Download the Report

Download the Two-Pager

Economic evidence tells us that unions improve workers’ lives by ensuring they have the ability to negotiate better wages, benefits, and safer working conditions. However, Colorado is among states that historically adopted policies intended to limit private sector workers’ freedoms to form unions. Today, this suppression of workers’ rights is weakening Colorado’s economy.

Across the country, it has become challenging for workers to freely exercise their legal right to form unions due to weak federal labor laws. Additionally, some states – including Colorado – have laws in place that make it even more difficult for workers to unionize and limit their rights to collectively bargain with employers.

In this report, we review available research on the economic benefits of unions, the impact of state laws like Colorado’s that limit workers’ freedom to bargain, and the potential economic benefits of modernizing Colorado’s labor laws to remove unnecessary obstacles to unionization and restore workers’ freedom to bargain.

Governor Jared Polis has unveiled his budget strategy for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, which begins on July 1. This proposal is generating buzz due to some noteworthy cuts aimed at addressing a significant state budget shortfall nearing one billion dollars. You might wonder, what caused this gap? It’s a mix of increasing caseloads, inflation, capital maintenance needs, the ending of one-time money, and some other unexpected cost drivers. Here’s our thoughts on what Governor Polis is planning to mend this financial shortfall. The Governor will present his budget to the legislative Joint Budget Committee on Wednesday, Nov. 13, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. in LSB-B. Tune in here: https://leg.colorado.gov/watch-listen. 

1. Budgeting to the TABOR Cap Doesn’t Allow the State Budget to Keep Up

The year after returning $1.6 billion in TABOR rebates to tax filers, the state budget is dealing with a $920 million funding shortfall. This means the state can’t keep up with inflation and caseload growth each year while budgeting to the current TABOR cap (population + inflation). Or to say that another way, if it weren’t for the TABOR cap, we could have an additional $500 million in next year’s budget for critical services, like K12 and healthcare.

2. A Sleight of Hand in K-12 Funding

After 15 years of funding schools below the levels that voters mandated in our state constitution, the state finally got the budget stabilization factor paid down to zero in 2024. And after 30 years, the legislature passed a bill to modernize Colorado’s school finance formula. HB24-1448 was set to change how we fund students while adding about $500 million extra dollars to schools over the next six years as it ramps up to full implementation. The Governor’s budget suggests the new school finance formula be pushed to an implementation schedule of seven years instead of six.  

Schools have a program called Building Excellent Schools Today (BEST) that uses predominantly marijuana tax revenue to fund capital improvements, like heating and air conditioning and other building improvements. This money is not used for program enhancements or improving teacher pay and benefits. The Governor’s budget suggests tapping into the BEST fund to pay for operational school funding, proposing to shift $60 to $80 million a year that should be used for new school maintenance and construction to pay for the school finance deficit the state is facing.  

The biggest impact to schools in the Governor’s proposal is a change to how Colorado counts students. The state currently uses a four-year average of enrollment, but under the proposal, schools would only receive funding based on one year’s pupil count. This will lead to less funding for districts with declining enrollment. So while the Budget Stabilization Factor isn’t technically coming back, changing how we count students in the formula will reduce funding for schools by about $190 million.

3. Decreasing Car Registration Fees to Free Up General Fund Dollars

Here’s an intriguing paradox: to address the budget deficit, the Governor’s proposal recommends cutting $65 million in car registration fees. How does reducing revenue alleviate a budget shortfall? The answer lies in the nuances of TABOR. Under TABOR, both taxes and fees—including car registrations, are subject to the overall revenue cap. When revenue exceeds these limits, we are obligated to refund money to taxpayers from the General Fund. By lowering car fees, we effectively decrease the TABOR rebate amounts owed from the General Fund. While this may reduce funding for road maintenance, it provides the state General Fund more flexibility. 

4. Other Tricks to Free Up General Fund Revenue 

The budget shortfall has been exacerbated by the fact that Medicaid, a health insurance program financed with state and federal money, has grown faster than health officials expected. This added $150 million in costs to last year’s budget. The state budget is already dealing with the winddown of pandemic relief funding, and there’s now an elevated risk of losing more federal Medicaid spending due changes that could be made by the new Congress. The Governor’s proposed budget calls for no annual increase to the Medicaid provider reimbursement rate.

The plan also suggests privatizing the state’s workers’ compensation insurer, Pinnacol, and moving interest earned on cash funds into the General Fund. It scales back maintenance projects for higher education and recommends diverting some severance tax into the General Fund.

5. Other Items We’re Watching

Last year, the Colorado Legislature passed HB24-1311, which established the Family Affordability Tax Credit (FATC), providing targeted tax relief to 45% of Colorado families. The extent of the credit’s funding–whether fully or partially–relies on state revenue growth. With a projected revenue growth of 4%, significantly surpassing the necessary  2% growth, the credit is set to be fully implemented in the upcoming year. In the coming years, growth will have to meet a higher threshold of 3.75% to send the full amount to qualifying families. 

Current law says a portion of the TABOR surplus will be returned via an income tax rate cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthy. We could restructure that TABOR rebate mechanism into a targeted tax credit to benefit those who will be hurt by the upcoming budget cuts. 

The plan doesn’t dip into the rainy day fund, and maintains a 15% General Fund Reserve. Though with the passage of Proposition 130 at the ballot last week, which directs the legislature to provide $350 million of state funding for local law enforcement, the budget crunch got even crunchier, which will require a few more tricks up the sleeve to help with that, too.

A detailed overview of the Governor’s budget request by Joint Budget Committee Staff is available here.

Here’s the scoop on how Project 2025 plans to sideline the voices of hard-working Coloradans. The authoritarian strategy conveys a clear message: the opinions of working individuals are insignificant, and political choices should be determined by a select few who are neither accountable nor connected to the everyday needs of the workforce.

In this blog, CFI turns the tables to explore how instead of moving backwards, Colorado can strengthen policies we already have and continue to lead the nation in ensuring economic opportunity for all. 

1) Project 2025 wants to reduce enforcement of basic workers rights, including minimum wage and overtime protections. 

Project 2025 suggests that states and local governments be granted waivers to bypass the enforcement of essential federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. These laws are vital for protecting workers’ rights to minimum wage and overtime compensation.

It would restore Trump-era regulations that simplify the process for employers to misclassify workers as independent contractors, denying them essential employment protections such as minimum wage and overtime. This misclassification would also allow employers to evade responsibilities for social security and Medicaid taxes.

This situation particularly affects women and people of color, who are more likely to occupy low-wage jobs that are often misclassified, such as childcare, rideshare, delivery, and janitorial positions.

Colorado has made notable progress in enforcing wage theft laws through the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE), recovering $2.04 million in stolen wages in Denver alone in 2023. Localities can set minimum wages above the state level, helping ensure living wages amid rising costs. Following a 2020 minimum wage increase, Denver saw job growth, higher earnings, and increased sales tax revenue. Starting January 1, 2024, the Family and Medical Leave Insurance program (FAMLI) will offer up to 12 weeks of paid leave for various health and family needs. Since its approval in 2020, FAMLI has inspired similar laws in four other states, making it one of the most comprehensive programs in the U.S. Colorado aims to lead in equitable access to these benefits, particularly for marginalized groups.

Colorado must maintain its position as a leader in advocating for living wages and dignity for all workers by increasing wages at both the state and local levels. It is also essential to provide access to benefits such as our newly established state family and medical leave program. Having already set a national precedent by passing Paid Family and Medical Leave through the ballot and allowing self-employed and gig workers to join the program, it is crucial to ensure fair implementation for historically marginalized workers.

2) Project 2025 wants to strip workers of their right to organize and form unions under our already broken, poorly enforced federal labor laws.

Project 2025 aims to erode workers’ rights to organize, form unions, and engage in collective bargaining. For instance, it proposes the removal of card check neutrality, which is a crucial mechanism that enables unions to organize workers seeking union representation and achieve majority recognition.

In Colorado, we have the opportunity to enhance worker empowerment by lowering the significant barriers to unionization that workers face. We can achieve this by supporting policies such as the 2021 Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act at the national level, ensuring card check neutrality, and updating the Colorado Labor Peace Act. These steps will guarantee that all workers can freely organize and negotiate for fair wages, benefits, and working conditions.

3) Project 2025 would weaken child labor protections, including eliminating federal rules that protect children from working in mines, meatpacking plants and other dangerous workplaces. 

During the recent legislative session, Colorado enhanced protections for young workers with the introduction of HB24-1095. This legislation significantly raised penalties and encouraged children and their parents to report any violations. An analysis by the Colorado Fiscal Institute reveals a troubling increase in violations since 2015, reflecting a national trend. This alarming data underscores the urgent need to further bolster protections for minors by monitoring violation data and enforcing minimum wage and overtime laws in high-risk industries, rather than reducing these fundamental safeguards.

4) Project 2025 would make it easier for employers to discriminate along the lines of race, sex, sexual preference, gender identity, and immigration status.

Colorado is exceeding the national average in narrowing the gender wage gap. Since the implementation of the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act in 2021, the earnings of women working full-time in Colorado have risen from 78 cents to 85 cents for every dollar earned by similarly qualified men. Additionally, we have made significant progress in safeguarding Colorado workers from discriminatory employment practices through the Protecting Opportunities and Workers’ Rights (POWR) Act of 2023.

However, there is still work to be done to address the remaining 15-cent pay gap faced by women in Colorado, along with disparities based on race, ethnicity, and other identities. By implementing policies that enhance pay for female-dominated caregiving professions and public sector jobs—building on successes like the State Income Tax Credit for Careworkers and ensuring representation for home care workers on the Direct Care Workforce Stabilization Board—we can uplift women and workers of color. Furthermore, Colorado can promote workplace equity by enforcing workers’ rights to organize, as unions play a vital role in reducing racial and gender pay disparities. Research from the Colorado Fiscal Institute also highlights the importance of expanding access to affordable childcare for working parents, enabling women to remain in the workforce despite rising care costs.

Colorado has been at the forefront of addressing gender wage disparities and safeguarding employees against discrimination; we must enhance these protections rather than regress.

5) Project 2025 seeks to provide benefits to the wealthy while increasing the financial burden on lower and middle-income families.

The National Women’s Law Center outlines in this brief how, among many other regressive and inequitable economic policies, Project 2025 proposes a shift to two new income tax brackets that would increase taxes for lower- and middle-income families while providing even larger tax cuts for the wealthy. For instance, a family of four earning $100,000 annually would face an additional $2,600 in taxes, while a similar family with an income of $5,000,000 would benefit from a $325,000 tax cut.

Additionally, the Project 2025 plan enables the wealthy to evade accountability for their current tax obligations by reversing the $80 billion in extra funding allocated to the IRS under the Inflation Reduction Act, which was intended to enforce tax compliance among the nation’s richest tax evaders.

However, Colorado takes a different approach. In the recent session, CFI was proud to support the passage of HB24-1311, the Family Affordability Tax Credit (FATC); HB24-1312, the Care Worker Credit; and HB24-1134, which enhances the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). These measures have helped to realign our imbalanced tax code, ensuring it serves working individuals rather than a privileged few.

When viewed as a whole, Project 2025 would undermine American workers and create obstacles to achieving a place in the middle class, all while providing substantial tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy. Workers and their families in Colorado deserve improved conditions; let’s advocate for policies that require the wealthy and corporations to contribute their fair share.

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.

• Take me to CFI’s 2024 Ballot Insights View our list of resources for voter protection, sharable summaries of ballot measures, and detailed reports on their implications.
• Take CFI with you! Learn more about scheduling an in-person or virtual Count Me In! event for your community group. Count Me In! is a robust civic engagement effort that reaches into communities across the state to educate communities on the issues they will see on their ballots. We are a collaborative effort among nonprofit groups who focus on equity, economic justice, and public finance. Our focus is to spark community conversations about the power we have to influence the public investments that shape our communities.

Quick Reference

• Amendment G: Modify Property Tax Exemption for Veterans with Disabilities
• Amendment J: Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban
• Amendment 79: Constitutional Right to Abortion
• Amendment 80: Constitutional Right to School Choice
• Proposition JJ: Retain Additional Sports Betting Tax Revenue
• Proposition KK: Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax
• 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 1999, voters exempted RTD from the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) revenue limit to pay back the debt incurred to fund the construction of light rail lines. The debt is expected to be paid back in November of 2024. 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 limits 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

Download the Fact Sheet (English | Spanish) 

In recent years, there has been considerable debate regarding the economic  influence of new immigrants in Colorado, particularly as the nation faces an influx of newcomers. Recently, the media has engaged in a lot of unverified discussions about the effects of these immigrants on communities in Colorado, such as Aurora. Immigrants are an integral part of our collective future and economy.

The rise of misinformation presents a serious challenge to society and erodes trust in information sources amidst a digitally connected world. In response, the Colorado Fiscal Institute, Immigration Research Initiative, and Economic Policy Institute have released data that counters misconceptions and highlights the contributions of Colorado’s working immigrant population.

Download the Economic and Health Implications of Closing Comanche 3 and the Case for Renewable Energy Report

The retirement of the Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant in Pueblo, Colorado by 2031 presents both challenges and opportunities for the local community and the state’s energy future. While the closure will result in significant economic impacts, including the loss of 77 direct jobs and an estimated $31 million in annual tax payments, it also offers substantial health and environmental benefits. Comanche 3 is currently a major source of pollution, emitting over 4.2 million tons of CO2 and over 2 million pounds of toxic chemicals annually. These emissions contribute to higher rates of respiratory diseases and cancer in nearby communities, particularly affecting communities of color.

The social cost of carbon for Comanche 3’s emissions is approximately $285.6 million per year, representing the economic benefit of closing the plant. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CO-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) tool estimates that the closure of Comanche 3 would result in avoided health costs benefiting Colorado between $52 million and $67 million annually, with Pueblo County specifically benefiting between $4.6 million and $5.6 million from avoided health costs.

While advanced nuclear energy has been proposed as a replacement option, it presents significant risks and challenges:

1. Economic challenges: Nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build and maintain, with costs potentially reaching billions of dollars.
2. Environmental and safety risks: Nuclear power produces radioactive waste requiring secure storage for thousands of years and carries the risk of severe accidents.
3. Operational and technical issues: Current nuclear technologies remain largely experimental and unproven at a commercial scale.
4. Community and regulatory concerns: Previous attempts to build nuclear plants in Pueblo have faced strong community opposition.

In contrast, renewable energy alternatives such as solar and wind offer safer, more immediate, and often cheaper solutions to meet energy needs while providing economic benefits. Studies suggest that investing in solar energy on a small percentage of agricultural land could meet all electricity demands while providing additional income for farmers.

Given these factors, prioritizing investments in renewable energy sources presents a more viable path forward for Pueblo and Colorado. This approach can address both energy demands and economic stability while ensuring a cleaner, safer, and more sustainable energy future for the community and the environment.

Since the early 1990s, Colorado families have had the freedom to choose the educational setting that best meets their children’s needs, thanks to our state’s robust public and charter school choice system. An amendment on the 2024 ballot seeks to add the right to school choice within the Colorado Constitution, but more importantly, it would broaden the definition of school choice to include private and homeschool alternatives.

While Amendment 80 may appear innocuous, it represents a significant move towards diverting tax dollars from public schools to private institutions. This initiative is part of a broader strategy to undermine public education and is a calculated first step in a nationwide effort to introduce voucher programs in every state, ultimately threatening the funding of public schools. Colorado can’t afford even one step down the vouchers path.

Three Lessons We’ve Learned from other States

1. School Vouchers Are Not What They Seem

School vouchers use public funds, derived from taxpayer dollars, to finance private school education. Instead of investing directly in public education, vouchers redirect these dollars to unregulated, often faith-based private schools. Public schools serve students of all backgrounds and abilities, and those students are protected under our state and federal laws. Children in private schools are not protected in the same way.

Understanding that people may resist the idea of allocating public funds for private interests, advocates might disguise school vouchers under different names or present them as tax credits. For instance, in 2021 Kentucky introduced a dollar-for-dollar credit for organizations offering private school scholarships. More recently, the trend has been to frame them as education savings accounts (ESAs), which put money onto debit cards to be sent directly to families for their use.

The financial impact of school voucher programs has been detrimental to state budgets. Historically, states have funded only one education system: the public school system. Taking on funding responsibilities for school vouchers necessitates funding for a private system as well, which places significant pressure on state finances. For instance, Florida and Arizona, now allocating 31% and 16% of their total education budget to vouchers, are seeing the downfalls of trying to fund two education systems at once. At present, Colorado is exclusively responsible for funding its public schools.

2. The Unpredictability of School Voucher Costs Causes Instability

In 2022, Arizona implemented universal eligibility for its Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, which are a type of ESAs. Initial estimates fell far short of the true cost to the state. Since the expansion of eligibility, the program’s costs have surged rapidly, with minimal restrictions on how the funds can be used. This year, Arizona faced a $1.4 billion budget shortfall, leading to hundreds of millions of dollars in funding cuts to essential areas such as water projects, infrastructure improvements, and community colleges.

Because there is no official enrollment count for private schools across Arizona, and there is no real way to estimate how many students will attend private or homeschools and use the program, it has been impossible to plan for the ever-increasing costs of ESAs in Arizona. Colorado has enough difficulty planning for our future; for 15 years our schools were forced to operate with hundreds of millions of dollars less than the Colorado Constitution promises them. Our public schools can’t afford an added layer of fiscal uncertainty.

3. Data Shows School Vouchers Do Not Effectively Expand Options for Chronically Underserved Students

The data points to one looming problem with the voucher promise: the programs are costing more money without indication that they increase options for the most at-risk students.

In Arizona, English Language Learners represent 9.2% of the public school population, but just 0.6% of the students using the ESA program. As of 2023, 71% of the growth in Arizona’s ESA program was from students who already attended private or homeschool prior to participating in the program. Further, the areas with the lowest poverty rates are consistently the areas with the highest participation rate in the ESA program. 

In states with the most expensive voucher programs, they often serve as a giveaway to affluent families who are already enrolling their children in private schools. Implementing a voucher program in our state is likely to overlook children in rural Colorado, children with disabilities, and children from families with low incomes.

For most rural areas, school voucher programs don’t increase choice. Instead, funding private schools would pull money away from rural public schools to subsidize private schools mostly concentrated in Denver and Boulder.

Students attending private schools in Colorado generally come from wealthier and predominantly white backgrounds compared to those in public schools. About 9% of public school student families make more than $300,000 per year whereas 16% of private school families make more than $300,000 per year. On the other end of the distribution, 21% of children in public school live in households with less than $50,000 in annual income while 13% of children in private schools do. Approximately 40% of public school students in Colorado identify as non-white while about 30% of private school students fall into the same category.

What Amendment 80 Would Cost Colorado

A system that uses public tax dollars to fund private K-12 schools in Colorado would cost between $640 and $790 million. We estimate there are currently about 92,000 private and homeschool K-12 students in Colorado.

If Colorado funded those 92,000 students like Arizona’s program, it would cost $642 million. If a Colorado voucher program looked like Florida’s, it would cost $789 million. If Colorado ran those private school students through the school finance formula at Colorado’s base funding levels, it would cost $780 million.

Budgeting to Colorado’s revenue cap, the state budget is already short by several hundred million dollars in keeping up with inflation, case load growth, and reserve requirements each year. Mandating the state budget pay an additional $790 million for private schools would sabotage all the progress Colorado has made toward funding public schools at the levels that voters said they wanted under Amendment 23.

We Need Honest, Robust, and Principled Investments in our Kids

Colorado has a troubling legacy of broken promises to our students. For the past 15 years, we’ve failed to meet our voter-approved constitutional funding requirements for public education. Our ability to uphold this promise going forward is uncertain; we are reliant upon a state budget bloated by significant economic growth, and local revenue supported by rising property tax collections. We’ve already capped local school revenue this year, let’s avoid allowing our beloved community schools to fall prey to elitist, revenue-draining, school voucher advocates who seek to exploit them. Vote no on Amendment 80.

Download the PDF of this brief here.

Download the Proposition 130 Fact Sheet

Vote No on Proposition 130 

Enhancing public safety throughout the state has been a key focus for communities and local leaders for many years. Proposition 130, which will be on the ballot this November, aims to address the issue of public safety through increasing state funding for local law enforcement. Proposition 130 proposes to allocate an additional $350 million state dollars to expand policing across Colorado—that’s more than 10 times the amount of recent state funding for local law enforcement.

City police departments and sheriff’s offices would be able to apply for a portion of the $350 million through the Colorado Department of Public Safety (CDPS), but other public safety resources like firefighters or first responders are not eligible for this money. This approach is not a solution for promoting public safety. Proposition 130 is an expensive and ineffective investment, especially when considering the types of crime that are most common in Colorado and the underlying causes.

In the first half of 2024, Colorado recorded nearly six times the number of property crime incidents compared to violent crimes. Research indicates that poverty is a major factor contributing to property crime. Research and data support that increased policing and incarceration does not reduce the rate of violent crimes, and incarceration is both expensive and ineffective in reducing property crime. Considering that the vast majority of crime is property crime and heavily influenced by cycles of poverty, it is clear that the solution is not investing $350 million towards expanding surveillance, force, and punishment. 

Proposition 130 would also require the state to establish an ongoing fund that provides a $1 million death benefit to the family of each law enforcement officer who loses their life while policing. Currently, families of most law enforcement officers receive ongoing survivor benefits through the officer’s pension. Some local law enforcement agencies provide their own death and disability benefits.

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).

The $350 million dollars needed to fund Proposition 130 would also impact the state legislature’s ability to pass any new legislation that needs funding, which would leave a gap for the state to make up for any funding cuts in current or new programs that help meet the basic needs of Coloradans.

Fiscal Impact

This $350 million provision is a new cost with no new funding source. The $350 million is to be allocated to CDPS with no guidelines for equitable distribution across the state. Furthermore, this significant additional police funding comes with no additional accountability requirements.

For FY 25-26, the Office of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) forecasts that available revenue under the TABOR cap will grow by only 3.4%, which means only $650 million would be available to cover inflation costs and capacity increases across the state’s budget.

$350 million invested elsewhere could fund

• 5,758 K-12 teachers’ salaries based on the current Colorado average teacher pay ($60,775/year).
• 41,194 students at Colorado’s current average base per pupil spending level ($8,496.38/year).
• more than double the FY 2024-25 allocation into Colorado’s Affordable Housing Fund from $317 million to $667 million.

Police Funding in Colorado

In 2021, Colorado ranked 13th highest nationally in state and local police funding per capita. Police funding was $2.4 billion that year, which is $419 per Colorado resident spent on policing. 88% of that $2.4 billion police budget came from local funding. 

The passage of Proposition 130 would impose a significant financial burden on Colorado’s state budget and divert funds from other essential services and programs. Given the limited budgetary flexibility under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), this initiative would compromise the state’s ability to invest in critical areas such as affordable housing, education, food access, and health services, which are all essential for promoting public safety. 

We urge Coloradans to consider these significant fiscal and social impacts when evaluating Proposition 130. We recommend exploring alternative measures that focus on poverty reduction, rehabilitation, and crime prevention rather than the unaccountable expansion of policing, surveillance, and incarceration, which has proven to be both costly and ineffective.

It’s time for another Forecast Five, where CFI gets down in the details so you don’t have to. Check out our top five takeaways from the Legislative Council’s presentation on the economic and fiscal outlook for Colorado.

1. Twists in the New School Finance Formula Trigger

For 30 years, Colorado has used the same formula to distribute revenue among its 178 school districts. However, in 2024, , the formula received a significant update due to HB24-1448, which will add an additional $95 million into schools. But the bill also included several conditions that could delay implementation of this new formula. One such condition was related to potential cuts in property taxes which could have occurred if Proposition 108 passed in the upcoming ballot this November.

Fortunately, the special session agreement led to the withdrawal of Proposition 108 allowing the implementation of the new formula to proceed. However, another condition which could postpone the new school finance formula might now come into play. This condition stipulates a pause if a five percent drop in the State Education Fund revenue occurs. It appears there will indeed be a five percent drop, not because of falling income tax revenue, but because of an accounting adjustment. So some statutory clarification may be necessary in January 2025 to keep the implementation of the new school finance formula on schedule.

2. The Impact of the Upcoming Election

Business confidence has recently dipped with the uncertainty of who will win the White House. The election could mean changes to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA)which could impact  Colorado’s budget since Colorado’s income tax revenue is coupled with the federal tax base. Changes to the tax base at the federal level could flow to Colorado. While the TCJA lowered income tax rates, it actually expanded the tax base causing Colorado to collect more state income tax revenue. That would change if TCJA changes. This could also impact revenue for Prop FF, which funds school meals but capping the amount of tax deductions tax filers making over $300,000 can take. That could result in $30 million less in Prop FF revenue.

3. General Fund Outlook: Can’t Keep Up in Real Terms

Next year’s budget isn’t expected to keep up with caseload growth, inflation, scheduled capital maintenance while maintaining a 15% General Fund Reserve. Next’s year’s budget will fall short by $921 million, resulting in a 9.2% reserve instead of the target 15%. This situation illustrates how revenue available below the TABOR cap is insufficient to meet demands. Revenue was also adjusted downward due to less optimistic income tax collection data.

Although the state remains in a TABOR rebate scenario, the anticipated TABOR rebate amount of $365 million for 2025 is well within forecast error range. Concerns such as deteriorating household budgets, slowing global economic conditions, high borrowing costs, and deteriorating labor market conditions present the heaviest downside risk to the forecast. Though the General Fund was revised downward for the next three years, the newly established Family Affordability Tax Credit (FATC) and expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) will be funded in full through 2027. 

4. Economic Growth Surpasses Expectations this Year, but Shows Signs of Slowing

Economists expect 1.7% GDP growth in 2025 after 2.7% in 2024 and 2.5% in 2023. Consumer spending has been resilient in the face of a high interest rate environment. Though the household savings rate of 2.9% is well below the historical average of 5.7%, households are tapping into savings to cover the costs of rising inflation. Colorado’s unemployment rate of 3.9% continues to creep up in recent months but it is below the 4.2% of the nation as a whole. However, revisions to the jobs numbers after additional survey data comes in is expected to show an actual unemployment rate that’s worse that the currently reported figure.

5. First Interest Rate Cut after Two Years of Rate Increases by the Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve cut rates by an unusually large half a percentage point this week in response to signals that the inflation is under control and worries about a deteriorating labor market. That reverses 11 rate hikes by the Federal Reserve since 2022. Inflation continues to fall, and Denver’s inflation rate is now below the U.S. after being above the nation all of 2023. Colorado’s rate is below 2% recently after peaking above 9% in 2022. The housing and transportation components of inflation are coming down in Denver. As expected, the tight monetary policy has been putting a damper on home construction.  

This Labor Day it’s worth celebrating that 7 out of 10 Americans support labor unions. This marks the highest public approval rating since 1965, almost on par with the popularity of hot dogs as a staple at Labor Day barbecues. As summer winds down and we enjoy our last juicy Palisade peaches, it’s an opportune moment to recognize the wide-ranging advantages that labor unions offer Colorado’s working families, our state’s economy, our democracy, and the brighter future possible for our state if more Coloradans had the ability to unionize.

While growing enthusiasm for unions reflects broad public awareness that collective bargaining is key to improving wages and workplace safety, it remains far too difficult for most workers who want to come together to form a union under current U.S. and Colorado laws. Weak, outdated labor laws and decades of fierce anti-union attacks from big business have taken a toll on unions and left our economy increasingly off balance. Between 1973 and 2007, the reduction in private sector union membership (dropping from 34% to 8% for men and from 16% to 6% for women) coincided with a more than 40% increase in wage inequality. Research shows this is not a mere coincidence; shrinking union density accounts for much of the increase in income inequality.

Increased union membership yields a positive “net fiscal impact” through two mechanisms: reduced reliance on public benefits, and more tax dollars due to more income. It would also help reverse growing inequality and make the most of our constrained General Fund budget. 

Ensuring better access to unions is key to transforming Colorado into a state where everyone, regardless of their race or background, can prosper. Working-class union households have a median wealth of $201,240, nearly four times greater ($201,240) than nonunion counterparts ($52,221), and union membership also raises the likelihood of families owning a home. While all union households benefit, Black and Latino/a families in Colorado experience even greater advantages, contributing to the reduction of racial and ethnic wealth gaps statewide.

Research tells us that unions help boost average earnings and household income not just for union members, but working families across our economy. On average, a worker covered by a union contract earns 10.2% more in wages than workers in the same industry with the same education, job title, and experience. But unions also raise the bar for entire industries, meaning non-union Coloradans would benefit from increasing unionization, too. And without a strong union presence, a race to the bottom has too often become the norm. Had union density remained at its 1979 level nationally, weekly wages of nonunion, private-sector male workers would be 5% higher, and 8% higher for nonunion workers without a college education. 

Workers in areas with higher union density fare better during economic downturns; the U.S. Treasury points out that unionization reduces inequality and helps promote economic resilience for all working families and Colorado as a whole, by reducing the financial fragility of households with the bottom 95% of incomes. Unionization helps us build more equity into our economy at baseline, which serves as a natural automatic stabilizer. 

While the economic advantages are significant, it’s important to recognize the additional civic engagement benefits of unions, especially during election seasons. Workers are involved in the union’s democratic processes, so voting comes naturally; union members are 3-5% more likely to participate in voting. Another analysis revealed that a 1% rise in union density correlated with a 9.8% increase in the number of ballot drop boxes per person.

Research shows that relative to non-union workers, unionized workers are almost two-thirds more likely to have employment-provided health insurance and retirement benefits because they have the bargaining power necessary to negotiate the benefits they need to care for their families. With about a third of our state budget allocated to Medicaid, more employees accessing essential benefits through their jobs would free up General Fund resources to drive economic progress instead of compensating for low-wage employers who boost their profits by refusing to provide basic benefits. There’s clear evidence demonstrating that allowing low-wage workers a seat at the bargaining table to win benefits would reduce the cost of state safety net programs. 

While TABOR limits how much of our tax revenue could be invested back into Colorado by the legislature, the long-term implications of passing policies to boost worker’s power to unionize are clear; this is a smart policy choice to boost income for middle and working-class Coloradans and reduce reliance on public assistance. This Labor Day, remember that unions can help a Colorado economy that works for all of us.