Colorado’s 2026 Ballot Made Simple: What Every Amendment and Proposition Means

Patriots First Media | Election Guide | October 10, 2026

Opening your ballot should not feel like taking a test you never studied for.

Colorado voters face 14 statewide ballot measures in the November 3, 2026 election. They cover taxes, schools, immigration, hunting, energy, sports, and criminal penalties.

Here is a guide in everyday language: what each proposal changes, what “yes” and “no” mean, and why people disagree.

First, what are we voting on?

Think of Colorado’s constitution as the state’s main rulebook. An amendment changes that rulebook.

A proposition generally changes a state law. Lawmakers can usually change those laws later without another statewide vote.

This year, Amendments 81 through 86 need 55% approval. Amendment 87 and the seven propositions need more than half the votes.

A yes vote approves the proposed change. A no vote rejects it. Rejecting a proposal does not necessarily mean opposing its goal—you may prefer the current rules or a different solution. Official Colorado Blue Book

Amendment 81: Police and federal immigration authorities

The simple explanation: This would require Colorado law enforcement to check immigration status in certain criminal cases and notify federal immigration authorities when lawful status cannot be confirmed.

It applies when someone is charged with a violent crime, or charged with any crime after a previous felony conviction. Notification would be required within 72 hours of charges being filed.

• YES: Add this statewide checking and reporting requirement.
• NO: Keep current rules, which allow some cooperation but limit involvement in civil immigration enforcement.

Why people disagree: Supporters say it would improve public safety and create consistent rules. Opponents worry about reporting people before they are convicted, including people whose lawful status cannot quickly be verified.

Remember: Being charged with a crime does not mean someone has been found guilty. Official analysis

Amendment 82: A constitutional right to buy and sell natural gas

The simple explanation: This would put the right to buy natural gas for heating and cooking—and the right for utilities to sell it—into Colorado’s constitution.

• YES: Create that constitutional protection.
• NO: Keep current natural gas laws and regulations.

Why people disagree: Supporters want to protect access to gas appliances and heating. Opponents say constitutional protection could limit local and state efforts to address pollution and climate change.

Remember: A no vote does not itself ban gas stoves or furnaces. A yes vote could limit some existing or future government restrictions. Official analysis

Amendment 83: A constitutional right to hunt and fish

The simple explanation: Hunting and fishing are already allowed. This would give them added protection in the state constitution and make them the preferred way to manage certain wildlife populations.

• YES: Establish the constitutional right.
• NO: Keep hunting and fishing under existing laws.

Why people disagree: Supporters want lasting protection for outdoor traditions. Opponents say the change is unnecessary and could complicate wildlife management.

Remember: This would not give anyone permission to trespass or hunt endangered species. The state could still regulate hunting and fishing for conservation, safety, and future opportunities. Official analysis

Amendment 84: Extra identification for mail ballots

The simple explanation: Returning a mail ballot would require identification information as well as a signature.

For federal and statewide elections, voters would provide the last four digits of their Social Security number or an eligible Colorado driver’s license or identification card number.

• YES: Add this identification check.
• NO: Keep the current signature verification system.

Why people disagree: Supporters say an extra check would improve security and confidence. Opponents worry that mistakes, privacy concerns, or difficulty providing identification could prevent eligible voters from having their ballots counted.

Remember: The proposal includes a process to correct missing or mismatched information. It does not change identification options for voting in person. This is a proposed change; follow the instructions on your current ballot. Official analysis

Amendment 85: Easier-to-read ballot questions

The simple explanation: Ballot titles would have to use plain language at no more than an eighth-grade reading level.

It would also prohibit laws requiring wording in citizen initiative titles when that wording interferes with the plain-language requirement.

• YES: Put this reading standard into the constitution.
• NO: Keep existing plain-language requirements without a specific grade level.

Why people disagree: Supporters say voters deserve clearer questions. Opponents say the proposal does not explain how to measure the standard and could lead to legal disputes or the removal of useful information.

Think of it this way: The goal is a ballot question you can understand on the first reading. The disagreement is over whether this particular rule would accomplish that. Official analysis

Amendment 86: Rules for changing congressional maps between census years

The simple explanation: Colorado is divided into areas called congressional districts. Each elects a representative to the U.S. House.

Those maps are normally redrawn every ten years. This proposal adds requirements for changing them between those regular updates.

• YES: Require independent commission approval, public hearings, and Colorado Supreme Court approval for those changes. Maps could not intentionally favor a political party or unnecessarily split communities.
• NO: Keep current constitutional requirements without these added rules.

Why people disagree: Supporters say it protects fair maps and public participation. Opponents say it creates an unnecessary barrier when voters want different districts.

Remember: This regulates map changes between regular updates; it does not simply prohibit every such change. Official analysis

Amendment 87: Different income tax rates for different portions of income

The simple explanation: Colorado currently uses a flat 4.4% income tax rate. This would replace it with several rates, starting in 2027.

Lower portions of taxable income would have lower rates. Portions above $500,000 would have higher rates.

• YES: Adopt the new tax structure and use additional revenue for schools, health care, and early childhood care and education. That additional revenue would be outside the TABOR revenue limit.
• NO: Keep the constitutional requirement for a flat income tax.

Why people disagree: Supporters say it would lower taxes for most taxpayers and fund services. Opponents say higher rates could hurt businesses and economic growth.

Think of it like steps: Reaching a higher tax bracket does not put all your income at that higher rate. Only the portion on that step gets that rate.

Remember: The brackets would not automatically rise with inflation. “Taxable income” also differs from your total paycheck. Official analysis

Proposition NN: Keep more state revenue for education and children’s programs

The simple explanation: TABOR limits how much revenue Colorado can keep. Money above that limit generally must be returned to taxpayers.

This proposal would raise the amount the state can keep, using a formula tied to education spending.

• YES: Allow the state to retain more revenue. During the first ten years, money would support schools and children’s programs, alongside required property tax reimbursements. After ten years, some school funding requirements would continue, but remaining money could go to other purposes.
• NO: Keep current revenue limits and TABOR refund rules.

Why people disagree: Supporters want more money for teachers, classrooms, and children. Opponents want taxpayers to keep their refunds and government to control spending.

Remember: This could reduce or eliminate TABOR refunds. It does not eliminate ordinary refunds for overpaid income taxes. Official analysis

Proposition 132: Stronger penalties for fentanyl crimes

The simple explanation: This would increase penalties for illegally possessing or distributing fentanyl and certain related drugs.

• YES: Make possession of any amount a felony and require at least eight years in prison for distribution of any amount. It would also remove several options for reduced penalties.
• NO: Keep current penalties, which vary by amount and circumstances.

Why people disagree: Supporters say stronger punishment would protect people from a deadly drug. Opponents say it could discourage people from seeking help during overdoses and increase prison costs without solving addiction.

Remember: “Distribution” includes transferring or sharing drugs, not just selling them. The proposal addresses illegal possession and distribution, not properly prescribed medical use. Official analysis

Proposition 133: Life sentences for child sex trafficking

The simple explanation: This would require life in prison without parole for child sex trafficking convictions. It would also expand the crime to include buying sexual activity with a minor.

• YES: Adopt the expanded definition and mandatory life sentence.
• NO: Keep existing felony penalties, generally eight to 48 years in prison plus mandatory parole.

Why people disagree: Supporters say this punishment would protect children and keep offenders from harming others. Opponents worry about removing judges’ ability to consider individual circumstances and about victims forced to help traffickers being caught in prosecutions.

Remember: A no vote does not make child sex trafficking legal. It is already a serious crime. Official analysis

Proposition 134: Eligibility rules for school sports

The simple explanation: School sports, from elementary school through college, would have to be designated male-only, female-only, or mixed.

Eligibility for male-only and female-only teams would follow the proposal’s definition of biological sex.

• YES: Require these categories and school policies enforcing them. Mixed teams would remain open to everyone.
• NO: Let schools, districts, and athletic associations continue setting policies within current state and federal law.

Why people disagree: Supporters say it protects fairness and safety in female sports. Opponents say it excludes transgender students and could create intrusive or inconsistent eligibility checks.

Remember: The proposal does not specify one method for checking biological sex. It does not apply to youth leagues operating separately from schools. Official analysis

Proposition 135: Restrictions on certain surgeries for minors

The simple explanation: This would prohibit surgeries on people under 18 that change biological sex characteristics in response to their perception of sex or gender, with certain exceptions.

It would also prohibit government funding and insurance coverage for those surgeries.

• YES: Adopt the surgery and payment restrictions.
• NO: Keep current Colorado law protecting access and allowing coverage.

Why people disagree: Supporters say permanent surgical decisions should wait until adulthood. Opponents say the wording is too broad and could interfere with decisions made by patients, parents, and doctors, including care for some non-transgender minors.

Remember: This is about specified surgeries. It does not prohibit all gender-related care, such as counseling. Exceptions include certain medical conditions and male circumcision. Official analysis

Proposition 136: A 4.4% income tax rate limit

The simple explanation: This would make Colorado’s current 4.4% income tax rate the maximum rate in state law for individuals and corporations.

• YES: Establish that limit beginning in 2027.
• NO: Keep the current 4.4% rate without adding this limit.

Why people disagree: Supporters want to reinforce the current rate. Opponents say voters already must approve tax increases and that the proposal could create a legal conflict with Amendment 87.

Remember: This would not immediately lower your tax rate or permanently prevent voters from approving a future increase.

If both Proposition 136 and Amendment 87 pass, the official Blue Book says the exact result is unclear. Lawmakers or courts would need to resolve their conflicting provisions. Official analysis

Proposition 137: Use sporting goods tax revenue for the outdoors

The simple explanation: This would direct a portion of existing state sales tax revenue from sporting goods purchases and rentals toward conservation, wildfire prevention, and outdoor recreation.

• YES: Dedicate that revenue to those programs and exclude it from the TABOR revenue limit.
• NO: Keep it in the general state budget, subject to existing spending and refund rules.

Why people disagree: Supporters say outdoor purchases should help support parks, wildlife, forests, and recreation. Opponents say earmarking the money leaves less flexibility for other priorities and could reduce TABOR refunds.

Remember: This does not raise the sales tax rate on sporting goods. It changes where existing tax money goes and whether it counts toward the revenue limit. Official analysis

Your local ballot may have more questions

These are all 14 statewide measures. Your ballot may also include city, county, school district, or other local proposals.

The Blue Book includes Front Range Passenger Rail District Ballot Issue 7A, which applies only within that district. Other local questions are explained separately. Check your own ballot rather than assuming every Colorado voter receives identical questions. Colorado’s official voter guide

Three questions to ask before marking your ballot

For each measure, ask:

1. What would actually change?
2. Who would pay, benefit, or face new requirements?
3. Do I prefer this proposal to the current rules?

You do not have to vote yes on everything—or no on everything. Each proposal deserves its own decision.

Read the question, understand the change, and make your choice.

This guide summarizes the official Colorado ballot analyses in everyday language. The linked analyses include the full details, financial estimates, and arguments on both sides.