The post 2026 Ballot Guide Review Event appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>
Join us in-person on Tuesday, Oct. 6!
The post 2026 Ballot Guide Review Event appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>The post Graduated Income Tax: Frequently Asked Questions appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>Would the graduated income tax eliminate state tax breaks on Social Security, pensions, and military retirement payments
No,this is false. The GIT has no impact on any tax breaks, deductions, exemptions, or credits, and in fact cuts tax rates for seniors and veterans making less than $500,000 per year. Opponents of the GIT are basing their claim on the language proposed to be struck from the Colorado Constitution.
They’re saying that the revised language is a mandate meaning that all income “be taxed,” while not considering the phrase “with no added surcharge” that follows. One could just as easily disregard “at one rate” from the existing language to reach the same conclusion. This argument was made during challenges to the single subject this spring, and the Colorado Supreme Court didn’t find it to be persuasive.
When opponents challenged the graduated income tax’s single subject determination in front of the Colorado Supreme Court this spring, their legal briefs raised the question of whether the constitutional change created ambiguity in the interpretation that could lead to broader ramifications beyond allowing a graduated income tax rate structure. Had the language of the graduated income tax measure done so, the Supreme Court would have been forced to rule that the measure contained multiple subjects and therefore could not proceed to the ballot. Instead, when the court reviewed the language, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that the measure contained only one subject.
Will the graduated income tax end TABOR refunds?
No, the graduated income tax measure has no impact on TABOR refunds.
If it passes, nonpartisan legislative staff will annually calculate the income tax revenues raised by the new rate structure and subtract what the revenues would have been under the old structure. That net amount of new revenue will be moved into a TABOR-exempt account where it can be retained and spent on K-12 education, healthcare, and child care. But all of the revenue that would have been generated by the old rates remain subject to TABOR’s revenue limit and refund requirements.
It’s also worth noting that the graduated income tax has no impact on the requirement for voter approval of tax increases. The legislature can’t raise taxes now, and they won’t be able to raise taxes after the measure passes.
If voters pass both the income tax rate cap (Proposition 136) and the graduated income tax (Amendment 87), would most taxpayers still get a tax cut from the graduated income tax?
If both measures pass and Amendment 87 gets more votes, then yes, all of Amendment 87 will go into effect and Proposition 136 will be irrelevant.
If both measures pass and Proposition 136 gets more votes, none of the tax rate changes in Amendment 87 will take effect, but the repeal of the Constitutional requirement that all income be taxed at one rate will still take effect.
When conflicting ballot measures pass, the Colorado Supreme Court must evaluate which provisions are in conflict and which are not, per C.R.S. §1-40-123(3)
While it’s fairly clear that capping the income tax rate at 4.4 percent conflicts with any tax rates that may be higher, it’s less intuitive why the tax cuts in Amendment 87 will also be in conflict with the cap.
The reason is that the tax cuts and tax increases in Amendment 87 are not “severable” from each other. Following established case law, the courts will determine whether provisions of a policy can exist independently without producing absurd results, or whether the provisions “are so dependent upon each other that the court should conclude the intention was that the statute be effective only in its entirety.” American Target Advertising, Inc. v. Giani, 199 F.3d 1241, 1250 (10th Cir. 2000).
Amendment 87 can only be effective if its tax rate structure is enacted in its entirety. The new graduated income tax system lowers tax rates for lower income taxpayers and increases rates for higher income taxpayers as a cohesive policy to rebalance the distribution of income tax collections while ensuring that Colorado can meet its overall tax revenue obligations and grow its tax revenue to further support additional policy goals. Enacting the tax cuts without the tax increases clearly fails to meet the single subject of the measure, and would produce the absurd result of reducing overall state tax revenue, rather than raising tax revenue by up to $2.7 billion per year as stated in the title to fund K-12 education, health care, and child care.
To sum up, if both measures pass but Prop 136 gets more votes, nobody gets a tax increase and nobody gets a tax cut.
Will the graduated income tax cause businesses and job creators to leave Colorado?
No. These claims are based on a fraction of a percent change, and do not take into consideration the benefits and improved services that rank-and-file employees of these companies would see if the graduated income tax were to pass. To the contrary, 97 percent of small businesses in Colorado will get a tax cut under this proposal.
It’s true that large businesses take a state’s tax rates into consideration when they decide whether to relocate here. But these impacts are far smaller than some claim.
Corporate taxes, for instance, are not based on where a corporation is located; they’re based on where they sell their products. Ninety-one percent of corporate income taxes in Colorado are paid by national corporations, the vast majority of which are not based here. There’s no reason to think higher tax rates will cause them to stop selling their products or services in Colorado, let alone cause Colorado-based corporations to leave.
As for individual taxes, including those paid by owners of pass-through businesses like S-corps and LLCs, no co-owner of a passthrough business will pay more until their take-home pay, including their share of the company’s profit, exceeds $500,000 per year. Any business owner making less than $500,000 per year will get a tax cut, making Colorado’s income taxes on small businesses lower than 20 of the 41 other states that levy income taxes.
The other claim is about businesses wanting to attract talented individuals for jobs that pay more than $500,000 per year. It’s plausible that state tax rates weigh on these businesses for this reason, but there’s an abundance of evidence about what has happened in real examples of states raising tax rates. Businesses need educated talent to employ, so a well-funded K-12 education system would help them. Businesses pay a lot in health insurance premiums, and so bringing down healthcare costs by investing in those programs will reduce overall business costs. Businesses need employees who are able to work, and so a state where there is affordable and accessible child care will increase the number of available employees, as parents will no longer have to choose between a paycheck or having their child cared for.
According to a 2025 study from the University of Chicago, every 1 percent increase in the income tax rate for income over $1 million can be expected to cause 0.14 percent of a state’s millionaire population to leave. The graduated income tax would increase the tax rate by 4 percent, and could be expected to cause 0.56 percent of the population to leave and 99.44 percent to stay.
Additionally, since Massachusetts passed its millionaire’s tax in 2022, the state has seen its millionaire population grow, the net worth of millionaires grow faster than the rest of the population, and revenue came in 50 percent higher than expected.
Our friends at the Colorado Fiscal Institute recently broke down these claims in this blog post.
How are we ensuring that the money will go toward public education, health care, and child care?
The money from the increased taxes will go into the Colorado’s Future Fund. By law, money in that fund can only be used for K-12 public education, health care, and child care. Every year there will be a public audit, report, and hearing to ensure that the funds were used appropriately. There will be significant checks and balances to make sure that the funds are used as intended by the voters.
Why does Colorado currently have a flat income tax?
Colorado’s Constitution currently requires a flat income tax, meaning everyone pays the same rate regardless of income. Adopting a graduated income tax would require voter approval of a constitutional change.
Why does the campaign say incomes over $500K pay more, but the table shows an average decrease?
The main reason that the table shows a tax decrease for those making between $500,000 and $1 million has to do with high-income wage earners who report income in multiple states. The average Colorado Taxable Income (CTI) for these individuals is only a percentage of their federal taxable income. Only the Colorado Taxable Income is subject to the graduated income tax structure. Another reason has to do with the interaction of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) and CTI. After deductions and exemptions, many people – especially those with higher incomes – are able to reduce their taxable income. Because of this, many people who make more than $500,000 have a taxable income lower than that, and would therefore qualify for a tax cut. Additionally, most people within that income band are clustered closer to the $500,000 range, making the deductions even more impactful.
So, when you hear us say that only people making more than $500,000 will see a tax increase, that’s because we are talking about Colorado Taxable Income (versus Adjusted Gross Income.) It’s important to note this wrinkle has already been taken into account in the $2 billion revenue estimate.
Who would pay more under the proposal?
Under the proposal, only the highest-income households and corporations would pay higher tax rates. Households earning more than $500,000 annually would contribute more, while 97 percent of Coloradans would pay less. And only the 5 percent of corporations making more than $500,000 per year in profit (after paying out all employee salaries and other business expenses).
How would this measure impact small businesses?
The new tax structure would apply to both individuals and corporations. So, small businesses making below $500,000 per year will actually see a tax cut. A new analysis by the nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy of our graduated income tax measure found that 94 percent of the revenue from increased corporate taxes would come from non-resident businesses. In other words, of the small portion of corporations that would pay slightly more on net (not gross) revenue of over half a million dollars in a year, the vast majority of them aren’t based in Colorado.
How much revenue could a graduated income tax generate?
The proposal is estimated to generate more than $2 billion annually, but that number is subject to minor fluctuations based on macroeconomic conditions. These funds must be invested in K-12 public education, child care, and healthcare services that support Colorado families and communities.
What are the income brackets and tax rates under this measure?
The post Graduated Income Tax: Frequently Asked Questions appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>The post The Income Tax Fairness Act Qualifies for the 2026 Ballot appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Alicia Caldwell
(303) 810-9909
caldwell@bellpolicy.org
Initiative 195, which replaces Colorado’s flat income tax with a graduated income tax, cuts taxes for 97% of taxpayers and raises them on the wealthiest 3% to pay for new investments in K-12 schools, healthcare, and childcare.
- cuts taxes for 97 percent of Colorado taxpayers, including small businesses, seniors, and veterans
- raises more than $2 billion strictly for K-12 education, healthcare, and childcare by asking the wealthiest Coloradans and largest corporations to finally pay their fair share
- increases taxes only on the wealthiest 3 percent of individuals and largest 5 percent of corporations making more than $500,000 annually
- requires graduated income tax revenues to be spent exclusively on K-12 education, healthcare, and childcare
- mandates annual, independent public audits to ensure funds are spent as required
“Young people in Colorado are facing increasing rent costs, stagnating wages, and the programs we rely on being cut, all while the wealthiest keep getting wealthier,” said Christina Soliz, coalition co-chair and executive director of New Era Colorado. “Initiative 195 qualifying for the ballot means voters have the opportunity to create a fairer tax code that rebalances the scales. This is our chance to build a state where the wealthy pay what they owe and where young people can actually see a future here.”
Issue Background
Under current law, a teacher earning $50,000 a year pays the same tax rate as a millionaire or a large corporation. That’s because Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), adopted by voters in 1992, requires the state to tax all income at a single flat rate and caps annual state revenue growth, forcing budget cuts even in years when the state’s economy grows.
That flat-rate requirement, combined with two state income tax cuts over the last six years that primarily benefited wealthy individuals and large corporations, has helped drive a deepening fiscal crisis. Colorado has cut approximately $2 billion from its state budget over the past two years, driven by federal spending cuts under H.R.1 and by TABOR’s revenue restrictions, with education funding, Medicaid, and other services taking the hit.
Initiative 195 would fix this broken tax system by asking households and corporations earning more than $500,000 a year to pay their fair share, while cutting taxes for everyone else.
The new tax rates are marginal rates, and those rates apply to Colorado taxable income for individuals and corporate net income, also known as profit, for corporations (as opposed to gross business income).
About the PCF Coalition
Protect Colorado’s Future is a coalition of more than 100 organizations, including groups focused on education, healthcare, child care, food security, older adults, the environment, rural communities, and local government. Learn more at protectcoloradosfuture.com.
Protect Colorado's Future Steering Committee
- Bell Policy Center
- Colorado Center on Law and Policy
- Colorado Fiscal Institute
- Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition
- Great Education Colorado
- New Era Colorado
- Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights (COLOR)
- Colorado Consumer Health Initiative
- Colorado Cross Disability Coalition
- Colorado PTA
- Colorado Workers for Innovative and New Solutions
- Conservation Colorado
- Counties & Commissioners Acting Together
- Growing Our Future coalition
- Hunger Free Colorado
- Progress Now Colorado
- Provecho Collective
- Save the Children Action Network – Colorado
- Western Colorado Alliance
The post The Income Tax Fairness Act Qualifies for the 2026 Ballot appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>The post Building Colorado’s Early Child Care System: A Decade of Progress and The Challenges Ahead appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>Introduction
When a family cannot access affordable and high-quality child care, labor force participation declines, businesses struggle to recruit and retain employees, and communities find it more difficult to attract and keep families with young children. At the same time, children miss opportunities to benefit from high-quality early learning experiences that support healthy development and long-term educational success. So, affordable, accessible, and quality child care is critical infrastructure that supports Colorado’s economy, current and future workforce, and prospects for economic mobility.
Yet across Colorado, that foundation remains out of reach for too many families. Child Care Deserts remain a serious challenge in Colorado. Almost every county faces a significant shortage of licensed care, with roughly two children aged five and under for every available childcare slot. At the same time, Colorado families, on average, pay between 13 to 30 percent of their income on child care, depending on the age of their child, far above the federal affordability benchmark of 7 percent. Concerningly, in some counties, families face an even sharper version of the problem. For example, in Lake County there are only 10 licensed toddler spots and no licensed infant care.
Recognizing these realities, Colorado has made substantial investments in an effort to increase child care that is accessible, affordable, and of high quality. Since 2016, lawmakers have enacted a series of reforms that expanded access to financial assistance, strengthened support for child care providers, modernized licensing, created the Colorado Department of Early Childhood (CDEC), and launched Universal Preschool (UPK). This blog post will trace Colorado’s ten-year child care policy journey from 2016 through 2026 and examine how legislative priorities evolved to address accessibility, affordability and quality within the child care system. By looking back at a decade of public policy, we can better understand both the remarkable progress Colorado has made and the critical challenges that will shape the next generation of early child care policy.
Local Efforts
In addition to the state-level actions detailed in this piece, local governments across Colorado increasingly have put measures before voters to support child care. For example, over the past three years, communities have passed measures that allow for the continuation of existing taxes, expanded the allowable use of local lodging tax revenue, and increased sales tax – all to support child care. In 2026, local efforts are set to continue as Boulder County Commissioners already have agreed to put a measure on the November ballot that would raise property taxes in order to further support child care.
Timeline
- Expanded the state’s Cliff Effect Pilot Program
- Instated 12-month eligibility
- Improved county funding allocations
- Lawmakers helped make some background checks portable
- Expanded child care tax credits for families and businesses
- Increased access to license-exempt family child care
- Reinforced statewide coordination through the Early Childhood Leadership Commission
- Created a refundable tax credit for qualifying childhood educators through the passage of HB19-1005
- Addressed the declining number of licensed family child care homes and the limited availability of infant care through the passage of SB19-063
- Created the Department of Early Childhood and developed recommendations for a statewide, voluntary preschool program through the passage of HB21-1304
Timeline Details
2016 – 2018: Incremental Steps to Improve Affordability
Between 2016 and 2018, the state adopted an incremental approach to improving the child care system, enacting policies that refined existing programs, including the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP). For example, as it relates to CCCAP, lawmakers expanded the state’s Cliff Effect Pilot Program, instated 12-month eligibility, and improved county funding allocations. Additionally, state lawmakers helped make some background checks portable, expanded child care tax credits for families and businesses, increased access to license-exempt family child care, and reinforced statewide coordination through the Early Childhood Leadership Commission.
Despite the above-mentioned advances, affordability remained a persistent challenge. While the reforms may have reduced some barriers to accessing assistance and improving the administration of Colorado’s child care system, they did not fundamentally close the affordability gap. CCCAP continued to serve primarily families with lower income, but the cliff effect blocked accessibility for many families. At the same time, providers continued facing workforce shortages, rising operating costs, and reimbursement rates that often fell short of the true cost of delivering quality services. The reforms during the period of 2016 and 2018 strengthened the child care system but did not wholly resolve the affordability challenges that both families and providers face.
Bills Passed
Reducing financial barriers for families:
- SB16-022: Child Care Assistance Cliff Effect Pilot Program
- SB16-212: 12-Month Eligibility for CCCAP
- HB17-1002: Child Care Expenses Income Tax Credit Extension
- HB18-1004: Continue Child Care Contribution Tax Credit
- HB18-1208: Expand Child Care Expenses Income Tax Credit
- HB18-1335: County Child Care Assistance Program Block Grants
Supporting providers:
- HB17-1135: Portability of Background Checks for Child Care Workers
- SB17-110: Accessibility of Exempt Family Child Care
Strengthening governance and system coordination:
- HB17-1106: Extend Early Childhood Leadership Commission
- HB18-1141: Modernize Early Childhood Council Language
Expanding access for vulnerable children:
- HB18-1348: Child Welfare Information and Services
2019 – 2021: Strengthening Provider Capacity and Workforce
Although the reforms enacted between 2016 and 2018 had the objective of strengthening affordability, families could still not necessarily find care. Across the state, infant and toddler care remained especially scarce, and many rural communities faced limited or no licensed child care options. Notably, Colorado lost thousands of child care slots because providers closed during the COVID pandemic and never reopened.
The legislation enacted between 2019 and 2021 marked an important shift in Colorado’s child care strategy. This period moved the state from just helping families pay for care to investing in the people, providers and facilities necessary to expand the supply and quality of early childhood services. HB19-1005, for example, created a refundable tax credit for qualifying childhood educators to improve recruitment and retention within a workforce that had long been characterized by low wages. Meanwhile, SB19-063 directed the Department of Human Services, in partnership with the Early Childhood Leadership Commission and other stakeholders, to develop a statewide plan to address the declining number of licensed family child care homes and the limited availability of infant care. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, HB21-1304 created the Department of Early Childhood and established a transition working group and advisory group to adopt a transition plan for the new department and recommendations for a statewide, voluntary preschool program beginning in FY 2023-24.
Bills Passed
Strengthening the early childhood workforce:
- HB19-1005: Income Tax Credit for Early Childhood Educators
Expanding provider capacity and access to care:
- SB19-063: Infant and Family Child Care Action Plan
- SB20-126: Allow Home Child Care in Homeowners’ Association Communities
- HB21-1222: Regulation of Family Child Care Homes
- SB21-236: Increase Capacity for Early Childhood Care and Education
Building system capacity:
- HB21-1304: Early Childhood System
Strengthening local governance and community investment:
- HB19-1052: Early Childhood Development Special District
Supporting children and families through integrated services:
- HB19-1193: Behavioral Health Supports for High-Risk Families
2022-2023: Building a Statewide Early Childhood System
This period marked the most significant transformation in Colorado’s early childhood policy over the past decade. HB22-1295, brought together early childhood programs that had previously been spread across state agencies, while also establishing Universal Preschool (UPK) which received funding from the voter approved increase in the nicotine tax, Proposition EE and subsequently Proposition II. SB23-269 incentivized provider participation in universal preschool through bonuses. HB22-1117 expanded the allowable uses of local lodging tax revenue to include child care. In this phase, Colorado began treating early childhood as a state infrastructure; a coordinated system requiring long term governance, sustainable funding, and broad provider participation. While the reforms in this era, notably the creation of UPK, fundamentally reshaped the state’s early childhood landscape, the long term success of these reforms depends on sustained investment, stable funding streams, and continued efforts to address affordability, workforce shortages, and provider capacity.
Bills Passed
Building statewide governance and system coordination:
- HB22-1295: Department of Early Childhood and Universal Preschool Program
Funding for early childhood:
- HB22-1117: Use of Local Lodging Tax Revenue
Supporting provider participation and implementation:
- SB23-269: Colorado Preschool Program Provider Bonus Payment
2024-2026: Strengthening Implementation and System Capacity
Expanding access through Colorado’s UPK and strengthening CCCAP did not solve long-standing shortages in infant and toddler care, provider staffing, or facility capacity. At the same time providers continue to face rising operating costs, while families in many parts of Colorado still struggle to find available care, despite how far Colorado has come with policies and investments in the child care space.
Most recently, bills such as HB24-1223, HB26-1259, and SB26-020 improved aspects of the child care system by modernizing CCCAP, supporting providers, and streamlining licensing requirements. However, due to a lack of proper sustainable funding, HB24-1223’s implementation was delayed by HB26-1260. The system’s underlying affordability, and workforce and supply challenges largely still remain.
Bills Passed
Strengthening access and program administration:
- HB24-1223: Improved Access to the Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP)
- HB26-1260: Updates to Child Care Assistance Program
- HB26-1259: Department of Early Childhood Clean-Up
Strengthening the early childhood workforce:
- HB24-1312: State Income Tax Credit for Careworkers
Streamlining licensing requirements:
- SB26-020: Child Care Provider Licensing and Quality
Ongoing Gaps
Colorado’s legislative journey over the past decade shows that meaningful policy change in the child care space is possible. The state has expanded financial assistance, strengthened the early child care workforce, created a dedicated state agency, and fundamentally reshaped how early child care services are governed. Yet despite this progress, many of the same challenges that motivated these reforms continue to affect families, providers, and communities across the state.
Accessibility
Eligibility for assistance does not always translate into an available child care slot. Access remains a challenge in Colorado. Forty-five percent of children under age six live in areas with at least three young children for every licensed childcare slot. For many families, affordability and availability remain intertwined challenges. For example, even when families qualify for financial assistance through CCCAP, limited provider capacity and long waiting lists mean that affordable care is not always available. Expanding access therefore requires not only reducing the cost of care but also increasing the supply of licensed providers, particularly for infants, toddlers, and rural communities.
Affordability
Affordability remains a significant issue for many families seeking child care. As labor, facilities, supplies, insurance, and other operating expenses rise, providers face pressure to increase tuition simply to remain financially viable. Yet families are already unable to absorb significantly higher prices, leaving many providers operating on razor-thin margins or receiving tuition and subsidy payments that fall below the actual cost of delivering care. The result is a persistent affordability gap that affects not only low-income households, but increasingly middle-income working families as well.
Quality
Improving the quality of early childhood education and care remains an ongoing challenge for Colorado. While the state has invested in quality improvement through initiatives such as Colorado Shines, ensuring that quality is consistently defined, measured, and supported continues to be a challenge. In 2026, the CDEC paused the observation component of Colorado Shines to refresh the state’s Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS). At the same time, providers across the state continue to face persistent workforce shortages driven by recruitment challenges and high staff turnover. These pressures affect program stability, classroom quality, and the availability of care, making it difficult to deliver consistent, high quality early learning experiences.
Looking Ahead
Over the past decade, Colorado has made some progress in transforming its early childhood system. However, persistent challenges around affordability, provider capacity, quality and access show that the entire system is still a work in progress. The next phase will require, not only effective implementation, but also continued policy innovation to respond to the changing needs of children, families, providers and communities.
A central priority moving forward will be establishing stable, reliable, and long term funding. While investments over the past decade provided support with the intention to stabilize child care providers and strengthen the early childhood infrastructure, these have not proven to be large enough to fully meet existing needs. Long term success will require durable state and local funding strategies that allow providers to plan for the future, strengthen workforce recruitment and retention, expand capacity where it is most needed, and ensure families can access affordable, high-quality care regardless of changing economic situations.
Ultimately, child care policy is also economic policy. When families have dependable access to affordable, high quality child care, parents are better able to participate in the workforce, pursue education, increase their earnings and build long term financial stability. Employers also benefit from a reliable workforce. So in this way, investments in early child care contribute not only to children’s development, but also to stronger local economies and greater economic mobility across generations.
The post Building Colorado’s Early Child Care System: A Decade of Progress and The Challenges Ahead appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>The post Coalition Delivers 157,000 Signatures for Graduated Income Tax Ballot Measure appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Alicia Caldwell
(303) 810-9909
caldwell@bellpolicy.org
DENVER, CO — Aug. 3, 2026 — The Protect Colorado’s Future coalition on Monday delivered more than 157,000 signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State to get the graduated income tax on the November ballot, setting the stage for a historic rebalancing of the state’s income tax code to make the state more affordable for working Coloradans.
The measure would cut taxes for 97 percent of Coloradans, raise them for those making more, and bring in $2 billion for child care, healthcare, and K-12 at a time when the state has been struggling to overcome the double-whammy of federal tax cuts that enrich the wealthy, and stranglehold that TABOR has had on Colorado’s budget since its passage in 1992.
Over the past two years, Colorado has had to cut approximately $3 billion from the state budget. Without the graduated income tax, Colorado likely will have to take more money out of your neighborhood schools, cut healthcare, and continue being unable to invest in affordable child care so parents can work.
“Every signature represents a Coloradan who believes our tax system can be fairer,” said Kathy White, Executive Director of Colorado Fiscal Institute, a coalition steering committee member. “No matter what happens at the ballot or before, thousands of people have laid the groundwork for a future where working people pay less and the wealthiest pay their fair share. None of these hours, conversations or miles were for nothing. They showed what we can build when we work together.”
Unlike some of the other measures that likely will be on November’s ballot, the graduated income tax measure is the product of an enormous collaborative effort by more than 100 grassroots and policy nonprofits, which organized 1,000 volunteers and coalition members to gather nearly 70 percent of the signature total. The remainder were collected by paid petition gathering firms.
The grassroots nature of the coalition’s effort was underscored Monday by the parade of dozens of volunteers and coalition members who struck a celebratory tone as they walked to the Secretary of State’s Office to deliver dozens of boxes of petitions.
The coalition includes organizations focused on education, healthcare, child care, food security, rural needs, local governments, environmental groups, older adults, and more. The coalition’s breadth of support for the graduated income tax, which is currently called Initiative 195, shows a broad recognition of Colorado’s fiscal problems.
“Initiative 195 is arriving at a critical inflection point for our state,” said Sara Schueneman, AARP Colorado State Director. “Coloradans of all ages are struggling with the cost of living while the state’s population continues to age. This measure will provide great relief to many, while also strengthening the services and supports older Coloradans need to survive and thrive.”
On the other end of the lifespan spectrum, New Era Colorado Action Fund has been very active in working to get the graduated income tax to the ballot.
“Young people have been constantly told that our ideas are too big, too radical, too much,” said Christina Soliz, Executive Director of New Era Colorado Action Fund, and co-chair of the Protect Colorado’s Future coalition. “Our generation refuses to accept that change is not possible. In fact, we continue to show up and prove that not only is it possible, it’s also within our power to make it happen. This effort is yet again another example of young people’s resilience and determination to make the world a fairer place.”
The graduated income tax also has strong support on the Western Slope and rural Colorado.
“People across Western Colorado support a fair tax system that will address funding shortfalls to crucial services our communities rely on,” said Emily Hornback, Executive Director of Western Colorado Alliance. “From rural hospital budgets to small town school districts and child care deserts, our communities feel the impact of budget cuts in our lives everyday. Western Colorado Alliance is proud to be part of the Protect Colorado’s Future coalition and ensure that rural Coloradan voices are part of the effort to pass Initiative 195.”
For 50 years, Colorado used a graduated income tax system, in which those with higher incomes paid higher tax rates. This system ended in 1987, when an anti-tax legislature replaced it with an inequitable “flat tax,” lowering taxes on those making the most and gradually draining the state budget. The coalition aims to ask voters to fix that injustice by passing a graduated income tax. The coalition has a tax calculator on its website so you can see exactly how much you would pay if the measure were to pass.
“Fiscal policy is people policy,” said Lydia McCoy, Chief Executive Officer of the Colorado Center on Law & Policy, a coalition steering committee member. “This measure will make life more affordable for Coloradans by cutting taxes on most individuals and small businesses, reducing childcare costs, funding critical healthcare needs, and increasing pay for our teachers and health care workers.” – Lydia McCoy
Now that signatures have been submitted, the Secretary of State will review signatures and confirm that the coalition has met filing requirements, which set a high bar for getting on the ballot. The coalition is required to have delivered at least 124,238 valid voter signatures, with at least 2 percent of registered voters from each of the 35 Colorado state Senate districts.
“Reaching this signature milestone means Coloradans are one step closer to a fair tax code and the essential investments our families have gone without for too long,” said Renee Ferrufino, President & CEO of the Women’s Foundation of Colorado. “Initiative 195 would dedicate funding for early childhood education, the educators who make it possible, and the families who depend on it. The Women’s Foundation of Colorado is proud to support Initiative 195, knowing the difference it will make for women, their families, and our entire state. We commend the hard work of the Protect Colorado Futures coalition to put it before voters.”
Protect Colorado’s Future Steering Committee
- Bell Policy Center
- Colorado Center on Law & Policy
- Colorado Fiscal Institute
- Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition
- Great Education Colorado
- New Era Colorado
- Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights
- Colorado Consumer Health Initiative
- Colorado Cross Disability Coalition
- Colorado PTA
- Colorado Workers for Innovative and New Solutions
- Conservation Colorado
- Counties & Commissioners Acting Together
- Growing Our Future coalition, Hunger Free Colorado
- Progress Now Colorado
- Provecho Collective, Save the Children Action Network – Colorado, Western Colorado Alliance
The post Coalition Delivers 157,000 Signatures for Graduated Income Tax Ballot Measure appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>The post Colorado Ballot Guide 2026 appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>
Introduction
The statewide questions on the November ballot are varied and important, ranging from increasing penalties for fentanyl crimes to prohibiting students from participating on sports teams that are not aligned with their sex assigned at birth. In years past, we have waited for the entire ballot to be set before sharing our ballot guide. But this year, as ballot questions are certified for the November 2026 ballot, we are analyzing them and posting them here on a rolling basis so you have the information you need as soon as possible.
HOW OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WORK
As always, this ballot guide is the result of research and analysis by Bell staff, who have examined history and context to provide you clear arguments in favor and against each of the questions on the ballot. For the measures that impact the values the Bell has identified for this ballot guide, we’ve provided recommended votes. For the remainder, we have offered facts, analysis, and pros and cons, but did not take a position.
- A point of clarity: The initiative numbers for each of the measures will change — and we’ll update them — once the Colorado Secretary of State sets the ballot.
- Scorecards: For each measure we’re analyzing this year, you’ll see there are three values the proposals are scored on: 1. tax fairness, 2. equity (including racial, gender, and other equity), and 3. economic mobility. We chose these three as all are closely aligned with the Bell’s work and our organizational mission. Each value receives a rating (very bad, bad, slightly bad, neutral, slightly good, good, very good) based on how the ballot measure in question will affect these values.
We know you have a lot of choices when it comes to seeking out ballot guidance, and we’re honored that you’re here.
Initiative 85
Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes
SUMMARY
Initiative 85 makes the distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, or selling of any amount of fentanyl a level 1 drug felony, the most severe classification, with a required sentence of eight to 32 years in prison. It also increases the charge for possession to a level 4 drug felony with mandated treatment or a level 3 drug felony based on the amount of fentanyl in possession. Initiative 85 takes away the possibility of removing a possession-related drug felony from one’s record. If this measure is passed, individuals who distribute less than four grams of a drug that results in a death can no longer receive immunity from criminal prosecution if they report the overdose to authorities.
RECOMMENDATION
The Bell recommends a NO vote. Increased sentences and penalties for drug related crimes do not reduce drug use or related overdose deaths. Instead, they disproportionately impact communities of color and create additional barriers to economic stability for people struggling with addiction. With limited resources and a lack of accessible treatment for those struggling with addiction, Initiative 85 could make treatment harder to access by mandating treatment and increasing waitlists.
SCORECARD
Tax Fairness: Neutral
This measure does not change or alter state or local tax codes.
Equity: Bad
Research shows that communities of color are over-policed and experience bias in drug arrests. As a result, mandatory minimum sentences and felonization of drug possession disproportionately impact Black Americans.
Economic Mobility: Very Bad
This measure will lead to increased sentences and more people in prison. Excessive punishment and incarceration can lead to instability in the workforce, loss of housing, and can disqualify people from certain public benefits. Initiative 85 would do this without discerning first time offenders or those struggling with addiction from the highest-level drug traffickers.
KEY FACTS
- Fentanyl is a very potent, addictive synthetic opioid that is used pharmaceutically as pain medication and anesthesia. However, fentanyl can also be illicitly manufactured and mixed with other drugs to make them cheaper and more potent. Many people are unaware that their drugs may have fentanyl in them.
- Currently, the distribution, manufacturing, or sale of fentanyl, and other synthetic opioids, is a level 1 drug felony if it involves more than 50 grams of a substance with a synthetic opiate, with lesser charges for lesser amounts.
- The current Colorado penalty for possession of fentanyl is a level 1 drug misdemeanor up to a level 4 drug felony depending on the amount in possession and whether or not the person knew there was a synthetic opiate in the substance.
- Non-partisan Legislative Council Staff analysis shows that Initiative 85 would cost the state about $900,000 in FY 2026-27 and $7.5 million in FY 2027-28 due to increased number of individuals sent to prison and staying in prison for longer periods of time. Over the next five years, if Initiative 85 passes, it would increase state spending by $68.2 million.
- In addition to the five-year cost mentioned above, this measure may also require additional capital construction costs to increase prison bed space to account for the estimated growth in the prison population.
- Nationally and in Colorado, drug overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids decreased between 2023 and 2024. However, preliminary 2025 Colorado data shows an increase in drug overdose deaths with synthetic opioids (like fentanyl) and psychostimulants (methamphetamine) being the primary drivers of drug related overdose deaths.
- Fentanyl is the most common synthetic opioid though other synthetic opioids are becoming more prevalent. Data is inconsistent in this area as it can be difficult to detect the exact compounds in toxicology reports.
- In 2024, Colorado had the 20th highest rate of drug overdose deaths. The rate of drug overdose deaths has been rapidly increasing since the 2000s. According to data from the Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE), in 2024 fentanyl accounted for nearly half of all total drug overdose cases in the state.
- Incarceration prevents people from going to work. Additionally, post-release, those who’ve been incarcerated have fewer job prospects due to gaps in work history and the stigma of having a criminal record. People who spend time in prison see a reduction in annual earnings, especially in the short-term.
- Research also shows that longer sentences and imprisonment, in general, don’t meaningfully deter crime. Nationally, imprisonment does not lead to a statistically significant reduction in drug use, drug overdose deaths, and drug arrests.
ARGUMENTS FOR
- Fentanyl is a major problem in Colorado, and its use is killing Coloradans. Increasing penalties may deter the use and distribution of fentanyl. Not only would this save Coloradans lives, but it would also increase public safety and bolster the state’s economy.
- Harsher penalties are necessary to hold manufacturers and distributors accountable for the lethality of the drug.
Supporters: Advance Colorado
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
- Research does not show that longer incarceration times reduce fentanyl use. By contrast, other interventions, including medications and therapy, have been shown to be effective at treating addiction.
- Colorado is in the midst of a structural deficit and has had to cut millions of dollars in core government services, including Medicaid. The state should not be adopting ineffective, costly mandatory minimums that will prevent the state from investing in other services that have been shown to increase economic mobility.
Opponents: Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition
Initiative 95
Law Enforcement Reporting to Federal Authorities
SUMMARY
Initiative 95 amends the constitution to mandate law enforcement contact the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the parent agency of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), within 72 hours if a person suspected of not having legal immigration status is charged with a crime of violence or the person is charged with any crime and has previously been convicted of a felony. This mandate applies to police officers, corrections officers, and attorneys and investigators working for district attorneys.
RECOMMENDATION
The Bell recommends a NO vote. This measure risks the detention and deportation of innocent individuals and those who are legally in the United States. Not only will it lead to fractured families and lost economic opportunity, but it’s also likely to make those from immigrant communities less likely to report crimes out of fear of detention and deportation. Current systems are capable of ensuring that victims get justice and guilty individuals are punished.
SCORECARD
Tax Fairness: Neutral
This measure does not change or alter state or local tax codes.
Equity: Bad
Our judicial systems are racially biased, and it’s been shown that people of color are charged with crimes at higher rates than similarly situated white individuals. As a result, it’s likely that this measure will lead to the unnecessary detention and deportation of Colorado immigrants — an action that will significantly harm immigrant families and communities.
Economic Mobility: Bad
The detention, deportation, or threat of detention/deportation of immigrants who have committed no crime or are legal U.S. residents clearly harms their and their family’s economic mobility. Moreover, these negative impacts are likely to expand to the broader community, as immigrants play an important role in the levers that support economic mobility for others- including the caring economy.
KEY FACTS
- Crimes of violence are defined in state statute. They include any crime against an at-risk adult or at-risk juvenile, first- and second-degree assault, murder, kidnapping, first-degree arson or burglary, aggravated robbery, and certain sex offenses. Sentences vary based upon the severity of the crime and can range from a maximum 48 years and/or $1 million fine to a minimum one year and/or $1,ooo fine.
- There are six felony classifications in Colorado, and they encompass an array of crimes. Class 1 felonies, like first-degree murder, carry a life sentence without the possibility of parole. The lowest level felonies, like certain property crimes, have a minimum one year and/or $1,000 fine, maximum 18 month and/or$100,000 fine.
- Criminal charges are brought at the discretion of government lawyers. In Colorado, this includes district attorneys and the Colorado Attorney General. Being charged with a crime does not mean that one is guilty of a crime. Instead, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
- Racism exists throughout the criminal justice system. For example, studies show that prosecutors are more likely to charge people of color with higher level offenses compared to similarly situated white people.
- Immigration enforcement is the federal government’s responsibility and is primarily handled by ICE, an agency within DHS. Local and state governments may choose to cooperate and dedicate resources to support federal immigration efforts. However, these decisions are at the discretion of state and local governments and policymakers. Most immigration violations – like unauthorized entry or overstaying a visa – are considered civil violations, not criminal.
- Even when lower level governments choose not to cooperate with immigration officials, shared databases still allow federal entities to track the activity of those without legal documentation. For example, fingerprints taken when someone is arrested are uploaded into systems that are shared across jurisdictions, levels of government, and can be checked by DHS.
- A 2021 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) documents the complexity of assessing an individual’s immigration status. It also identifies deficiencies within the processes federal immigration officials use to determine whether one is in the country legally. The GAO concludes that these challenges resulted in federal immigration officers arresting, detaining, or removing hundreds of potential U.S. citizens between 2015 and March, 2020.
- In 2025, Colorado passed SB25-276 to protect the civil rights of immigrants. This bill sets strict limits as to when peace officers, pretrial officers, and other public employees can share personal information with DHS.
- Studies show that immigrants are less likely to report crimes to the police when they are made aware that police officers cooperate with federal immigration officials.
- According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, immigrants without documentation contributed $436.5 million in state and local taxes in Colorado in 2022.
- Studies show immigrants – both legal and those without documentation – commit crimes at lower rates than U.S. born residents. A seminal study using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety found immigrants of all statuses were arrested at half the rate of U.S. born citizens for violent and drug crimes and at a quarter of the rate of U.S. born citizens for property crimes.
ARGUMENTS FOR
- Colorado is a sanctuary state that has allowed a surge of illegal immigrants that can harm our communities. This measure makes sure that criminals are sent to federal authorities that have the ability to deal with them.
- This measure provides targeted and limited assistance to federal immigration authorities. It doesn’t require government officials to check the immigration status of every person they interact with and report them to federal officials. Only individuals who have already committed a serious crime, or are accused of doing so, will be reported to DHS.
Supporters: Advance Colorado
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
- Cooperating with ICE is inappropriate, given the complete immunity under which the agency is operating. Colorado authorities are able to handle crimes — committed by legal residents or not — and there is no need to bring in federal authorities.
- It’s well-documented that racism is prevalent throughout our legal systems. Combined with ICE’s history of detaining legal residents, this measure will likely lead to individuals who are innocent or legal residents being turned over to ICE. This will lead to chaos, confusion, and catastrophic consequences for Coloradans.
Opponents: Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition
Initiative 108
Penalties for Human Trafficking of a Minor
SUMMARY
Initiative 108 adds an additional activity for which someone can be prosecuted for child sex trafficking. That is to knowingly trade anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor. Additionally, the measure increases the penalty for child sex trafficking from a class 2 to a class 1 felony and requires a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.
RECOMMENDATION
Because the measure does not impact the values the Bell Policy Center has identified for our ballot guide, we do not offer a position on the measure.
SCORECARD
Tax Fairness: Neutral
This measure does not change or alter state or local tax codes.
Equity: Neutral
It’s unclear how this measure would directly impact marginalized Coloradans, or bridge the income and wealth inequalities that exist.
Economic Mobility: Slightly bad
Ultimately, we believe this measure will have a negligible impact on economic mobility. However, while it is unlikely to deter sex traffickers, this initiative could negatively impact some victims. Notably, Initiative 108 does not make any exemptions for victims of sex trafficking who are forced to traffic others. As a result, this measure could lead to unduly harsh sentences for victims and prevent them from having opportunities to rebuild their lives.
KEY FACTS
- Under current state law, a person can be charged for selling, recruiting, harboring, transporting, transfering, isolating, enticing, providing, receiving, obtaining by any means, maintaining, or making available a minor for the purpose of commercial sexual activity. Additionally, a person can be charged for child sex trafficking if they knowingly advertise, offer to sell, or sell travel services that facilitate any of the previously mentioned activities.
- Currently, child sex trafficking in Colorado is a class 2 felony, and those found guilty must be sentenced to at least eight years in prison. Maximum prison time for a class 2 felony is 24 years.
- Legislative Council Staff projects that this measure will not lead to any new child sex trafficking convictions. Between fiscal years 2022-23 and 2024-25, eight people have been convicted of child sex trafficking.
- Human trafficking — including child sex trafficking — is often underreported. However, across the U.S., there has been an increase in the number of investigations and prosecutions related to human trafficking.
- Victims of child sex trafficking experience significant short- and long-term negative impacts that affect their physical well-being, financial health, and economic security.
- Victims of child sex trafficking are more likely to come from traditionally marginalized communities. Research shows children from communities of color, those who identify as LGBTQ+, and those from low-income families are disproportionately impacted by child sex trafficking.
- It’s not uncommon for trafficking victims to be forced by their abusers to commit crimes. This can include recruiting or managing other sex trafficking victims. Victims may be physically, economically, or emotionally coerced to engage in these criminal activities.
- As a result of legislation passed in 2019, a minor charged with prostitution is immune from criminal liability if there’s probable cause that they’re a victim of human trafficking. Except for class 1 felonies, the bill also made being a minor who has been sex trafficked an affirmative defense.
- To reduce the prevalence of child sex trafficking, experts advocate for policies that increase training and education related to the identification of sex trafficking and increased collaboration between the public agencies which respond to these crimes. While some call for increased penalties for offenders, victim advocates have stressed the importance of explicit protections for victims who may be forced to participate in criminal acts.
ARGUMENTS FOR
- Child sex trafficking is abhorrent and destroys lives. Those who commit these crimes should be punished with maximum penalties.
- Increasing penalties for child sex trafficking may deter those who are considering engaging in these activities. As a result, this measure may help bring down the prevalence of child sex trafficking.
Supporters: Protect Kids Colorado, Colorado Catholic Conference
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
- Judges, not lawmakers or voters, should determine an offender’s sentence. This measure takes away discretion from legal professionals who are intimately acquainted with cases and are better able to thoughtfully assess facts and culpability.
- This measure is not expected to meaningfully reduce the prevalence of child sex trafficking and may instead lead to harsh punishments for victims forced to traffic others.
Opponents: None to date
Initiative 109
Male and Female Participation in Sports
SUMMARY
Initiative 109 prohibits students from participating on sports teams that are not aligned with their sex assigned at birth. This prohibition applies to students in both public and private K-12 and postsecondary institutions.
RECOMMENDATION
The Bell recommends a NO vote. Participation in organized sports has been shown to better the mental health and academic well-being of transgender youth. This measure precludes transgender students from realizing these benefits, which can have long-term implications for economic stability. Moreover, this measure is likely to increase stigma and discrimination against transgender students and worsen their well-being. Meanwhile, there is no sound evidence that transgender participation in youth sports negatively impacts the well-being of cisgender youth.
SCORECARD
Tax Fairness: Neutral
This measure does not change or alter state or local tax codes.
Equity: Very bad
Very bad. This measure directly impacts transgender children, a group that already faces significant discrimination, and further stigmatizes them during a crucial period of adolescent development.
Economic Mobility: Bad
This measure prevents transgender students from experiencing the positive academic and mental health benefits of organized sports. As a result, this measure is likely to have negative long-term impacts for transgender students and their economic well-being.
KEY FACTS
- Surveys show that approximately 40 percent of transgender children in grades 9-12, and more than 50 percent of those under 12, play on sports teams.
- Multiple studies have found that participating in athletics benefits transgender students. Participation has been associated with higher grades and reductions in self-harm and suicidal ideation.
- Nearly 60 percent of transgender and nonbinary youth experience depression, and almost half have considered suicide in the past year. Studies also show that certain laws, such as those that restrict sports participation, worsen psychological stress for transgender youth.
- Studies do not show that restrictions on transgender athletes increase participation from cisgender (a person whose gender at birth aligns with their gender identity) girls and women.
- Currently, Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act protects students’ ability to participate on sports teams that align with their gender identity.
- Despite state law, several school districts have adopted policies that restrict the ability of transgender students to participate on sports teams. District 49, located near Colorado Springs, sued the state over the previously mentioned protections provided through Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act. This lawsuit is ongoing.
- Twenty-seven states have passed laws that, in some way, restrict transgender athletes from participating on sports teams.
- In the summer of 2026, the Supreme Court upheld states’ ability to ban transgender athletes from participating in athletics at publicly funded schools.
- A decision is expected in the spring or summer of 2026.
- President Trump signed Executive Order 14201 in February, 2025. This order bars transgender women and girls from playing on women’s and girl’s sports teams. Schools that do not follow this order can lose federal funding. Lawsuits against Executive Order 14201 are continuing.
ARGUMENTS FOR
- There are physical differences between biological males and females. Allowing biological males to play on sports teams with biological females may create unsafe or unfair conditions.
- Allowing transgender girls and women to play on sports teams that align with their gender identity may discourage participation from cisgender girls and women.
Supporters: Protect Kids Colorado; Colorado Catholic Conference
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
- Transgender students already face significant mental health challenges. Preventing these students from participating in organized sports does nothing to address these issues, and instead is likely to exacerbate mental health challenges and create long-term harm.
- This measure is vague with many unanswered questions regarding implementation. These include questions about how it would be determined which students would face restrictions, whether students’ genitalia would be checked, and who would be responsible for checking. The measure’s ambiguity heightens the prospect of additional stigmatization and discrimination, as well as harm to cisgender youth who might face scrutiny for not appearing as masculine or feminine as others.
Opponents: Families Not Politics; One Colorado; Planned Parenthood
Initiative 110
Prohibit Certain Surgeries on Minors
SUMMARY
Initiative 110 prohibits medical providers from participating in any surgical procedure that alters a youth’s physical sex characteristics. The initiative also prevents state and federal funds (including Medicaid) or private insurance from paying for the above-mentioned procedures.
RECOMMENDATION
The Bell recommends a NO vote. Access to needed medical care, including gender-affirming care, is foundational to economic well-being. The measure makes accessing this care significantly harder for transgender children and families. This is particularly true for families with limited resources who would have to travel out of state for essential health care should this measure pass.
SCORECARD
Tax Fairness: Neutral
This measure does not change or alter state or local tax codes.
Equity: Very bad
Very bad. This measure explicitly limits the type of healthcare one specific group, transgender youth, can access.
Economic Mobility: Bad
Healthcare is foundational to economic mobility. This measure makes it harder for Colorado youth to get the healthcare they need, which can have long-term negative consequences.
KEY FACTS
- Surgical procedures to alter physical sex characteristics are considered a form of gender-affirming healthcare. Surgical procedures may involve plastic surgery to help someone appear more masculine or feminine, or top or bottom surgery.
- Gender-affirming surgeries before the age of 18 are rare and are only pursued after extensive consultation with medical professionals. Gender-affirming surgeries for youth are generally only performed if someone is experiencing significant gender dysphoria that is causing issues such as severe anxiety, depression, or suicidality.
- Major medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Psychological Association, oppose restrictions on gender-affirming healthcare for youth.
- Studies show that access to gender-affirming healthcare lowers depression and anxiety and leads to better long-term health outcomes for minors.
- Twenty-seven states have passed laws banning gender-affirming care for minors. This includes most states surrounding Colorado (except New Mexico).
- Colorado law makes it illegal for providers to deny medically necessary healthcare based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.
- In January 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order restricting access to gender-affirming care for minors. In December of that year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed a rule which, if implemented, would prevent hospitals from receiving Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements if they provided gender-affirming care to minors.
- In 2025, the Trump Administration began investigating the provision of gender-affirming care by Children’s Hospital Colorado. In response, the hospital suspended these services. Families subsequently sued to force the hospital to continue providing gender-affirming care. That case, which was heard by the Colorado Supreme Court in April 2026, is ongoing.
ARGUMENTS FOR
- Youth lack the maturity to make life-altering, permanent medical decisions.
- It is not uncommon for governments to prohibit youth from engaging in certain activities, like smoking or drinking alcohol, until they are older and more mature.
Supporters: Protect Kids Colorado; Colorado Catholic Conference
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
- Gender-affirming care provides important health benefits that meaningfully improve the lives of the Colorado youth who need it. By having the healthcare they need, transgender young people can thrive and meaningfully contribute to their communities.
- Medical decisions should not be dictated by the state. Instead, they should be based upon individual needs and conversations between patients and their doctors.
Opponents: Families Not Politics; One Colorado; Planned Parenthood
The post Colorado Ballot Guide 2026 appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>The post Mid-Year Update 2026 appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>
What does impact look like?
Across Colorado, people are working hard to build lives for themselves and their families. At the Bell Policy Center, we’re developing trusted research and advocating for policies at the legislature and on the ballot that support opportunities for all Coloradans.
That’s why we’re inviting you to become a recurring donor to the Bell Policy Center. Your monthly gift of $10, $25, $100, or more sustains the community-engaged research, advocacy, and action we need to win, now and into the future. Thank you!
Leading efforts to pass a graduated income tax ballot measure to better fund child care, healthcare, and education
Won an appeal at the Colorado Supreme Court to block another budget-busting, right-wing ballot measure from moving forward
Producing new research
analyzing recent affordable housing strategies and remaining challenges
Passed legislation ensuring older adults are represented on state boards and councils
Stopped new payday lenders from passing a bill to rubber stamp predatory practices
Donate Now
The Bell Policy Center is a nonprofit organization under IRS section 501(c)3, EIN 84-1550841. Contributions to the Bell Policy Center are tax-deductible to the extent provided by law. This webpage is designed to capture your data securely, and your information will not be shared with third parties without consent.
Key Research from 2026
Budget & Tax Policy
The Bell advocates for fairer tax policy in Colorado to ensure proper and adequate funding for public priorities across the state.
The Caring Economy
A major priority for the Bell is strengthening the caring economy – both child care and direct care for older adults – for workers and the families they support.
Aging
With one of the fastest growing aging populations in the country, the Bell is working to ensure Colorado’s policies reflect our changing demographics.
Financial Empowerment & Consumer Protection
The Bell is focused on increasing access to wealth through financial empowerment and consumer protection.
Housing
The Bell works to increase access to housing and home ownership to improve economic mobility and reduce the wealth gap in Colorado.
- Colorado Housing Affordability
- 2025 Housing Primer
The post Mid-Year Update 2026 appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>The post Before You Sign: Proposed Ballot Questions Explained appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>
Update: As of Aug. 3, 2026, all signatures have been submitted to the Colorado Secretary of State. Please visit our Colorado Ballot Guide 2026 for the latest updates.
The Bell is taking a big step forward this year in helping voters understand the ballot measure landscape: We are creating a hub of information about measures before they qualify for the ballot, when Colorado petitions are still in circulation.
We have observed that at times Coloradans find themselves having to decide whether to sign a petition to get a measure on the ballot without a clear understanding of the measure’s implications. To complicate matters, there have been accounts of certain paid circulation firms providing inaccurate information to voters.
As a trusted, nonpartisan organization, we hope to expand our mission of educating voters by establishing and broadly sharing this new hub of information. For each measure approved for signatures, we will share a short description of what it proposes to do, key facts, arguments for and against, proponents and opponents, and tell you what the status of the measure is — whether its backers are collecting signatures, have submitted signatures for verification or if the measure has been withdrawn. To learn more about the details of how questions get onto the ballot, we invite you to check out this brief.
It is our hope this resource will provide voters the tools they need to make informed choices before they sign petitions.
Latest Updates
ON BALLOT (2026)
* Initiative 85: Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes
* Initiative 95: Law Enforcement Reporting Requirements to Federal Authorities
* Initiative 108: Penalties for Human Trafficking of a Minor
* Initiative 109: Male and Female Participation in School Sports
* Initiative 110: Prohibit Certain Surgeries on Minors
Initiative 177: Right to Natural Gas
Initiative 195: Graduated Income Tax
Initiative 232: Income Tax Rate Cap
Initiative 234: Plain Language Ballot Questions
Initiative 256: Congressional Redistricting
Initiative 302: Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish
Initiative 308: Designate Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation
Initiative 362: Mail Ballot Voter Identification
* Because these measures qualified for the ballot prior to this publication, no analysis is provided here. Please visit our Colorado Ballot Guide 2026 for a complete analysis of all measures that qualified for the ballot.
NOT ON THE BALLOT
WITHDRAWN AFTER QUALIFYING
Initiative 175: State Revenue Supporting Road Transportation
DID NOT SUBMIT SIGNATURES
Initiative 283: Repeal Constitutional Right to Abortion
Initiative 287: Colorado Independence
Initiative 249: Separation of Pinnacol Assurance from the State to Fund Workforce Development
Initiative 288: Colorado Citizenship
Initiative 289: Immigration to Colorado
Initiative 290: Replacing United States in Colorado Laws and Constitution
Initiative 296: Replacing United States in Colorado Constitution
Initiative 297: Replacing United States of American in Colorado Constitution
Initiative 298: Replacing Federal in Colorado Laws and Constitution
Initiative 291: Tax and Spending Adjustments to Replace Federal Funds
Initiative 292: Colorado Participation in Foreign Affairs
Initiative 294: Colorado Seizure of Federal Property
Initiative 299: Colorado Militia
Initiative 300: Colorado Oaths of Office and Constitutional Conventions
Initiative 301: Peoples Right of Self Governance
Category 1: Constitutional Rights
Three initiatives propose changing rights guaranteed by the Colorado constitution. Two initiatives would create new rights (the right to buy and distribute natural gas and the right to hunt and fish), while another would remove an existing right (the right to abortion).
- Initiative 177: Right to Natural Gas
- Initiative 302: Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish
- Initiative 283: Repeal Constitutional Right to Abortion
Summary
Initiative 177 creates a constitutional right for consumers to purchase natural gas (to cook or heat their homes and businesses) and for distributors and utilities to sell natural gas to homes and businesses.
Key Facts
- Seventy percent of Colorado households rely on natural gas to heat their homes.
- Natural gas primarily consists of methane, a greenhouse gas, that can leak into the atmosphere from extraction to end use. Extraction of natural gas is a significant source of air pollution and impacts local water sources.
- The Public Utilities Commission, in December of 2025, finalized the Clean Heat plan that requires utilities supplying natural gas to cut carbon emissions by 41 percent by 2035. Colorado has been a national leader over the years in requiring gas utilities to meet reduction targets.
- Since about the 1980s, Colorado’s residential consumption of natural gas has increased, though it has started to decrease in the last few years.
- Historically, residential natural gas prices are very volatile, both nationally and in Colorado. Over time, data shows that while U.S. natural gas prices are increasing, global renewable energy costs are declining.
Arguments For
- A constitutional right to natural gas will promote consumer choice and affordable heat for households by prohibiting policies that force people into more expensive electrification alternatives.
Proponents: Advance Colorado
Arguments Against
This measure will make it easier for the fossil fuel industry to sue and stop policies that encourage cleaner, renewable energy sources.
Opponents: Conservation Colorado
Summary
Initiative 302 creates a constitutional right to fish and hunt. It also, constitutionally, makes hunting and fishing the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations. The measure does not prevent the state from regulating hunting, fishing, and wildlife management, so long as it is necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve future hunting and fishing opportunities in the future.
Key Facts
- There are over 300,000 hunters in Colorado and more than 900,000 Coloradans fish.
- Hunting and fishing play an important role in managing Colorado wildlife. For example, revenue generated from these activities provides approximately 70 percent of wildlife management funding for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Additionally, existing state statute makes explicit that hunting and fishing are a primary wildlife conservation tool.
- Hunting and fishing are primarily regulated by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. There have also, recently, been attempts to regulate these activities by the legislature and through the ballot.
Arguments For
- Hunting and fishing are part of Colorado’s heritage, and the right to partake in these activities should be constitutionally protected. Constitutional protections are particularly important given recent attempts by the legislature and at the ballot to limit fishing and hunting. These have included attempts to ban the hunting of certain animals and change hunting’s place as a wildlife management strategy.
Proponents: International Order of T. Roosevelt
Arguments Against
- This initiative prioritizes hunting and fishing above all other wildlife management strategies, including habitat conservation or species reintroduction. Additionally, creating a constitutional right to hunt and fish will make it more difficult to adopt and prioritize other wildlife management strategies in the future.
Opponents: No official opposition to date
Summary
Initiative 283 removes the right to an abortion from the Colorado constitution.
Key Facts
- In 2024, Amendment 79 passed which enshrined the right to abortion in the state constitution. The passage of Amendment 79 also allows state or local governments to offer abortion access through Medicaid or state/local government employee insurance.
- In 2022, the Colorado legislature passed the Reproductive Health Equity Act (RHEA), which made abortion statutorily legal in Colorado.
Arguments For
- Abortion is wrong, and repealing the constitutional right to an abortion will protect unborn lives.
Proponents: Colorado Life Initiative
Arguments Against
- Protecting abortion rights means that Coloradans are entrusted with decisions about their own reproductive healthcare without government interference.
Opponents: No official opposition to date
Category 2: Funding & Taxation
Multiple initiatives impact state funding and/or the tax code. Proposed measures shift existing state funds to pay for roads and bridges, privatize the state’s workers’ compensation provider to pay for workforce training, and use TABOR surplus to fund conservation projects.
Two measures impact the state’s tax code. Initiative 195 creates a graduated income tax. Notably, Initiative 232, ostensibly caps income tax rates, but in reality, is intended to negate Initiative 195’s impact.
- Initiative 175: State Revenue Supporting Road Transportation
- Initiative 195: Graduated Income Tax
- Initiative 232: Income Tax Rate Cap
- Initiative 249: Separation of Pinnacol Assurance from the State to Fund Workforce Development
- Initiative 308: Designate Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation
Summary
Initiative 175 is a constitutional amendment which requires that certain already-existing revenue be spent on specific transportation purposes, including the construction, maintenance, and repair of public roads, highways, and bridges for use by motor vehicles; safety measures for motor vehicles; and the Colorado State Patrol.
Key Facts
- According to the non-partisan fiscal analysis, in the first full year of implementation, this measure requires the state to spend over $2 billion of existing revenue on specific types of transportation projects. Over $500 million will come from the General Fund, and more than $160 million will come from cash funds that currently support efforts such as pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, peace officer training, and emergency medical services. The remaining dollars would come from the Highway Users Tax Fund.
- In creating the budget for FY 2026-27, state lawmakers faced a $1.5 billion deficit, which led to hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to government services, including Medicaid. The state’s fiscal challenges are expected to continue in the coming years, necessitating further reductions in the services Coloradans depend upon.
- The American Society of Engineers gives Colorado’s roads a D+, and only 34 percent of the state’s roads are considered to be in “good” condition.
Arguments For
- Good roads are essential for a strong economy and can encourage outside investment in Colorado. Additionally, poor roads increase vehicle maintenance costs for families and businesses.
Proponents: Colorado Contractors Association, Restore our Roads
Arguments Against
- This measure does not create new revenue but instead institutes a constitutional obligation to spend existing funds on a narrow set of transportation needs. Realistically, this means that money will have to be diverted from already existing uses — most likely Medicaid, K-12, and higher education — to meet the requirements set out by this measure.
Opponents: Over 40 organizations including chambers of commerce, policy/advocacy organizations, hospitals, and unions
Summary
Initiative 195 is a constitutional amendment which replaces Colorado’s current flat income tax with a graduated income tax. New revenue would be used for K-12, health care, and early child care and education.
Key Facts
- Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) requires the state to have a flat income tax with the same tax rate applied to earned income, capital gains, and corporate income. This means that every taxpayer pays the same tax rate on their income, whether they’re making the minimum wage or a million dollars a year. In contrast, a progressive income tax, which is what this initiative proposes, requires people to pay a higher rate as they make more money.
- This measure would reduce income taxes for 97 percent of Coloradans and raise them for the 3 percent of individuals and 5 percent of corporations making more than $500,000 per year. These tax changes would raise nearly $2 billion a year in additional revenue.
- Colorado has the 39th most regressive tax code in the country, and the wealthiest five percent of Coloradans pay the lowest percentage of their income in taxes.
- Largely due to TABOR, Colorado is facing a structural budget deficit and is unable to pay for key services. For example, analyses show the state is underfunding K-12 education by between $3.5 and $4 billion annually and can only fund 11 percent of families eligible for the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program. Additionally, this past legislative session, lawmakers cut Medicaid services for thousands of Coloradans because there was not enough money in the state budget.
Arguments For
- Adopting a progressive income tax will make the tax code more fair by requiring the rich to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. All additional money will go to fund critical, currently under-resourced services that support Colorado’s families and overall economy.
Proponents: Protect Colorado’s Future, a coalition led by 20 grassroots and policy nonprofits (including the Bell Policy Center) and endorsed by more than 50 organizations.
Arguments Against
- This measure will cause high earners and businesses to leave the state or discourage new high-income residents and businesses from coming into Colorado. This will mean fewer jobs and a less competitive economy. Additionally, the state’s highest earners already pay a significant proportion of the overall taxes collected.
Opponents: No official opposition to date
Summary
Initiative 232 is a statutory measure that caps Colorado’s individual and corporate income tax rates at 4.4 percent beginning in tax year 2027.
Key Facts
- Colorado’s current individual and corporate income tax rate is 4.4 percent. Because of four permanent income tax cuts since the late 1990s, including two passed by ballot measure in 2020 and 2022, Colorado’s income tax rate has declined since from 5 percent at the time of TABOR’s passage in 1992.
- Income taxes are a major source of state revenue in Colorado, making it central to funding state services. For FY 2025-26, income tax revenue is projected to make up over 60 percent of the General Fund.
- Colorado is facing significant budget challenges. This past legislative session, lawmakers cut over $1.5 billion, with similar challenges expected in the coming years. These budget challenges are resulting in the underfunding of key services that Coloradans depend upon, such as K-12, higher education, and Medicaid .
- Colorado’s current tax system disproportionately benefits wealthier Coloradans. Analysis shows that Colorado has the 39th most regressive tax code in the country. Across the state, the wealthiest pay the smallest percentage of their income in taxes. This is contributing to growing wealth inequality.
Arguments For
- Capping the income tax rate at 4.4 percent offers predictability for taxpayers and businesses, prevents future tax increases, preserves household income, and protects Colorado’s economic competitiveness.
Proponents: Advance Colorado
Arguments Against
- This measure is being run for one obvious reason – to negate the impact of a potential graduated income tax (Initiative 195) which would only raise taxes for the 3 percent of individuals and 5 percent of corporations making more than $500,000 per year. If this measure were on the ballot without Initiative 195, its passage would have no impact. The tax rate is already 4.4 percent and can only be increased by a vote of the people. However, if both Initiatives 195 and 232 are on the ballot, and both pass, but Initiative 232 receives more votes, new rates on the highest earners in Colorado cannot go into effect.
Opponents: No official opposition to date
Summary
Initiative 249 privatizes Pinnacol Assurance (Pinnacol). As a condition of privatization, Pinnacol will provide a one-time payment to the state of $150 million. This money, in addition to all ongoing premium taxes paid by Pinnacol, will be used to create a new fund that provides scholarships to students pursuing training for certain professions.
Key Facts
- Pinnacol is a quasi-public workers’ compensation provider. Pinnacol is also Colorado’s insurer of last resort, meaning that it isn’t allowed to deny workers’ compensation coverage to any employer.
- As a state-affiliated entity, Colorado statute determines what type of insurance Pinnacol can offer and to whom. Legally, Pinnacol can only provide workers’ compensation and may only serve businesses and workers located in Colorado.
- Over the past couple of decades, there have been multiple attempts to privatize Pinnacol. Prior proposals have been rejected due to unanswered questions and concerns regarding how employers in high-risk fields would obtain workers compensation, the amount of money the state would receive for privatization, and legal questions about the ability of Pinnacol to separate from the state.
- According to a survey from the Colorado Business Roundtable, labor shortages and workforce issues are businesses’ largest challenge and an insufficient supply of skilled workers is the most significant trend influencing their workforce planning.
Arguments For
- Pinnacol provides quality workers’ compensation to many Colorado employers. However, as the economy evolves and more people work remotely out-of-state, Pinnacol’s status as a quasi-public entity is jeopardizing its ability to continue providing the coverage Coloradans need.
Proponents: Colorado Competitive Council
Arguments Against
- As with previous proposals, this measure leaves many important questions unanswered, including how the state will ensure the availability of workers’ compensation coverage for all employers if Pinnacol is no longer the insurer of last resort. Additionally, once Pinnacol’s connection to the state is severed, the company’s leadership may no longer feel compelled to provide high-quality coverage to Colorado businesses and workers.
Opponents: No official opposition to date
Summary
Initiative 308 allows the state to retain statewide sales tax revenue that comes from the sale of sporting goods, as determined by the United States Census through the North American Industry Classification System codes. It is expected to raise $175 million starting in FY 2027-28 which will be used for Great Outdoors Colorado land conservation, wildfire prevention and water conservation, and outdoor equity and recreation. In years where state revenues are below the TABOR limit, the legislature can reduce expenditures for the above-mentioned purposes.
Key Facts
- In 2020, wildfires cost the state $200 million, and wildfires have only gotten more intense and common with the increased impacts of climate change.
- According to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), every dollar spent on natural hazard mitigation saves $6 in future clean-up costs.
- The Wildfire and Watershed Initiative for Resilient Colorado estimates that$150 to $200 million annually is needed to reduce the risk of wildfire and increase watershed resiliency in priority areas.
Arguments For
- Colorado is facing ever-more extreme wildfire risks that could harm our homes, economies, and watersheds. We need more funding to invest in strategies that are proven to mitigate against the worst wildfire harms.
Proponents: Western Resources Advocates, Conservation Colorado
Arguments Against
- The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) provides important protections against runaway government spending. By siphoning off money for these programs, the state will be reducing future rebates from revenues over the spending cap and allowing the state government to spend more money than it should.
Opponents: No official opposition to date
Category 3: Voting & Ballot Language
Two initiatives propose changes to the state’s mail in-voting system or the language which appears on ballot questions.
- Initiative 234: Plain Language Ballot Questions
- Initiative 362: Mail Ballot Voter Identification
Summary
Initiative 234 is a constitutional amendment that requires ballot questions be written at an 8th grade reading level. It also prevents state law from mandating language be added before, following, or in a ballot title that interferes with the plain language question.
Key Facts
- For citizen-initiated measures, ballot titles are set by the Title Board. The Title Board is composed of a representative from the Office of the Attorney General, the Secretary of State’s Office, and the Office Legislative Legal Services.
- Currently, there are several laws that add language before, following, or in a ballot title. These include Proposition GG, which was passed by voters. It requires a tax bracket table be added to any ballot question that changes state income taxes. This is meant to show voters how an individual’s taxes would change if the measure were adopted. Additionally, in 2021, HB21-1321 was passed. This law requires language be placed in a ballot title for measures that increase or reduce taxes to show how those changes will impact state and local budgets.
Arguments For
- Colorado voters are asked to make decisions on complex policies in every election. By ensuring that the questions on the ballot are written in plain language, it will ensure that voters understand the policy on which they are voting.
Proponents: Advance Colorado
Arguments Against
- This initiative is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. While it may seem to be about ensuring ballot questions are easily understood, it will actually make voters less informed by stripping out important provisions that alert voters to the impacts of tax changes on their pocketbooks and state and local budgets.
Opponents: No official opposition to date
Summary
Initiative 362 is a constitutional amendment that requires voters participating in federal or statewide elections to sign their mail ballot envelope and include the last four digits of their Social Security number, Colorado driver’s license number, or REAL ID number.
Key Facts
- Colorado adopted the Voter Access and Modernized Elections Act in 2013, which automatically mails ballots to registered voters while still allowing in-person voting at voter service centers.
- Current law requires Colorado voters to sign their mail ballot envelope. These signatures are used to confirm a person’s identity and eligibility to vote.
- Colorado’s mail-in ballot system includes verification steps before ballots are counted, including signature verification, ballot tracking, and processes to investigate suspected fraud. These processes have helped make voter fraud in Colorado very rare.
Arguments For
- This measure strengthens mail ballot security by using a more objective form of voter verification than signature matching. Additionally, requiring voter identification will increase public confidence because it ensures that each mail ballot is returned by the voter to whom it was assigned.
Proponents: Chuck Broerman and Suzanne Taheri
Arguments Against
- These kinds of voter ID requirements do nothing to improve election security given the lack of evidence of mail voter fraud. However, they do create new barriers to voting for eligible voters who may not have certain forms of ID, including people who are older, low-income, live in rural areas, disabled, and are from communities of color.
Opponents: No official opposition to date
Category 4: Redistricting
National conversations about congressional redistricting have made their way into Colorado initiatives. Notably, two sets of redistricting measures are directly at odds with one another. Initiatives 240 – 243 either directly redraw Colorado’s 2028 and 2030 congressional maps, or make changes that allow redistricting to occur. In contrast, Initiatives 251 and 256 make redistricting more difficult outside of regular redistricting cycles.
- Initiative 240: Congressional Redistricting
- Initiative 241: Congressional Redistricting
- Initiative 242: Congressional Redistricting
- Initiative 251: Congressional Redistricting
- Initiative 256: Congressional Redistricting
Summary
Initiative 240 is a constitutional amendment which suspends the maps established by the Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission for the 2028 and 2030 elections and puts in place new congressional maps for these two elections. After the next decennial census in 2030, the independent commission would reconvene to draw new maps for the next decade following Colorado’s current constitutional criteria.
Key Facts
- Following the 2021 redistricting by the Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission, Colorado was represented in the US House of Representatives by five Democrats and three Republicans from 2023 to 2024. The state is currently represented by four Democrats and four Republicans. If adopted, it’s projected that the new maps from this initiative would give Democrats a 7-1 advantage.
- Colorado passed Amendments Y and Z in 2018. These measures set up independent redistricting commissions for congressional and state legislative elections to prevent partisan gerrymandering.
- All states must redraw their congressional districts every ten years following the census. Mid-decade redistricting is rare, but in June of 2025, President Trump called on Texas Republicans to redraw their districts to maximize partisan advantage. Since then, many red states followed suit and several blue states responded with their own redistricting plans.
- In April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Callais v Louisiana, finding that congressional maps drawn to promote greater racial representation are unconstitutional. This ruling and the 2013 decision Shelby County v Holder have significantly altered the Voting Rights Act of 1965, eliminating long-standing protections for Black communities and other communities of color. Since the decision was handed down, several states have initiated redistricting actions that will eliminate congressional districts currently represented by Black Democrats.
Arguments For
- As President Trump has implored states with Republican majorities to redistrict in order to boost Republican seats in Congress, Colorado cannot allow other states to dictate national majorities on an unfair playing field. Colorado cannot idly sit by while Republicans gerrymander in other states across the country, and we must do what we can to even out Republican actions elsewhere.
Proponents: Coloradans for a Level Playing Field
Arguments Against
- Coloradans were clear in 2018 that they do not want partisanship and political parties to game the system, and this is an attempt to reintroduce that into Colorado. At a time when unaffiliated voters are becoming a clear plurality of voters in our state, creating maps to benefit one political party is wrong.
Opponents: No official opposition to date
Summary
Initiative 241 repeals the Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission amendment from the Colorado Constitution and instead puts the redistricting requirements in state statute. This measure is contingent on the passage of a separate ballot measure (Initiative 242), which puts in place temporary congressional maps for the 2028 and 2030 elections.
Key Facts
- Following the 2021 redistricting by the Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission, Colorado was represented in the US House of Representatives by five Democrats and three Republicans from 2023 to 2024. The state is currently represented by four Democrats and four Republicans. If adopted, it’s projected that the new maps from this initiative would give Democrats a 7-1 advantage.
- Colorado passed Amendments Y and Z in 2018. These measures set up independent redistricting commissions for congressional and state legislative elections to prevent partisan gerrymandering.
- All states must redraw their congressional districts every ten years following the census. Mid-decade redistricting is rare, but in June of 2025, President Trump called on Texas Republicans to redraw their districts to maximize partisan advantage. Since then, many red states followed suit and several blue states responded with their own redistricting plans.
- In April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Callais v Louisiana, finding that congressional maps drawn to promote greater racial representation are unconstitutional. This ruling and the 2013 decision Shelby County v Holder have significantly altered the Voting Rights Act of 1965, eliminating long-standing protections for Black communities and other communities of color. Since the decision was handed down, several states have initiated redistricting actions that will eliminate congressional districts currently represented by Black Democrats.
- All in all, since the beginning of 2025, eight states have redistricted (Texas, California, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, Florida, Missouri and Tennessee), with two more in process (Louisiana and Alabama). Virginia voted to redistrict in 2026, but the new maps were struck down by the state Supreme Court because of a procedural issue.
Arguments For
- Colorado voters want independent redistricting commissions, as shown in 2018. Unfortunately, the current attempt by President Trump to rig Congressional maps for the 2026 midterms — by pressuring Republican majority states to redistrict mid-decade — means that Colorado needs to respond in kind to rebalance Congress. This measure ensures that after President Trump leaves office and the country has a new census, Colorado would continue to have an independent redistricting commission to ensure fairness in maps.
Proponents: Coloradans for a Level Playing Field
Arguments Against
- Colorado needs independent redistricting commissions kept in our Constitution. This measure makes it abundantly clear that politicians will change the rules when it fits their own purposes. Our state needs protection against such efforts, and that is what keeping redistricting commissions in the Constitution provides.
Opponents: No official opposition to date
Summary
Initiative 242 creates new, temporary maps for the 2028 and 2030 congressional elections. It is contingent on a separate measure (Initiative 241) passing that repeals the Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission from the Colorado Constitution and instead puts the redistricting requirements in state statute.
Key Facts
- Following the 2021 redistricting by the Independent Congressional Redistricting Commission, Colorado was represented in the US House of Representatives by five Democrats and three Republicans from 2023 to 2024. The state is currently represented by four Democrats and four Republicans. If adopted, it’s projected that the new maps from this initiative would give Democrats a 7-1 advantage.
- Colorado passed Amendments Y and Z in 2018. These measures set up independent redistricting commissions for congressional and state legislative elections to prevent partisan gerrymandering.
- All states must redraw their congressional districts every ten years following the census. Mid-decade redistricting is rare, but in June of 2025, President Trump called on Texas Republicans to redraw their districts to maximize partisan advantage. Since then, many red states followed suit and several blue states responded with their own redistricting plans.
- In April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Callais v Louisiana, finding that congressional maps drawn to promote greater racial representation are unconstitutional. This ruling and the 2013 decision Shelby County v Holder have significantly altered the Voting Rights Act of 1965, eliminating long-standing protections for Black communities and other communities of color. Since the decision was handed down, several states have initiated redistricting actions that will eliminate congressional districts currently represented by Black Democrats.
Arguments For
- As President Trump has implored states with Republican majorities to redistrict in order to boost Republican seats in Congress, Colorado cannot allow other states to dictate national majorities on an unfair playing field. Colorado cannot idly sit by while Republicans gerrymander in other states across the country, and we must do what we can to even out Republican actions elsewhere.
Proponents: Coloradans for a Level Playing Field
Arguments Against
- Coloradans were clear in 2018 that they do not want partisanship and political parties to game the system, and this is an attempt to reintroduce that into our state. At a time when Unaffiliated voters are becoming a clear plurality of voters in Colorado, redistricting to favor one political party is wrong.
Opponents: No official opposition to date
Summary
Initiatives 251 and 256 propose amending the constitution so that, once maps are finalized after the decennial census, congressional redistricting changes for the 2028 election and beyond, unless approved by the Congressional Redistricting Commission and Supreme Court, are prohibited. If congressional districts are changed outside the regular redistricting cycle, three public meetings must be held, whole communities of interest must be preserved, and partisan gerrymandering cannot occur.
Functionally, 251 and 256 do the same thing. However, their titles and ballot language are different.
Key Facts
- Colorado passed Amendments Y and Z in 2018. These measures set up independent redistricting commissions for congressional and state legislative elections to prevent partisan gerrymandering.
- All states must redraw their congressional districts every ten years following the census. Mid-decade redistricting is rare, but in June of 2025, President Trump called on Texas Republicans to redraw their districts to maximize partisan advantage. Since then, many red states followed suit and several blue states responded with their own redistricting plans.
- In April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Callais v Louisiana, finding that congressional maps drawn to promote greater racial representation are unconstitutional. This ruling and the 2013 decision Shelby County v Holder have significantly altered the Voting Rights Act of 1965, eliminating long-standing protections for Black communities and other communities of color. Since the decision was handed down, several states have initiated redistricting actions that will eliminate congressional districts currently represented by Black Democrats.
- All in all, since the beginning of 2025, eight states have redistricted (Texas, California, North Carolina, Ohio, Utah, Florida, Missouri and Tennessee), with two more in process (Louisiana and Alabama). Virginia voted to redistrict in 2026, but the new maps were struck down by the state Supreme Court because of a procedural issue.
Arguments For
- This initiative establishes clear rules for mid-cycle congressional redistricting and protects against maps drawn in favor of one political party.
Proponents: Advance Colorado
Arguments Against
- Nationally, red states have changed their congressional maps to boost Republican seats in Congress ahead of the 2028 midterm elections. As a blue state, these actions will likely disadvantage Colorado. Adopting Initiative 251 will make it much harder for Colorado to respond to actions taken by other states and will decrease our state’s voice at the federal level.
Opponents: No official opposition to date
Category 5: Separation from the United States Government
Initiatives 287-292, 294, and 296-301 would separate Colorado from the United States federal government. Single subject requirements prevented proponents from running these measures as a single initiative, as originally attempted (Initiative #236).
- Initiative 287: Colorado Independence
- Initiative 288: Colorado Citizenship
- Initiative 289: Immigration to Colorado
- Initiative 290: Replacing United States in Colorado Laws and Constitution
- Initiative 291: Tax and Spending Adjustments to Replace Federal Funds
- Initiative 292: Colorado Participation in Foreign Affairs
- Initiative 294: Colorado Seizure of Federal Property
- Initiative 296: Replacing United States in Colorado Constitution
- Initiative 297: Replacing United States of American in Colorado Constitution
- Initiative 298: Replacing Federal in Colorado Laws and Constitution
- Initiative 299: Colorado Militia
- Initiative 300: Colorado Oaths of Office and Constitutional Conventions
- Initiative 301: Peoples Right of Self Governance
Summary
Initiative 287 is a constitutional amendment declaring Colorado an independent nation and making the Colorado Constitution the supreme law of the land.
Key Facts
- Colorado is one of fifty states that are part of the United States of America. Under the US Constitution, federal and state governments are granted different powers and responsibilities.
- The measure would likely increase Colorado’s costs, as there would be a need to address responsibilities currently handled by the federal government, such as customs and border control, foreign relations, and defense. Additionally, this measure would lead to the loss of funding from the United States government, which currently accounts for approximately 30 percent of the state budget.
Arguments For
- Separating from the United States would give Colorado greater control over its laws, taxes, public programs, borders, and economic policy.
Proponents: Emerson and Marilee Sturgis
Arguments Against
- This measure will lead to the loss of federal funding, disrupt trade and business activity, and require state and local governments to replace federal services and revenue. These are major disruptions that will harm Colorado’s economy and residents.
Opponents: No official opposition to date.
Summary
Initiative 288 is a constitutional amendment which establishes qualifications and a system for people to be recognized as Colorado citizens.
Key Facts
- The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States, but also of the state where they reside.
- The U.S. government establishes criteria for citizenship. To become a citizen, one must either be born in the United States or meet certain naturalization requirements. Citizenship in the United States provides a range of protections and rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
- States, in contrast, can create residency requirements. Residency comes with its own set of rights and responsibilities, such as voting or paying taxes in that particular state.
Arguments For
- In a larger effort to secede from the United States, Colorado needs to have its own process and criteria for citizenship.
Proponents: Emerson and Marilee Sturgis
Arguments Against
- Creating new state citizenship requirements and processes is unnecessary and would require complex and costly changes. Moreover, as long as Colorado is part of the US government, implementing the requirements set out in this measure are likely unconstitutional and would lead to lawsuits.
Opponents: No official opposition to date.
Summary
Initiative 289 is a constitutional amendment which requires the state to allow anyone to enter and remain in Colorado, regardless of citizenship or visa status. The measure also prohibits discrimination or denial of employment based upon citizenship or visa status.
Key Facts
- Immigration policy is set and enforced by the federal government. However, state and local governments have discretion in the degree to which they cooperate with federal authorities.
- The Trump administration has threatened to withhold funds from local and state governments that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. There are ongoing questions about the federal government’s ability to take these actions.
- Immigration arrests under the second Trump administration have increased significantly. Over a third of those who’ve been arrested had no criminal history.
Arguments For
- Creating an open immigration policy would, on paper, create a more equitable Colorado that recognizes the valuable role immigrants play in our communities and economy.
Proponents: Emerson and Marilee Sturgis
Arguments Against
- So long as Colorado is part of the United States, this measure is, at best, constitutionally questionable and will be challenged in court. Moreover, adopting a policy of this nature may lead to retribution from the federal government and endanger the services Coloradans rely upon.
Opponents: No official opposition to date.
Summary
Initiatives 290, 296, 297, and 298 are constitutional amendments which replace references to the federal government with ‘Colorado’ in certain parts of state statute and/or the Colorado Constitution.
Key Facts
- The U.S. Constitution establishes the powers and responsibilities of the federal government. These include regulating commerce, providing for national defense, establishing the post office, and managing patents. The 10th amendment specifies that all other responsibilities not outlined in the constitution are left to the state.
- Federal and state policies and programs are often intertwined. For example programs may be jointly funded, eligibility criteria may overlap, or the states may rely upon existing federal infrastructure to administer services.
Arguments For
- Disassociating from the federal United States government gives Coloradans more autonomy to enact policies and priorities that align with residents’ values.
Proponents: Emerson and Marilee Sturgis
Arguments Against
- Severing Colorado’s relationship with the U.S. federal government will create significant legal, fiscal, and economic challenges that will be immensely difficult to overcome.
Opponents: No official opposition to date.
Summary
Initiative 291 is a constitutional amendment which places anything funded by the federal government in Colorado under state control starting Jan. 14, 2027. The measure raises the state spending limit and allows the General Assembly to raise state taxes by the amount of federal funding Colorado received in federal fiscal year 2023-24.
Key Facts
- According to the nonpartisan fiscal summary, Colorado received approximately $13 billion in federal funds in federal fiscal year 2023-24. Federal funding supports a variety of public services in Colorado, including healthcare, education, and transportation.
Arguments For
- This measure gives Colorado greater control over programs currently funded by the federal government while also simultaneously offering a path whereby the state could continue providing these services without federal support.
Proponents: Emerson and Marilee Sturgis
Arguments Against
- This measure will cost the state $13 billion — approximately 30 percent of Colorado’s overall operating budget. As a result, lawmakers will have to either increase taxes to make up for lost revenue or cut critical services Coloradans rely upon.
Opponents: No official opposition to date.
Summary
Initiative 292 is a constitutional amendment which establishes processes for Colorado to appoint ambassadors and diplomatic representatives to engage in foreign affairs, and partake in or make treaties.
Key Facts
- The federal government has ambassadors and diplomats who represent the interests and policies of the United States abroad. Ambassadors and diplomats play important roles in maintaining relationships with foreign countries, negotiations, foreign policy, and national security.
- The U.S. Constitution prohibits states from entering into any treaty with a foreign power without the consent of Congress.
Arguments For
- If Colorado were to become an independent nation, it is important to establish processes to engage in foreign affairs.
Proponents: Emerson and Marilee Sturgis
Arguments Against
- As long as Colorado is a part of the United States, this measure is likely unconstitutional and may lead to expensive lawsuits.
Opponents: No official opposition to date.
Summary
Initiative 294 is a constitutional amendment that transfers ownership of all federally-owned property within Colorado to the State of Colorado.
Key Facts
- The federal government — primarily through the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management — owns and manages approximately one-third of land in Colorado.
- Among other properties, the federal government also owns all post offices and military bases in Colorado.
Arguments For
- This initiative gives Coloradans greater control of the property within its boundaries.
Proponents: Emerson and Marilee Sturgis
Arguments Against
- Putting all federal properties under state control will significantly increase state expenses due to upkeep, maintenance, and other costs. Notably, this is at a time when Colorado’s budget is already strained and safety net services are being cut.
Opponents: No official opposition to date.
Summary
Initiative 299 is a constitutional amendment which restates that the governor is in charge of Colorado’s militia.
Key Facts
- Colorado’s constitution currently states that the governor is in charge of the state’s militia.
- This measure makes two very small changes to existing constitutional language. It removes the hyphen from “commander in chief.” It also adds the word ‘actual’ in the following sentence, “The governor shall be commander in chief of the military forces of the state, except when they shall be called into the actual service of the United States.” Actual is not defined.
Arguments For
- State authority over militias is important, and there’s value in reaffirming this part of Colorado’s Constitution.
Proponents: Emerson and Marilee Sturgis
Arguments Against
- This initiative makes no meaningful change to the constitution and is unnecessary.
Opponents: No official opposition to date.
Summary
Initiative 300 is a constitutional amendment which restates that elected officials and civil officers must take an oath in support of the U.S. and Colorado constitutions. The measure also restates the process for calling a constitutional convention.
Key Facts
- Verbatim, the language in Initiative 300 is already in the Colorado Constitution.
Arguments For
- Oaths of office and processes for constitutional conventions are important, and there’s value in re-affirming these parts of Colorado’s Constitution.
Proponents: Emerson and Marilee Sturgis
Arguments Against
- This initiative makes no change to the constitution and is unnecessary.
Opponents: No official opposition to date.
Summary
Initiative 301 is a constitutional amendment which restates Coloradans’ right to self governance.
Key Facts
- Verbatim, the language in Initiative 301 is already in the Colorado Constitution.
Arguments For
- Self-governance is important, and reaffirming Coloradans’ right to self-governance is valuable.
Proponents: Emerson and Marilee Sturgis
Arguments Against
- This initiative makes no change to the constitution and is unnecessary.
Opponents: No official opposition to date.
The post Before You Sign: Proposed Ballot Questions Explained appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>The post 2026 Legislative Wrap-Up Event appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>
We were so pleased to host two end-of-session events Tuesday, May 19, 2026 with our wonderful partners from Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. Collaboratively, we hosted a webinar during which representatives of each organization summarized the work done during the 2026 Colorado legislative session and spoke to bills, budget challenges, and work ahead. A recording of that webinar is here. Later Tuesday, we co-hosted a happy hour at the Vine Street Pub in Denver. If you joined us, thank you! If you missed the event, we will catch you next time!
Virtual: Legislative Session Recap
Date & Time: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 from 12:00 – 1:00 PM MT
Location: Virtual Event on Zoom
Hear about the highs and lows from this year’s legislative session during a virtual webinar with policy experts from the Bell Policy Center and Colorado Consumer Health Initiative!
In Person: Legislative Wrap-Up Happy Hour
Date & Time: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 from 4:30 PM – 6:30 PM MT
Location: Vine Street Pub, 1700 Vine St., Denver, CO 80206
Join us for a happy hour to celebrate the end of the 2026 Legislative Session with the Bell Policy Center and Colorado Consumer Health Initiative!
The post 2026 Legislative Wrap-Up Event appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>The post It’s a wrap: Our Take on the 2026 Legislative Session appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>The 2026 legislative session was defined by Colorado’s ongoing budget crisis and the need to close a $1.5 billion deficit caused by a combination of last year’s federal budget bill, reductions in the state income tax rate, and the TABOR cap. Not only was there no room to invest in new initiatives or critically underfunded programs, but lawmakers were forced to cut core services Coloradans rely upon. Among other impacts, the state’s fiscal dilemma will mean longer Medicaid wait lists, higher tuition for Colorado students, the suspension of important anti-poverty tax credits, and looming uncertainty about how the state will replace federal health care cuts in the years ahead.
Budget challenges did not stymie all work to strengthen opportunities for economic mobility. Over the past several months, lawmakers undertook efforts that will increase affordability, streamline existing programs, and foster stronger collaboration. Yet, even amongst this good work, the 2026 legislative session crystallized the need for long-term, sustainable funding solutions that allow the state to reliably invest in the foundational services Coloradans depend upon.
Efforts in the Bell’s Issue Areas
Aging
As one of the fastest aging states in the nation, Colorado is facing workforce and care challenges. The state’s limited finances leave policymakers with few alternatives to pay for the services that older Coloradans need and deserve.
Aging
Services for older Coloradans weren’t spared from the state’s budget crisis. However, there were some bright spots. Several pieces of legislation to better support older workers are poised to increase economic well-being.
- The ongoing budget crisis led to cuts in the programs older Coloradans rely upon. For example, despite increasing need, state funding for the Area Agencies on Aging, a statewide network of local organizations which support older adults and their caregivers, remained flat and grants for senior dental services were cut.
- Older Coloradans are one of the fastest growing segments of Colorado’s workforce. But too often our systems aren’t designed to meet the upskilling and training needs of these workers. HB26-1010 creates a pathway to address this issue by strengthening representation of older workers on relevant boards and commissions, collaboration across state entities, and public reporting requirements.
- The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is one of our country’s most powerful anti-poverty tools. This year, our state made important progress by permanently lifting the age cap and making the credit available to qualifying older workers.
Caring Economy
We break down Colorado’s care systems from early childhood to aging adults. Our work looks at accessibility, affordability, and quality of care, also highlighting the wages and working conditions of the people who provide it.
Caring Economy
As with other areas of the state’s budget, policymakers faced difficult choices in how to continue supporting the caring economy. Ultimately, where possible, lawmakers prioritized funding for services that directly go to families.
- Medicaid received the brunt of this year’s budget cuts. Notably, the majority of provider reimbursement rates — including for companies that provide in-home, long-term care — were reduced by 2 percent. Inevitably, these rate cuts will negatively impact wages and benefits for already underpaid direct care workers, likely contributing to workforce shortages that could make care harder to find.
- Within the Department of Early Childhood, funding for both the Early Intervention Program and efforts that support investments in quality care were reduced. However, the Universal Preschool Program did see an increase in funding.
- The Colorado Childcare Assistance Program (CCCAP) is one of the main programs that help low-income families afford child care. Though it provides crucial support, it is underfunded and many counties have frozen enrollment and implemented waitlists. To stave off more harmful cuts, HB26-1260 delayed the implementation of important but costly policy changes that would improve CCCAP.
- The legislature also looked at streamlining licensing rules to help ease the costs of providing child care while still protecting the safety and well-being of children. SB26-020 creates a task force, centering provider perspectives, to study and provide recommendations for a streamlined licensing process.
Consumer Protection
We work to understand how ever-evolving financial products affect consumers. Do they work well for people who need a little help until pay day, or do they trap people in cycles of debt?
Consumer Protection/Financial Empowerment
While lawmakers had little money to invest in proactive strategies that support financial empowerment, they were able to enact some meaningful consumer protections that will make our state more affordable
- For the second year in a row, the Bell led efforts to defeat legislation which would have rubber stamped harmful industry practices for a new payday loan-like product, Earned Wage Access (EWA). Unfortunately, this does mean EWA products are still unregulated in Colorado, a problem we hope to address in coming legislative sessions.
- Colloquially known as “swipe fees”, credit card companies take a percentage on every transaction made by a credit card. This session, the Bell supported a bill to prohibit credit companies from charging that fee on the portion of a transaction used to cover local and state sales taxes. Ultimately, this will save money for small businesses and consumers.
- The Bell supported HB26-1210, which prohibits large businesses from charging consumers different prices based on personal characteristics derived from individual data. It also prohibits companies from paying different wages to different workers for the same work. Known as surveillance pricing and surveillance wage setting, these practices have become an increasing part of the economy with the rise of AI.
Budget & Tax Policy
One of the Bell’s core areas of research is budget and tax policy, especially those issues that undergird economic mobility in Colorado. We focus on the impacts of TABOR, track budget inadequacies, explore a state graduated income tax, and much more.
Budget & Tax Policy
Much of the fiscal work this session was about trying to make Colorado’s tax code marginally more fair and ensuring that the worst-case future budget outcomes do not come to fruition.
- Led by the Colorado Fiscal Institute, three bills were introduced to make the state’s tax code more fair by diverting tax exemptions, deductions, and credits, mainly taken by corporations and the wealthiest Coloradans, towards the Family Affordability Tax Credit. While HB26-1221 and HB26-1222 died in committee because of a veto threat by Gov. Jared Polis, HB26-1223 was passed and will provide a little support for families in Colorado.
- Legislators took action to blunt the effect of Initiative 175, a ballot measure being circulated for signatures by a transportation contractor industry group. If it were to get on the ballot and win the approval of voters, the measure would divert hundreds of millions of dollars in existing state funds toward transportation and away from other core programs like K-12 education and health care. To prevent this unnecessary disaster, lawmakers passed HB26-1430. The bill only goes into effect if Initiative 175 passes in November. The bill lowers certain fuel taxes and shifts funding, which would then be backfilled by Initiative 175. In total, the impact would be net neutral, with transportation funding remaining at current levels and state priorities like K-12 and healthcare escaping unscathed.
- State lawmakers referred a measure to the ballot which will raise the current TABOR spending cap by up to $4.6 billion. If passed in November, money which would otherwise have been rebated back to taxpayers, estimated at $184M in the next fiscal year, will instead be retained to support K-12 education needs and other programs that assist children (after reimbursing counties for the senior homestead exemption).
Housing
We examine Colorado’s affordable housing crisis– tracing how we got here, breaking down the challenges, and offering solutions to move forward.
Housing
While budget cuts also affected housing, lawmakers introduced a variety of bills to continue addressing housing affordability concerns.
- Although affordable housing remains a critical need across Colorado, lawmakers were forced to cut state support for housing development efforts. This included cutting $130 million from Proposition 123 programs for affordable rental housing development, and repealing $28 million of the $30 million intended to be transferred to the Housing Development Grant Fund from the Unclaimed Property Trust Fund.
- Despite the budget shortfall, other efforts to support affordable housing development prevailed. These included bills that require local governments to allow housing developments on certain public and nonprofit-owned properties, and the creation of a new income tax credit to support affordable housing development in established transit and housing zones.
Looking Ahead
The 2026 legislative session made real the implications of our long-standing, TABOR-induced budget crisis. Without enough revenue, policymakers had to cut essential services Coloradans depend upon. Notably, bad as this year was, it will get worse next session when lawmakers are projected to face another $1 billion deficit.
Though the 2026 legislative session is over, more policy decisions are on the horizon. In November, voters will likely be asked to weigh in on questions that will shape our state’s fiscal future. Some choices would further limit our ability to meet pressing needs. But others, like the creation of a graduated income tax, would not only create a fairer tax system, but also provide an estimated $2 billion in funding for essential state services.
This past legislative session makes clear the imperative of addressing our state’s budget challenges. If we don’t, Coloradans will fall further and further behind, unable to access the foundational services needed for economic security and well-being.
The post It’s a wrap: Our Take on the 2026 Legislative Session appeared first on The Bell Policy Center.
]]>