2026 Colorado Midterm Voting Guide
Comprehensive guide for Colorado Voters for the 2026 Midterm Elections (Colorado & Denver County)
We believe every voter has a right to make an informed decision about each issue on the ballot. To that end, we’ve compiled a set of slides that summarize each ballot issue. We hope this helps cut through the self-interested “educational” content shoved down the throats of Colorado voters and allows them to understand whether each ballot measure is in their actual interest. Note that the first section below focuses specifically on current ballot initiatives, while the second discusses candidates for Denver County and Colorado candidates.
Colorado 2026 Denver Ballot Guide
Click a measure to read its summary and arguments. Nonpartisan educational material; confirm your exact ballot and official wording before voting.
Amendment 81Law Enforcement Communication with Federal Immigration Authorities
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.
More detail:- 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.
Amendment 82Constitutional Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas
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.
More detail:- 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.
Amendment 83Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish
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.
More detail:- 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.
Amendment 84Mail Ballot Voter Identification
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.
More detail:- 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.
Amendment 85Plain Language Ballot Titles
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.
More detail:- 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.
Amendment 86Requirements for Off-Cycle Congressional Redistricting
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.
More detail:- 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.
Amendment 87Graduated Income Tax
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.
More detail:- 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.
Proposition NNKeep and Spend Money for Education and Other Purposes
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.
More detail:- 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.
Proposition 132Increase Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes
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.
More detail:- 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.
Proposition 133Penalties for Human Trafficking of a Minor
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.
More detail:- 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.
Proposition 134Male and Female Participation in School and Collegiate Sports
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.
More detail:- 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.
Proposition 135Prohibit Certain Surgeries for Minors
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.
More detail:- 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.
Proposition 136Income Tax Rate Limit
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.
More detail:- 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.
Proposition 137Direct Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation
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.
More detail:- 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.
Denver 2HAuditor Workplace-Rights Enforcement
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.
More detail:- 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.
Denver 2ITwo-Year Budget Process
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.
More detail:- 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.
Denver 2JModernizing the Civil Service Commission
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.
More detail:- 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.
Denver 2KXcel Energy Franchise Agreement
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.
More detail:- 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.
Denver 311Prohibit Force-Feeding of Birds / Foie Gras Sales
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.
More detail:- 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.
DPS Issue 4A$44 Million Mill Levy Override
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.
More detail:- 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.
Ballot Issue 7AFront Range Passenger Rail - Colorado Connector
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.
More detail:- 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.
Source references: Colorado Legislative Council Blue Book and Denver Elections. Summaries are adapted from the earlier presentation and have not been independently reverified for publication.
2026 Colorado & Denver County Candidate Guide
General election: November 3, 2026 · Research snapshot: October 21, 2026 · Statewide and Denver-wide races; district-specific races excluded.
Sources, definitions and verification links
Official sources: Colorado TRACER campaign finance; FEC federal campaign finance; Colorado business entity records; Colorado elections; Ballotpedia Colorado 2026. Candidate platforms are summarized, not endorsements. Dollar figures are rounded and are not necessarily comparable across candidates. For Denver Fair Elections Fund candidates, public matching funds may be included.
This guide does not include district-specific contests or ballot measures. Judicial retention is included separately because judges do not campaign on partisan policy platforms.