in a nationwide strategy to take tax dollars away from public schools to spend them on private schools. And don’t be fooled, we already have school choice in Colorado. Amendment 80 is a step toward vouchers or some other camouflaged voucher-like program, like tax credits or education savings accounts (ESAs), that would weaken funding for public schools. CFI’s recent report, Colorado Can’t Afford Amendment 80, shows that if Colorado creates a school voucher system, it could cost the state between $642 million and $789 million, ultimately threatening the funding of public schools. We recommend voting no. 

Back to Top

Proposition JJ: Retain Additional Sports Betting Tax Revenue

• What Would It Do: Allow the state to keep sports betting tax revenue above the amount previously approved by voters ($29 million) and use the revenue for water projects, rather than refunding it to casinos and sports betting operators.
• CFI’s Position: Yes
• Why: Colorado voters have previously authorized the collection of this sports betting tax. The requirement to return to the ballot to seek voter approval for the state to keep revenue exceeding the estimated $29 million collection stems from a TABOR provision. This mandate seems unnecessary, especially since voters already approved the 10% sports betting tax in 2019. Arbitrary tax caps create inefficiencies and burdens, and Proposition JJ exemplifies this issue.
  
  If passed, the revenue collected above the $29 million limit will be allocated to the Colorado Water Implementation Cash Fund and used for Colorado’s Water Plan, which includes projects designed to preserve and conserve water in the state as the population grows. Some revenue collected also funds the administration and regulation of sports betting, and to support gambling addiction services. If voters reject Proposition JJ, all revenue collected above $29 million from the sports betting tax will be refunded to casinos and sports betting operators. We recommend voting yes.

Back to Top

Proposition KK: Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax

• What Would It Do: Create a 6.5% tax on ammunition and firearms sales and uses new tax revenue to fund crime victim support services, veterans mental health services, behavioral health services for youth, and school safety programs. 
• CFI’s Position: Yes
• Why: CFI supports creating an additional tax on ammunition and firearm sales and using the revenue to fund mental and behavioral health services. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Colorado currently ranks 47th in the nation for mental health spending per capita. Our disinvestment in these services directly impacts our ability to expand services to address our state’s growing need for mental health programs. CFI supports Proposition KK because it directs revenue to adequately fund critical public services. We recommend voting yes. 

Back to Top

Proposition 128: Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence

• What Would It Do: Increase the length of time a person convicted of certain crimes must serve from 75% to 85% of their sentence before becoming eligible for discretionary parole or good time. 
• CFI’s Position: No
• Why: Every dollar spent on incarceration costs generates an additional 10 dollars in social costs. Mandatory sentencing laws, especially in states with constitutional limits like TABOR, can exacerbate the problem of overcrowded prisons and create significant challenges in maintaining safe and adequate correctional facilities.
  
  The total cost of Proposition 128 to the state budget would likely be around $56 million per year between operating and healthcare costs and lost tax revenue, plus up to $152.4 million in one-time construction costs. For context, the General Fund had $432 million to spend above operational costs and reserve requirements in 2023. Proposition 128 would spend approximately 13% of our extra revenue every year. In addition to state costs, we estimate that approximately $34 million in lost wages from previously parole-eligible individuals being unable to work. Read our full analysis of the fiscal impact of Proposition 128. We recommended voting no.

Back to Top

Proposition 130: Funding for Law Enforcement

• What Would It Do: Direct the state to spend an additional $350 million from the state general fund to recruit, train, and retain local law enforcement officers. It also requires the state to provide a one-time $1 million death benefit to the family of each state and local law enforcement officer killed while policing. 
• CFI’s Position: No
• Why: This measure seeks to drastically increase the state’s contribution to local police funding. Eighty-eight percent of law enforcement funding comes from the local level; additional funding is also allocated from the federal level. The majority of state law enforcement funding has historically been allocated towards state troopers and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, not expanding local policing. Over the past two years, Colorado has granted local law enforcement agencies $30 million through the Colorado Department of Public Safety (CDPS) for police recruitment and retention.
  
  Funding Proposition 130 would require cutting budgets for essential services and programs that are data-supported to reduce poverty and crime, such as affordable housing, education, healthcare, food access, direct cash supplements, and targeted tax credits, like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Child Tax Credit (CTC), and Colorado’s Family Affordability Tax Credit (FATC). This $350 million is a new cost with no new funding source. The $350 million is to be allocated to the Colorado Department of Public Safety with no guidelines for equitable distribution across the state. Furthermore, this significant additional police funding comes with no additional accountability requirements. Read more of our take from our recent blog. We recommend voting no.

Back to Top

Proposition 131: Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative

• What Would It Do: Establish an all-candidate primary for all voters regardless of their political party for certain offices and advances the top four candidates to a general election where voters rank the candidates in order of preference. 
• CFI’s Position: No
• Why: At CFI, we recognize that voters play a crucial role in shaping public policies, and we believe that clear and accessible elections are essential for empowering voters to cast their ballots confidently. Colorado already boasts a top-tier voting system, ranking second in the nation for voter participation and consistently placing among the best over the last decade. However, various studies conducted in states and cities that have implemented systems similar to Proposition 131 reveal that complex ballots tend to confuse voters, leading to decreased participation, especially among minority and marginalized groups.
  
  Furthermore, this measure was placed on the ballot without consulting election officials or partners who have been diligently working to enhance our election system’s quality. If passed, it would impose an additional burden on the state, with an estimated cost of $21 million over the next two to three years to implement this new system. We recommend voting no.

Back to Top

Local Measure 7A: RTD Revenue

• What Would It Do: Allow the Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Colorado to keep the money it raises from sales taxes to fund its services.
• CFI’s Position: Yes
• Why: In 2004, voters approved a sales tax increase to finance transit improvements. The authorized measure also exempted RTD from revenue and spending limitations imposed by TABOR. Measure 7A would continue RTD revenue’s exemption from a TABOR cap; if not approved, RTD would have to return 7-10% of the money it raises to taxpayers. Arbitrary caps on revenue and spending because they restrict governments’ ability to provide sufficient, responsive, and welfare-enhancing services. CFI supports 7A, because we know that RTD’s services create safer and more prosperous communities, particularly for disabled and low-income individuals who rely on public transportation to go to work or access medical care. We recommend voting yes.

Back to Top