2026 General Election

Jurisdiction: Poudre Valley Fire Protection District
Referred by: PVFPD Board of Directors
Chamber Position: Support

Ballot Question

SHALL THE POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT WAIVE THE 5.25% PROPERTY TAX LIMIT FOR ALL FUTURE PROPERTY TAX YEARS, WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES, TO ALLOW FOR THE DISTRICT TO RETAIN PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAINTAINING ADEQUATE STAFFING, PROCURING AND MAINTAINING FIRE FIGHTING AND OTHER LIFE SAVING EQUIPMENT AND APPARATUS, AND FOR OTHER OPERATIONAL AND CAPITAL NEEDS AND SHALL ALL DISTRICT REVENUES BE COLLECTED, RETAINED, AND SPENT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REVENUE LIMITS PROVIDED BY LAW?

Some Basics

The PVFPD includes the Town of Timnath, the communities of Laporte and Bellvue, Horsetooth Reservoir and Redstone Canyon, and other areas within unincorporated Larimer and Weld counties.

The Poudre Fire Authority serves approximately 230 square miles across Northern Colorado, including Fort Collins, Timnath, Laporte, Bellvue, Horsetooth Reservoir, Redstone Canyon, and surrounding portions of Larimer and Weld counties. The agency protects more than $58 billion in property and responded to more than 21,000 emergency calls in 2025.

In 2018, voters allowed PVFPD to retain revenue in excess of TABOR limits (de-Brucing). However, in 2024 the state legislature passed SB24B-1001, which limits the annual growth of local government property tax collections to 5.25%, overriding the results of the prior election.

To address increasing costs for equipment, facilities and personnel that are rising faster than the TABOR limit formula (population growth plus consumer price index), PVFPD is asking voters within its service area to reauthorize a release from the 5.25% cap. The measure does not include any increases to taxes or fees, though may affect taxpayer refunds or lower tax rates prescribed by TABOR in jurisdictions subject to such offsets.

Chamber Position: Support

This ballot measure allows PFA to maintain high service levels, a core infrastructure service, without additional tax burden.

Voters showed support for “deBrucing” of the district in 2018 and changes by the state legislature require a revisit to that decision. While collections over the cap are projected to be rare, allowing those voter-authorized dollars to remain within the district are appropriate.

Resources

Poudre Valley Fire Funding

Jurisdiction: Larimer County
Referred by: Larimer County Board of County Commissioners
Chamber Position: Oppose

Ballot Question

SHALL LARIMER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED BY UP TO $34 1/2 MILLION ANNUALLY (ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR INCREASE STARTING JANUARY 1, 2027), AND BY ANY ADDITIONAL AMOUNT GENERATED EACH YEAR THEREAFTER, TO FUND COUNTY PURPOSES INCLUDING:

• WILDFIRE, DRINKING WATER SOURCE AREAS, AND NATURAL HAZARD RESILIENCE, INCLUDING PREVENTION, MITIGATION, PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, RECOVERY, WATERSHED PROTECTION, FOREST HEALTH, AND OTHER PROJECTS THAT REDUCE THE RISKS OR IMPACTS OF DISASTER;
• MAINTAIN, IMPROVE, AND CONSTRUCT COUNTY BRIDGES, ROADS, PARKS, TRAILS, OPEN SPACES AND OTHER RECREATIONAL LANDS TO IMPROVE SAFETY, ACCESS AND QUALITY OF LIFE; AND
• COMMUNITY RESILIENCE AND PUBLIC SAFETY, INCLUDING EMERGENCY SERVICES, WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION, ADMINISTRATION AND FUNDING OF PUBLIC BENEFITS, JUSTICE CENTER AND OTHER FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS, AND OTHER COUNTY PRIORITIES AND EMERGING COMMUNITY NEEDS;

BY ESTABLISHING A 0.3% (30 CENTS ON $100 PURCHASE) COUNTYWIDE SALES AND USE TAX, EXCLUDING SALES OF FOOD FOR HOME CONSUMPTION, GASOLINE, DIAPERS, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND CERTAIN OTHER ITEMS EXEMPT BY LAW; WITH ALL REVENUE SUBJECT TO AN ANNUAL INDEPENDENT AUDIT; AND SHALL THE COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND ALL REVENUES FROM THIS TAX WITHOUT LIMITATION BY ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION (TABOR), ALL AS PROVIDED IN THE RESOLUTION REFERRING THIS BALLOT ISSUE?

Some Basics

In 2024, the state legislature passed SB24B-1001 which limits annual property tax revenue growth to 5.25% in counties such as Larimer that do not qualify for certain exemptions. According to the Board of County Commissioners and its budget office, the costs of providing critical services are rising faster than 5.25% and beyond what reserve funds can sustain over time.

In seeking a new sales tax of 0.30% (30 cents on $100 purchase), the County seeks to bolster disaster preparedness, risk mitigation, road & bridge improvements, public safety, facility improvements and other priorities.

If approved, the County sales tax would increase to 1.35% for a total tax of 8.60% within Fort Collins, plus any additional sales taxes approved by voters.

Business Case for Support

Increased funding to address the condition and safety of the County transportation network supports business, its workforce and customers; Protecting and remediating damage within our regional water shed safeguards a critical resource; Federal and state resources for risk mitigation and recovery from unplanned events are often unreliable and insufficient, compounding the fiscal burden of resulting economic disruptions.

Business Case for Opposition

Limited disclosure of how increasing property tax revenue has been deemed insufficient harbors skepticism of internal resource allocation; Taxpayers also face asymmetric inflationary pressures without the ability increase revenue accordingly; Increasing the sales base aggravates affordability concerns that can stifle economic activity.

Chamber Position: Oppose

While there is a growing need for additional funding for issues across the county, this ballot issue is concerning.

No sunset, no financial modeling or prioritization plan and no defined use of these valuable dollars in a flattening economy trigger a no vote.

This new tax, with no sunset, creates a direct burden on construction, especially housing, and lacks sufficient clarity about the specific community outcomes to be funded. The business community remains a strong advocate for new funding for the transportation system, but this ballot issue lacks defined investment into roads, bridges and other parts of this vital system.

Resources

Ready Larimer

Jurisdiction: Front Range Passenger Rail District (30 communities along the Front Range)
Chamber Position: Oppose

Ballot Question

SHALL FRONT RANGE PASSENGER RAIL DISTRICT TAXES BE INCREASED $295,000,000 ANNUALLY AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS ARE RAISED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, AND SHALL FRONT RANGE PASSENGER RAIL DISTRICT DEBT BE INCREASED $580,000,000, WITH A REPAYMENT COST OF $785,000,000;

TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN COLORADO CONNECTOR (COCO) PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE ON COLORADO’S FRONT RANGE AND CONNECT COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING PUEBLO, COLORADO SPRINGS, STERLING RANCH, LITTLETON, DENVER, WESTMINSTER, BROOMFIELD, LOUISVILLE, BOULDER, LONGMONT, LOVELAND, AND FORT COLLINS; IN ORDER TO:

• REMOVE VEHICLES FROM HIGHWAYS AND INCREASE TRAVEL CAPACITY;
• CONNECT TRAVELERS TO EMPLOYMENT CENTERS, COLLEGES, SPORTS ARENAS, AND ENTERTAINMENT HUBS ALONG THE FRONT RANGE; AND
• INVEST IN STATION AREA IMPROVEMENTS AND LOCAL CONNECTIONS TO RAIL STATIONS;

BY ESTABLISHING A 0.333% SALES AND USE TAX (EQUAL TO ONE THIRD OF A PENNY ON A $1 PURCHASE), WITH EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED UNDER COLORADO LAW, INCLUDING THOSE FOR GASOLINE, FOOD, RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY AND GAS, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, AND MEDICAL SUPPLIES;

AND TO RETAIN ALL SUCH REVENUES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS, AND ANY INVESTMENT INCOME ON REVENUES AND DEBT PROCEEDS, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER SECTION 20 OF ARTICLE X OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION;

AND REQUIRING THAT ALL SUCH DEDICATED REVENUES BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR AND A ROTATING GROUP OF CITIZEN TAXPAYERS WHO LIVE IN THE DISTRICT?

Some Basics

Voters in 30 communities along the planned route of the Colorado Connector rail service between Pueblo and Fort Collins will consider this measure. Though 7A was citizen initiated, the effort has been led by the board of the Front Range Passenger Rail District, which was established by the legislature in 2022. Approval of the measure requires a majority vote in favor across the district boundary, rather than a plurality of municipalities.

7A proposes to raise $295 million annually by levying a district-wide 0.333% sales and use tax (33 cents per $100 purchase) to expand and supplement a “starter service” scheduled to begin offering three daily round trips between Fort Collins and Denver’s Union Station by 2029. If successful, the new funding will allow the system to expand to Pueblo with at least 12 stations and increased service frequency to as many as 10 trips daily by 2032. Proponents suggest the new tax revenue would allow rail service to eventually extend from Cheyenne to Trinidad and connect to rail service in New Mexico.

Proponents further acknowledge the motivation to proceed stems from the long-delayed Regional Transportation District light rail service from Denver to Boulder and Longmont promised under the Fast Tracks tax initiative in 2004. Light Rail service to Boulder is now scheduled for 2042 with no further plans to reach Longmont.

Much like Bustang, regular bus service that connects multiple communities across the state, taxes and fees are expected to cover the majority of operating costs rather than passenger fares. A fee schedule will be devised closer to initiation of the service.

Business Case for Support

Potentially increases capacity of transportation network; Increases options for workers that lack personal or reliable transportation; Potentially triggers additional economic and real estate development opportunities; and, Minimizes new infrastructure requirements and related public investments.

Business Case for Opposition

Permanently increases base sales tax; Utilization is speculative with no proven benchmarks within similar markets; Public transit projects rarely deliver on time and within initial budgets; and Aggravates traffic congestion at Drake, Horsetooth and Harmony Road rail crossings.

Chamber Position: Oppose

While we are advocates for effective transit systems, including the growing success of Bustang in Northern Colorado, this proposal does not yet provide sufficient confidence in ridership, deliver, cost control or local impacts.

Unfortunately, the viability of dependable rail on a shared line has yet to be proven, the line design doesn’t connect workers effectively to major employer centers and the system is not serving population growth centers of our state.

Additionally, a never-ending sales tax creates a direct burden on all construction, especially housing, and will impact the households in our community that can least afford it.

Resources

Colorado Connector

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Constitutional Amendment
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: Support

Ballot Question

SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CREATING NEW LAW GRANTING THE RIGHT FOR CONSUMERS TO PURCHASE NATURAL GAS FOR COOKING OR HEATING IN HOMES OR BUSINESSES AND FOR DISTRIBUTORS AND UTILITIES TO SELL NATURAL GAS TO CONSUMERS?

Some Basics

This measure seeks to nullify existing and prospective legislative and regulatory efforts within the state to exclude natural gas as a power source. If adopted, Amendment 82 would likely render local prohibitions unenforceable while significantly reducing the effects of state and local building codes that intend to transition our economy to an “all-electric” portfolio. The measure does not impose a requirement to buy or sell natural gas.

A “yes” vote supports amending the Colorado Constitution to grant consumers the right to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in homes or businesses, and for distributors and utilities to sell natural gas to consumers.

A “no” vote opposes amending the Colorado Constitution to grant consumers the right to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in homes or businesses, and for distributors and utilities to sell natural gas to consumers.

Chamber Position: Support

While we are reticent to add items to the state constitution, there is a need in the state to support a variety of energy sources and the industries that depend on natural gas.

This protects energy choice and planning certainty for homeowners, restaurants, hospitals, manufacturers and buildings that use natural gas.

Resources

• Common Sense Institute: Right to Natural Gas
• Brighter Colorado
• Vote Common Sense Colorado

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Constitutional Amendment
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: Oppose

Ballot Question

SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CREATING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HUNT, FISH, AND HARVEST FISH AND WILDLIFE BY TRADITIONAL METHODS, INCLUDING ALL SPECIES OF FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGED BY THE STATE EXCEPT NON-GAME SPECIES, ENDANGERED SPECIES, OR ANY SPECIES THAT IS ILLEGAL TO HUNT UNDER FEDERAL LAW, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, ESTABLISHING HUNTING AND FISHING AS THE PREFERRED MEANS OF MANAGING FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS; AND PRESERVING THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO REGULATE HUNTING, FISHING, AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IF NECESSARY FOR SOUND SCIENTIFIC WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY, OR TO PRESERVE THE FUTURE OF HUNTING AND FISHING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL SPECIES?

Some Basics

Currently, 24 states include a right to hunt and fish within their constitution. Supporters are concerned by recurring efforts to manage wildlife through voter initiatives while opponents are concerned by the vague language that could preclude management strategies and voter adopted restrictions.

Additionally, the Chamber is concerned about creating yet another change to the Colorado Constitution by an organization not in Colorado.

Chamber Position: Oppose

Special interests continue to utilize our state constitution to their benefit and the state’s detriment. The vague language could preclude management strategies and creates barriers to future opportunity for an important industry in Colorado.

Resources

• Yes on 83 Colorado
• Protect Colorado’s Constitution

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Constitutional Amendment
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: Oppose

Ballot Question

SHALL STATE TAXES BE INCREASED $2.7 BILLION ANNUALLY, IN ORDER TO INCREASE OR IMPROVE LEVELS OF PUBLIC SERVICES, INCLUDING K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, AND EARLY CHILD CARE AND EDUCATION SERVICES, BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION AND A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES REPEALING EXISTING LAW AND CREATING NEW LAW TO REPLACE THE UNIFORM STATE INCOME TAX RATE WITH A GRADUATED INCOME TAX STRUCTURE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AMENDING THE TAXPAYER’S BILL OF RIGHTS TO ELIMINATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR ALL TAXABLE NET INCOME TO BE TAXED AT ONE RATE WITH NO ADDED TAX ON INCOME; ESTABLISHING VARIOUS INCOME TAX RATES BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF TAXABLE INCOME EARNED BY INDIVIDUALS, ESTATES, TRUSTS, AND CORPORATIONS, WHILE MAINTAINING THE CURRENT 4.4% TAX ON INCOME FROM THE SALE OF A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE, WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE ESTIMATED CHANGE IN INCOME TAXES OWED BY INDIVIDUALS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE; AND AUTHORIZING THE STATE TO RETAIN AND SPEND ANY INCREASED REVENUE FROM THE NEW TAX STRUCTURE, AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE, TO SUPPLEMENT CURRENT LEVELS OF FUNDING FOR K-12 PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, AND EARLY CHILD CARE AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS?

Some Basics

Though deemed to present a single subject as required under TABOR, Amendment 87 presents constitutional and statutory components. The measure would strike constitutional language that specifies a flat income tax rate while substituting a graduated schedule according to reported income. Striking language in the constitution does not trigger the 55% approval requirement for passage (Amendment 71) since the added language is statutory.

Income brackets shown below do not automatically adjust for inflation. Similar to federal income tax calculation, rates are applied on a marginal basis.

Proposed Income Tax Brackets

Additional revenue generated by the passage of Amendment 87 would be exempted from the state spending cap imposed by TABOR and redirected to a newly created Colorado Future’s Account. Funds held in this account will be annually appropriated by the legislature for the expressed support of K-12 education, healthcare and early childhood programs. As this language is statutory, the use of funds and raising income brackets may be subsequently addressed by the legislature. Lowering income brackets or raising corresponding tax rates would require voter approval.

Though the Executive Branch would be required to submit annual reports on how funds were distributed, there is no requirement to demonstrate effectiveness of such funding.

Chamber Position: Oppose

While it is estimated that replacing Colorado’s flat income tax with six brackets from 3.7% to 8.4% would generate $2 billion annual for important public purposes like education and health care, such action would double Colorado’s top rate and put us in the top 10 highest income tax states in the nation.

This creates an anti-competitive climate and would raise the cost of investing and growing in Colorado. The amendment would replace Colorado’s simple, predictable flat tax with a complicated system that is not indexed to inflation and limited insight into the use of billions of new revenue.

Resources

• Protect Colorado’s Future
• Don’t Price Us Out

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Statutory Proposition
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: Oppose

Ballot Question

SHALL STATE INVESTMENT IN K-12 PUBLIC EDUCATION INCREASE TWO PERCENT EACH YEAR FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS, WITH INVESTMENTS USED TO INCREASE TEACHER PAY, IMPROVE TEACHER RETENTION, LOWER CLASS SIZES, AND INCREASE ACCESS TO CAREER AND TECHNICAL COURSES, WITHOUT RAISING TAXES BUT INSTEAD FUNDED BY RAISING THE ANNUAL LIMIT ON STATE FISCAL YEAR SPENDING ONLY BY THE AMOUNT SPENT ON PUBLIC K-12 EDUCATION AS A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE, AND REQUIRING AN ANNUAL PUBLICLY RELEASED, INDEPENDENT AUDIT TO SHOW HOW THE NEW INVESTMENTS ARE SPENT?

Some Basics

At current tax rates, Proposition NN would permanently raise the state spending limit and end TABOR refunds to increase resources for K-12 education while supporting full-day preschool and childcare programs. K-12 funding is intended to be permanent, the balance would sunset after 10 years and subject to subsequent appropriation by the legislature. According to an analysis completed by the Common Sense Institute, the measure would allow the state to retain nearly $851 million through FY28 that would otherwise go back to taxpayers and local governments.

Proposition NN does not conflict with Amendment 87 nor Proposition 136 as it limited to redirecting existing revenue.

Increased K-12 appropriations are not conditioned upon student performance or enrollment levels.

Chamber Position: Oppose

If passed, this issue allows the state to retain revenue above the existing TABOR cap creating new state funding for education, while reducing future TABOR refunds. While business is supportive of investments in education and workforce creation, this becomes a permanent dedication over roads and other changing priorities, without guaranteeing better outcomes.

Resources

• Yes for Colorado Kids
• Let’s Go Colorado

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Statutory Proposition
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: Support

Ballot Question

SHALL THERE BE A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CAPPING THE STATE INCOME TAX RATE AT 4.4% OF FEDERAL TAXABLE INCOME FOR INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS?

Some Basics

Proposition 136 reaffirms the current maximum income tax rate of 4.4% in state statute. Though the legislature may lower this cap, any increase requires voter approval under TABOR. The fundamental purpose of this measure is to prevent implementation of higher tax rates proposed under Amendment 87 by attracting more votes on favor.

According to Section 1-40-123 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, “In the case of adoption of conflicting provisions, the one that receives the greatest number of affirmative votes prevails in all particulars as to which there is a conflict.”

Chamber Position: Support

This is a defensive measure, citizen-initiated, to maintain the current 4.4% flat tax in Colorado.

Certainty in tax rates allows Colorado to compete with other states for jobs and population growth.

Resources

Brighter Colorado

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Statutory Proposition
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: Oppose

Ballot Question

SHALL THERE BE A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CREATING NEW LAW TO INCREASE WATER AND LAND CONSERVATION FUNDING WITHOUT RAISING TAXES, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, THROUGH A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE, ALLOWING THE STATE TO KEEP AND SPEND A PORTION OF REVENUE FROM THE STATE SALES TAX ON SPORTING GOODS AND EQUIPMENT TO CONSERVE AND PROTECT COLORADO’S WATER, LAND, AND FORESTS, PREVENT WILDFIRES, SUPPORT OUTDOOR RECREATION TRAINING AND ACTIVITIES, AND REDUCE REVENUE SPENT ON THESE CONSERVATION PURPOSES IF NECESSARY TO PRESERVE FUNDING FOR CERTAIN TAX CREDITS?

Some Basics

Proposition 137 would exempt sales tax revenue generated from the sale of sporting goods and equipment in calculating excess funding subject to taxpayer refunds due under TABOR. Instead, the initiative would allocate the revenue to a newly created fund for environmental protection and wildfire prevention, called the Conserve and Protect Colorado’s Water, Land, and Forests Fund. The state Legislative Council estimates a diversion of $170M to $180M if the measure is approved.

The state does not currently have a system to identify sporting goods and equipment as a sales tax category, collections will be an estimate using census-based data.

Between 2023 and 2025, voters have approved three general assembly-referred measures to exempt certain tax collections from TABOR revenue limits. Proposition LL diverts excess income tax revenue from lower income tax deductions to fund Healthy School Meals for All. Proposition JJ allows the state to retain excess tax collections from sports betting. Proposition II allows the state to retain excess tax revenue from tobacco and nicotine products.

Chamber Position: Oppose

Wildfire mitigation protects property, insurance, water, utilities and tourism, but this funding tool is ill designed.

Allocating sales tax revenue from the sale of sporting goods and equipment, which is not a current sales tax category, creates another spending earmark without clear performance requirements.

Resources

Yes on Proposition 137

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Constitutional Amendment
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: No Position

Ballot Question

SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION REQUIRING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WHEN A PERSON IS CHARGED WITH EITHER A VIOLENT CRIME OR ANY CRIME IF THE PERSON HAS A PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION IF LAW ENFORCEMENT CANNOT DETERMINE THAT THE PERSON IS LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES?

Some Basics

A proposed constitutional amendment that would require Colorado law enforcement agencies to cooperate more closely with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal immigration authorities. Current state law places strict limits on such cooperation.

Chamber Position: No Position

The Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has not taken a position on this measure.

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Constitutional Amendment
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: No Position

Ballot Question

SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, REENACTING THE CURRENT PROCESS FOR CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING IN THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION AND PROHIBITING MODIFICATIONS TO A FINAL MAP UNLESS AT LEAST THREE PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE HELD, THE MODIFICATIONS DO NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF DIVIDING COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST OR PURPOSEFULLY FAVORING ONE POLITICAL PARTY, AND ARE APPROVED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING COMMISSION AND THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT?

Some Basics

Like most states, Colorado conducts a redistricting of federal representation following the release of the decennial census survey. Voters assigned that task to an independent redistricting commission with the passage of Amendment Y in 2018. Amendment 86 seeks to elongate attempts to “short-cycle” to redraw districts for political advantage.

According to Ballotpedia:

A “yes” vote supports amending the Colorado Constitution to:

• require any mid-decade redistricting plan to be approved by both the state’s independent redistricting commission and the Colorado Supreme Court; and
• prohibit the approval of maps that have been “drawn purposefully to favor one political party.”

A “no” vote opposes amending the Colorado Constitution, thereby maintaining the current system in which redistricting plans are reviewed only by the independent commission and the state supreme court following the U.S. decennial census.

Chamber Position: No Position

The Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has not taken a position on this measure.

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Statutory Proposition
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: No Position

Ballot Question

SHALL THERE BE A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CONCERNING CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR FENTANYL AND CERTAIN SYNTHETIC OPIOIDS, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, INCREASING THE FELONY CLASSIFICATIONS OF DRUG-RELATED CRIMES FOR DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURING, DISPENSING, SALE, OR POSSESSION OF FENTANYL AND CERTAIN SYNTHETIC OPIOIDS; CREATING MANDATED TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN DRUG FELONY VIOLATIONS BASED ON POSSESSION AMOUNT; AND CHANGING SENTENCING PROVISIONS TO NARROW OR ELIMINATE EXEMPTIONS FOR CRIMES RELATED TO FENTANYL AND CERTAIN SYNTHETIC OPIOIDS AND DRUG-RELATED DEATHS?

Some Basics

HB19-1263 was passed by the legislature in 2019 which established the possession of more than 4 grams of synthetic opioids as a felony. In 2022, HB22-1326 revised the felony threshold to 1 gram, an amount considered lethal if ingested.

Proposition 132 seeks to equate the possession of any amount of fentanyl or synthetic opioids as a felony crime while repealing a current provision that allows for a reasonable mistake of fact defense. In other words, “I didn’t know it was fentanyl” would no longer be an acceptable defense strategy.

What a Yes or No Vote Means

According to the Colorado Legislative Council’s 2026 State Ballot Information Booklet:

A “yes” vote makes possession of any amount of fentanyl a felony, establishes mandatory minimum prison sentences for fentanyl distribution and eliminates certain options for reduced penalties.

A “no” vote maintains the existing penalty structure, including misdemeanor treatment for some possession offenses and quantity-based felony penalties for distribution.

Chamber Position: No Position

The Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has not taken a position on this measure.

Resources

Colorado General Assembly: Proposition 132 Ballot Analysis

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Statutory Proposition
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: No Position

Ballot Question

SHALL THERE BE A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES MODIFYING EXISTING LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING OF A MINOR FOR SEXUAL SERVITUDE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, CREATING NEW LAW EXPANDING HUMAN TRAFFICKING OF A MINOR FOR SEXUAL SERVITUDE TO INCLUDE KNOWINGLY TRADING ANYTHING OF MONETARY VALUE TO BUY OR SELL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR AND INCREASING THE PENALTY TO BE LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE OR RELEASE?

Some Basics

Current law establishes the trafficking of persons under 18 as a class 2 felony, which carries a sentence of 8 to 24 years in prison. Proposition 133 would expand the current definition to include the exchange of anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity. It further escalates any such offense to a class 1 felony, which is punishable by life in prison without parole.

What a Yes or No Vote Means

According to Ballotpedia:

A “yes” vote supports requiring life in prison without parole or release for persons convicted of human trafficking a child for sexual servitude.

A “no” vote opposes this ballot initiative, keeping human trafficking of a child for sexual servitude classified as a class 2 felony, punishable by eight to 24 years in prison.

Chamber Position: No Position

The Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has not taken a position on this measure.

Resources

Colorado General Assembly: Proposition 133 Ballot Analysis

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Statutory Proposition
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: No Position

Ballot Question

SHALL THERE BE A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES CREATING NEW LAW RESTRICTING PARTICIPATION IN ALL K-12 AND COLLEGIATE SCHOOL SPORTS BASED ON THE PARTICIPANT’S SEX AS DETERMINED BY CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THEIR BIOLOGICAL REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, REQUIRING A SCHOOL, INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION, OR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION TO DESIGNATE EACH SCHOOL OR INTRAMURAL ATHLETIC TEAM OR SPORT AS MALE, FEMALE, OR COEDUCATIONAL; ONLY ALLOWING PARTICIPANTS TO COMPETE ON THE TEAM OR SPORT OF THEIR DESIGNATED SEX OR TO COMPETE ON A COEDUCATIONAL TEAM; CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW A FEMALE TO PARTICIPATE ON A MALE-DESIGNATED TEAM OR SPORT IF THERE IS NO FEMALE TEAM AVAILABLE; PROHIBITING A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, LICENSING OR ACCREDITING ORGANIZATION, OR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION FROM ENTERTAINING A COMPLAINT, OPENING AN INVESTIGATION, OR TAKING OTHER ADVERSE ACTION AGAINST A SCHOOL FOR MAINTAINING SEPARATE TEAMS OR SPORTS FOR FEMALES; AND PROVIDING THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION WITH THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE FOR K-12 SCHOOL DISTRICTS?

Some Basics

In 2021, the legislature passed HB21-1108, known as the Gender Identity Expression Act. This act amended state statute to include gender identity and expression as protected classes in places of public accommodation. Statute defines educational institutions and sporting or recreational areas and facilities as places of public accommodation.

Proposition 134 seeks to restrict gender-specific school or intramural sports team participation to persons biologically assigned that gender at birth.

What a Yes or No Vote Means

According to the Colorado Legislative Council’s 2026 State Ballot Information Booklet:

A “yes” vote means that all school-based athletic teams and sports must be designated as being for biological males or biological females only, or as mixed, and requires schools and school districts to adopt policies on sex eligibility for sports.

A “no” vote means that individual schools, school districts, and athletic associations may continue to set their own policies in alignment with current state and federal law about who is eligible to participate on a team or in a sport.

Chamber Position: No Position

The Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has not taken a position on this measure.

Resources

Colorado General Assembly: Proposition 134 Ballot Analysis

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Statutory Proposition
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: No Position

Ballot Question

SHALL THERE BE A CHANGE TO THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES MODIFYING EXISTING LAW BY PROHIBITING SURGERY ON A MINOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALTERING THE MINOR’S BIOLOGICAL SEX CHARACTERISTICS, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, PROHIBITING ANY HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONAL OR OTHER PERSON FROM KNOWINGLY PERFORMING, PRESCRIBING, ADMINISTERING, OR PROVIDING ANY SURGERY TO A MINOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALTERING THE MINOR’S BIOLOGICAL SEX CHARACTERISTICS AND PROHIBITING THE USE OF STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDS, MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT, OR INSURANCE COVERAGE TO PAY FOR THIS TYPE OF SURGERY?

Some Basics

As of 2026, medical procedures for transgender minors are legal in Colorado, and health insurance providers are prohibited from denying or limiting coverage for such procedures when a physical or behavioral healthcare provider determines the treatment is medically necessary. Colorado law is in conflict with federal orders that prohibit the use of Medicaid and CHIP funding for any such procedures on minors.

What a Yes or No Vote Means

According to Ballotpedia:

A “yes” vote supports this ballot initiative to:

• prohibit healthcare professionals from performing or providing surgeries to persons under age 18 for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics, defined as “treatment in response to a minor’s perception of sex or gender”; and
• prohibit the use of state or federal funds, Medicaid reimbursements, or insurance coverage to pay for such procedures.

A “no” vote opposes the proposed restrictions, leaving existing Colorado law governing these procedures in place.

Chamber Position: No Position

The Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has not taken a position on this measure.

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Constitutional Amendment
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: No Position

Ballot Question

SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION REQUIRING A VOTER TO SIGN AND INCLUDE THE LAST FOUR DIGITS OF THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR THEIR COLORADO DRIVER’S LICENSE OR IDENTIFICATION CARD NUMBER ON THE OUTSIDE OF THEIR MAIL BALLOT FOR ANY FEDERAL OR STATE ELECTION, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, ALLOWING THE VOTER TO CORRECT MISSING OR INCORRECT INFORMATION, INCLUDING WITH ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF IDENTIFICATION; AND PROHIBITING A COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER FROM COUNTING THE MAIL BALLOT UNLESS THE PROBLEM IS FIXED?

Some Basics

Colorado is one of 14 states that do not require voters to present identification prior to casting their ballot. Rather, residents must present 2 acceptable forms of identification when registering to vote, typically when applying for a driver’s license.

Ballots require the voter to provide a signature, which is then compared to the official signature on file.

What a Yes or No Vote Means

According to Ballotpedia:

A “yes” vote supports amending the Colorado Constitution to require voters casting ballots by mail to provide both their signatures and an identification number. Acceptable forms of identification include:

• The last four digits of their Social Security number;
• A Colorado REAL ID number;
• A Colorado REAL ID driver’s license number; or
• The last four digits of another Colorado identification number meeting federal REAL ID requirements.

A “no” vote opposes the proposed additional identification-number requirement for mail ballots, maintaining the existing signature verification process.

Chamber Position: No Position

The Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has not taken a position on this measure.

Jurisdiction: State of Colorado
Measure Type: Constitutional Amendment
Origin: Citizen Initiated
Chamber Position: No Position

Ballot Question

SHALL THERE BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION CONCERNING BALLOT QUESTION LANGUAGE, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, REQUIRING ALL STATE AND LOCAL BALLOT QUESTIONS TO BE WRITTEN IN PLAIN LANGUAGE AND AT NO MORE THAN AN 8TH GRADE READING LEVEL AND PROHIBITING A STATE STATUTE FROM REQUIRING LANGUAGE THAT CONFLICTS WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS IN BALLOT QUESTIONS FOR CITIZEN-INITIATED MEASURES?

Some Basics

Adopted this past legislative session, HB26-1320 requires ballot titles to use “accessible language” that is understood by the widest possible audience and include specific language for reducing or increasing tax revenue through tax changes.

Amendment 85 would enshrine more specific guidance that covers both the title and body of a ballot issue.

What a Yes or No Vote Means

According to Ballotpedia:

A “yes” vote supports amending the Colorado Constitution to:

• Require ballot questions to be in plain language at no more than an eighth-grade reading level; and
• Prohibit any state statute from mandating language preceding, following, or in a ballot title of a measure that is not in plain language or exceeds an eighth-grade reading level.

A “no” vote opposes amending the Colorado Constitution to:

• Require ballot questions to be in plain language at no more than an eighth-grade reading level; and
• Prohibit any state statute from mandating language preceding, following, or in a ballot title of a measure that is not in plain language or exceeds an eighth-grade reading level.

Chamber Position: No Position

The Fort Collins Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has not taken a position on this measure.