2026 Colorado Midterm Voting Guide

What it does: Requires certain local law enforcement to notify federal immigration authorities when a person whose lawful presence cannot be confirmed is charged with specified crimes.

Argument for: Supporters argue it creates a consistent statewide rule for reporting violent or repeat offenders and improves cooperation with federal authorities.

Argument against: Opponents argue reporting people before conviction undermines due process, can discourage cooperation with police, and expands local involvement in immigration enforcement.

• Applies when law enforcement cannot confirm lawful U.S. presence and specified criminal-charge criteria are met.
• The trigger is a charge, not a conviction; the measure concerns notification to federal immigration authorities.
• It would constitutionalize a statewide rule rather than leave the issue solely to ordinary state/local policy.
• Key questions include due process, federal–local cooperation, public safety, and effects on community-police trust.

What it does: Creates a state constitutional right for homes and businesses to purchase and sell natural gas, potentially limiting state or local restrictions.

Argument for: Supporters argue natural gas is affordable, reliable in extreme cold, widely used, and consumers should retain access to it.

Argument against: Opponents argue constitutional protection could impede local climate, air-quality, public-health, and clean-energy policies.

• Would place a right to purchase and sell natural gas for home or business cooking/heating in Colorado's constitution.
• Could affect future state or local efforts to restrict gas hookups or require electrification in covered uses.
• Does not itself set utility rates or require a utility to expand service everywhere.
• Key questions include consumer choice, reliability, emissions, building policy, and local-government authority.

What it does: Creates a constitutional right to hunt and fish and identifies regulated hunting and fishing as preferred wildlife-management methods, subject to exceptions.

Argument for: Supporters argue it protects Colorado traditions, recreation, tourism, and license-funded wildlife conservation from future restrictions.

Argument against: Opponents argue recreation need not be a constitutional right and the language could constrain science-based wildlife policy or future voter choices.

• Would establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish, subject to laws and regulations governing those activities.
• Would identify regulated hunting and fishing as preferred methods of managing wildlife populations.
• Existing licensing, seasons, bag limits, and conservation rules would continue unless separately changed.
• Key questions include wildlife-management flexibility, constitutional protection, recreation, and conservation policy.

What it does: Adds an identification requirement for mail ballots beyond signature verification; voters with unresolved ID issues could not have the ballot counted.

Argument for: Supporters argue an additional ID check is more objective than signature review and could strengthen security and public confidence.

Argument against: Opponents argue existing safeguards are effective and the new requirement could create unnecessary barriers or rejected ballots for eligible voters.

• Would add an identification step to Colorado's mail-ballot verification process in addition to signature review.
• Voters with an unresolved identification problem could have a ballot rejected unless the issue is cured as allowed by law.
• The proposal changes mail-ballot verification; it does not eliminate signature verification.
• Key questions include election security, administrative burden, ballot rejection rates, and voter access.

What it does: Requires state and local ballot titles to use plain language at no more than an eighth-grade reading level and limits conflicting statutory wording mandates.

Argument for: Supporters argue shorter, simpler titles would help voters understand measures and prevent mandated wording from making initiative titles confusing.

Argument against: Opponents argue readability formulas can oversimplify legally important details and the constitution is an inflexible place for a drafting standard.

• Would require state and local ballot questions to be written in plain language at no more than an eighth-grade reading level.
• Targets the wording voters see on the ballot rather than changing the substance of initiatives themselves.
• Could override or limit statutory wording requirements that conflict with the new readability rule.
• Key questions include clarity, legal precision, enforceability of readability standards, and voter comprehension.

What it does: Requires off-cycle congressional redistricting to go through the independent commission, public hearings, and Colorado Supreme Court review, with anti-partisan rules.

Argument for: Supporters argue it preserves public participation and the independent process while discouraging partisan mid-decade map changes.

Argument against: Opponents argue it could unnecessarily restrict voters' ability to respond to changed circumstances or redistricting actions in other states.

• Addresses congressional redistricting outside the normal post-census redistricting cycle.
• Would require use of Colorado's independent congressional redistricting process, including public participation.
• Would include Colorado Supreme Court review and restrictions intended to prevent partisan manipulation.
• Key questions include stability of district maps, responsiveness to unusual circumstances, and partisan safeguards.

What it does: Replaces Colorado's flat income-tax structure with graduated rates and directs additional revenue to specified public services such as education, health, and child care.

Argument for: Supporters argue lower- and middle-income taxpayers would pay less while higher earners contribute more to public services.

Argument against: Opponents argue higher marginal rates could discourage investment or high-income activity and make the tax system more complex.

• Would replace Colorado's constitutionally required uniform income-tax rate with graduated rates based on taxable income.
• Blue Book estimates lower average tax liability for many income groups and higher liability at the highest income levels.
• Additional revenue would be retained outside the normal constitutional revenue limit and directed to specified public services.
• Key questions include distribution of tax burdens, revenue stability, economic effects, and funding for designated services.

What it does: Raises the state TABOR spending limit so Colorado can retain additional revenue, with specified funding for K–12 education and other permitted purposes.

Argument for: Supporters argue retaining revenue allows sustained education investment rather than refunds and helps address school funding needs.

Argument against: Opponents argue it permanently reduces potential TABOR refunds and gives state government greater authority to retain taxpayer revenue.

• Would increase the amount of state revenue Colorado may retain and spend under its constitutional revenue limit.
• Retained money would support K–12 investment increases, with additional retained revenue available for permitted state purposes.
• The measure affects potential future TABOR refunds because more revenue could remain with the state.
• Key questions include school funding, taxpayer refunds, state budget flexibility, and long-term spending growth.

What it does: Increases criminal penalties for fentanyl offenses, including felony treatment of possession and an eight-year minimum for specified distribution conduct.

Argument for: Supporters argue stronger penalties target a uniquely lethal drug and create greater deterrence and accountability for trafficking.

Argument against: Opponents argue harsher possession penalties may imprison people with substance-use disorders, increase correctional costs, and do little to reduce addiction.

• Would increase criminal penalties associated with fentanyl, including treatment of possession as a felony.
• Would establish an eight-year minimum sentence for specified fentanyl distribution conduct.
• The measure changes criminal consequences rather than directly creating treatment or prevention programs.
• Key questions include deterrence, proportional sentencing, incarceration costs, addiction treatment, and overdose reduction.

What it does: Expands the law governing sex trafficking of minors and increases punishment for covered conduct, including life without parole in specified circumstances.

Argument for: Supporters argue severe penalties reflect the seriousness and lasting harm of trafficking children and strengthen tools against traffickers.

Argument against: Opponents argue life-without-parole is exceptionally severe, may not fit every covered circumstance, and removes judicial sentencing discretion.

• Would expand provisions addressing sex trafficking of minors and increase penalties for covered conduct.
• Specified offenses could carry life imprisonment without parole.
• The proposal focuses on punishment and the legal definition/scope of covered trafficking conduct.
• Key questions include protection of minors, proportional punishment, prosecutorial tools, and judicial sentencing discretion.

What it does: Requires covered school sports to be designated male, female, or coed and limits participation in sex-designated teams using biological-sex criteria.

Argument for: Supporters argue sex-based categories protect competitive fairness, safety, and athletic opportunities for female athletes.

Argument against: Opponents argue the measure excludes transgender students, may invite privacy disputes and litigation, and overrides school or athletic-body policies.

• Would require covered school athletic programs to classify teams as male, female, or coed.
• Participation in sex-designated teams would be governed by biological-sex criteria specified by the measure.
• It would establish a statewide statutory rule rather than leaving eligibility solely to schools or athletic associations.
• Key questions include competitive fairness, inclusion, privacy, enforcement, litigation, and student participation.

What it does: Prohibits specified surgeries on minors when performed to alter sex characteristics in response to gender identity and restricts public/insurance funding.

Argument for: Supporters argue irreversible procedures should wait until adulthood and the state should establish a uniform safeguard for minors.

Argument against: Opponents argue medical decisions should remain with families and clinicians and that a statutory ban may block individualized, medically recommended care.

• Would prohibit specified surgeries on minors when performed to alter sex characteristics in response to gender identity.
• Would also restrict government or insurance funding for procedures covered by the measure.
• The proposal targets specified surgical interventions; its exact coverage depends on the statutory definitions and exceptions.
• Key questions include parental/medical decision-making, age limits, medical standards, state regulation, and individual rights.

What it does: Caps Colorado's individual and corporate state income-tax rate at 4.4% in statute.

Argument for: Supporters argue a statutory ceiling protects taxpayers from future rate increases and creates greater predictability for households and businesses.

Argument against: Opponents argue the cap could constrain future budgets and public services and is unnecessary because tax increases already require voter approval under TABOR.

• Would set a statutory ceiling of 4.4% on Colorado individual and corporate income-tax rates.
• Because the cap is statutory, it differs from placing the limit directly in the state constitution.
• Colorado tax increases are already subject to voter-approval requirements under TABOR.
• Key questions include tax predictability, future budget flexibility, voter control, and responses to fiscal emergencies.

What it does: Dedicates specified state sales-tax revenue from sporting goods to conservation, wildfire mitigation, and outdoor recreation, outside the TABOR limit.

Argument for: Supporters argue it creates a dedicated funding stream tied to outdoor activity for habitat, wildfire, and recreation needs.

Argument against: Opponents argue earmarking existing revenue reduces legislative budget flexibility and could divert money from other priorities.

• Would dedicate specified sales-tax revenue associated with sporting goods to outdoor and conservation purposes.
• Uses include conservation, wildfire mitigation, and outdoor recreation identified by the measure.
• Dedicated revenue would be treated outside the normal TABOR revenue limit as provided by the proposal.
• Key questions include stable conservation funding, earmarking, budget flexibility, wildfire needs, and recreation investment.

What it does: Updates Denver's charter to expressly reflect the Auditor's authority to enforce wage and workplace-rights laws assigned by City Council.

Argument for: Supporters argue the charter should clearly match duties the Auditor already performs and strengthen independent enforcement authority.

Argument against: Opponents/concerns focus on placing broader enforcement authority in the charter rather than leaving duties to ordinary ordinance; organized opposition is limited.

• Concerns the Denver Auditor's charter authority relating to wage and workplace-rights enforcement assigned by City Council.
• Would put relevant authority more explicitly in Denver's charter rather than relying only on ordinances and existing practice.
• The Auditor is an independently elected city official, making institutional independence part of the governance question.
• Key questions include enforcement clarity, checks and balances, subpoena/oversight authority, and charter-level specificity.

What it does: Allows Denver to use a two-year budget cycle while retaining required annual spending authorization, fiscal reporting, and an option to return to annual budgeting.

Argument for: Supporters argue it improves long-term planning, community engagement, and continuity for multi-year projects.

Argument against: Opponents argue longer forecasts are less reliable and an annual process can provide the same planning with more frequent adjustment.

• Would permit Denver to operate on a two-year budget cycle instead of relying exclusively on a one-year cycle.
• Annual spending authorization and fiscal reporting requirements would remain part of the process.
• The city could use longer-range planning while retaining mechanisms for adjustments as conditions change.
• Key questions include forecasting accuracy, public participation, administrative efficiency, and responsiveness to revenue changes.

What it does: Updates Denver charter provisions governing the Civil Service Commission and public-safety personnel administration, including eligibility and program responsibilities.

Argument for: Supporters argue the changes modernize outdated language and administration and better align responsibilities with current city operations.

Argument against: No major organized opposition was identified in the nonpartisan Denver guide; a concern is whether charter changes alter long-standing commission safeguards.

• Would update Denver charter provisions governing the Civil Service Commission and public-safety personnel administration.
• The commission plays a role in systems affecting police and fire personnel, including merit-based administration.
• The measure updates eligibility/administrative provisions rather than replacing the civil-service system outright.
• Key questions include modernization, independence, accountability, recruitment, and preservation of merit-system safeguards.

What it does: Approves a new 20-year franchise allowing Xcel Energy to use Denver rights-of-way for utility infrastructure, with payments and related commitments.

Argument for: Supporters argue it preserves reliable utility operations, city revenue, undergrounding, relocation coordination, and energy-assistance commitments.

Argument against: Opponents argue affordability and equity commitments may be insufficient and a 20-year deal could reduce leverage for municipal or alternative energy models.

• Would approve a new 20-year franchise governing Xcel Energy's use of Denver public rights-of-way for utility infrastructure.
• Franchise agreements typically govern access, compensation, relocation responsibilities, and other city–utility obligations.
• The long term provides continuity but also determines Denver's contractual framework with the utility for two decades.
• Key questions include reliability, franchise payments, affordability, undergrounding, climate goals, and future municipal leverage.

What it does: Prohibits force-feeding birds for foie gras and prohibits Denver retail food establishments from purchasing, selling, or distributing products from force-fed birds.

Argument for: Supporters argue force-feeding is inhumane and Denver can prevent local commerce from supporting the practice.

Argument against: Opponents argue Denver has no foie-gras production, the rule restricts restaurant and consumer choice, and local enforcement may have little effect on animal welfare elsewhere.

• Would prohibit force-feeding birds for foie gras and restrict Denver food businesses from selling products from force-fed birds.
• The practical local effect centers primarily on retail and restaurant sales because Denver is not a major foie-gras producer.
• Enforcement would occur through Denver's local regulatory framework.
• Key questions include animal welfare, consumer/business choice, enforcement costs, and the reach of local regulation.

What it does: Authorizes Denver Public Schools to collect about $44 million more annually in property-tax revenue for ongoing operating expenses.

Argument for: Supporters cite educator/support-staff pay, career and technical education, mental-health services, and special-needs support amid rising costs.

Argument against: Opponents cite property-tax burdens, declining enrollment, concerns about academic outcomes, and the recent 2024 DPS bond authorization.

• Would authorize Denver Public Schools to collect roughly $44 million more each year through a mill-levy override.
• Revenue would support ongoing operating expenses rather than functioning as a one-time capital bond authorization.
• Property owners within the district would bear the tax increase according to taxable property values and applicable rules.
• Key questions include staffing and student services, property-tax burden, enrollment trends, accountability, and recurring costs.

What it does: Creates a 0.333% sales/use tax in the rail district and authorizes debt to expand Front Range passenger-rail service and frequency.

Argument for: Supporters argue rail offers an alternative to I-25 congestion, connects major communities and jobs, and uses existing rail corridors to control costs.

Argument against: Opponents argue the tax applies broadly while ridership may be limited, cost/ridership forecasts are uncertain, and some residents would pay both RTD and rail-district taxes.

• Would create a 0.333% sales/use tax within the covered rail district and authorize up to $580 million in debt.
• Revenue would support the Colorado Connector passenger-rail project and expanded Front Range rail service/frequency.
• Denver residents in the district could pay this tax in addition to other regional transit taxes.
• Key questions include ridership, congestion relief, construction/operating costs, debt, geographic benefits, and integration with existing transit.