Voter Guide Explanation

2026 General Election, Arapahoe County (Colorado), Nov 3

Colorado State ballot and Arapahoe County General Election

Colorado State Ballot Measures

Amendments and Propositions

Amendments: 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 

Propositions: NN, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137

Arapahoe County: Municipal Ballot Measures and Special District, Front Range Passenger Rail District

City of Aurora: 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D 

Special District, Front Range Passenger Rail District: 7A

The following is a summary and explanation of the Colorado Blue Book, the voter guide for the 2026 State Ballot for Amendments and Propositions.  These summaries are done in good faith to be truthful, accurate and honest from a layman, general voter perspective.  I have no legal standing and I am not a legal consultant.  The goal is that you find these explanations useful in guiding your decision making.  When in doubt feel free to consult the actual text in the Blue Book.

Amendment 85: Plain Language Ballot Titles

Background: Currently care is taken to summarize ballot titles as well as the rest of the "Blue Book" to be easily understandable, but not forced to be written at the 8th grade level. People need to understand more than just the ballot titles: any summary, the body of the ballots, the "Blue Book", the impact of a Yes vote and a No vote, the pro's and the cons, the argument for and against. We can not have people voting solely on ballot titles; this isn't enough to understand the issues. It is an implied requirement to be able to understand the full description of the issues. If people only vote on titles then every ballot title will begin with "For the good of Colorado and police and the fire department and schools and illegals then.....".  There is danger in dumbing things down. It is your right to vote but it is your responsibility to UNDERSTAND the issue first BEFORE voting. If you don't understand the written materials then recuse (oops a non 8th grade word) yourself from the issue or issues. The importance is not quantitatively (oops another non 8th grade word) casting misinformed votes but instead to qualitatively (oops more non 8th grade words) casting informed votes.

A Yes vote will force the ballot titles to be written at an 8th grade reading level. And to prohibit any laws that require specific language that goes beyond the 8th grade language. A Yes vote will enable and encourage people who only read titles before voting; they will be dangerously misinformed; they will be voting on issues that they can not understand. We don't need these votes erasing voters who understand the issues completely.

A No vote keeps things as they are.  Ensure that the people voting are able to understand the entire ballot, Blue book, explanations, summaries and pros and cos before casting an informed and responsible vote. 

Amendment 86: Requirements for Off-Cycle Congressional Redistricting

A Yes vote will allow the Redistricting Commission to make changes any/every year. The purpose of this is to constantly tune and fine tune districts to their advantage.  Hopefully they are bipartisan, but how easily is it to be biased toward one party or the other.  One party will be motivated to have as many districts as possible at the expense of the other party. This can only be motivated by bribes, meddling, influence, power, corruption, and partisanship.

A No vote will keep things away that they are, where the Redistricting Commission can only make changes in ten year cycles (during the census years). 

Amendment 87: Graduated Income Tax

Background: Currently Colorado's income tax is a flat rate RATE of 4.4% of taxable income. Let's say you earn $40,000 per year, your taxable income is about $10,000, so your state tax is $440.  Let's say you earn $160,000 per year, your taxable income is about $140,000, so your state tax is $6,160.  By these examples you can see that eventhough the income is 4 times as much, the tax on the higher income is 14 times as much.  The point of these examples is to show that, the more money you make, the more tax you have to pay eventhough it is a flat rate RATE.  This is a graduated scale; the richer person paid 14 times more tax than the low earner.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, if people paid more than 4.4%, then Colorado's TABOR law forces Colorado to refund the excess back to the taxpayers.  Without TABOR, then the greedy option is for Colorado to KEEP the excess, DON'T refund it and to SPEND it on unspecified, undocumented, unaccounted, general fund, partisan projects that are not in the approved budget.

You see the importance of TABOR; it keeps the tax collectors accountable, otherwise they will purposely overtax everything with the sole intent of keeping the excesses; this is dangerous to let the greedy, life-long, political, welfare, pundits spend YOUR REFUND/OVERPAYMENT money any way they like.  Don't you want to spend your REFUND/OVERPAYMENT instead of giving it away to an unknown person for an unknown expense?

A Yes vote will repeal Colorado's already existing flat tax RATE of 4.4% which has been in use since 1987 and to replace it with a new tax scheme pretending to tax the rich (a graduated income tax).  Remember the rich are ALREADY taxed at a higher amount; remember the example above (14 times higher despite the income only being 4 times higher)?  But the real purpose of this Amendment has nothing to do with taxes, this is just a smokescreen to trick the voters to "tax the rich"; the real purpose of this Amendment is that it is ANTI-TABOR.  On page 36 of the "Blue Book" this Amendment is expected to collect an excess of $2 billion. This is the over taxed portion. This is currently subject to being refunded with TABOR; however this Amendment will exempt the $2 billion from TABOR and will NOT BE REFUNDED to those who overpaid it. They claim that they will spend some of the excess on schools, libraries, police, etc. but in reality these places will only get pennies because they already have approved budgets, the bulk of the money will go to the general fund where the lifelong bureaucrats, political pundits, political welfare will spend it unaccountably on any secret, partisan, pet project.

A No vote will keep Colorado's 4.4% tax rate system, that has been in use since 1987 (where rich people already pay more tax), whether you call it a tax rate or a graduated tax. A No vote will keep your tax refunds TABOR COMPLIANT.

Proposition NN: Keep and Spend Money for Education and Other Purposes

Background: You already pay school taxes, its called property tax; it's built into your mortgage; everyone knows this if they ever had a mortgage.  Each ballot season you will see all kinds of Propositions and Amendments that raise taxes for some cause and promise to use the excess collected to give to schools. Schools don't get this money, their budget is already set using property tax. It's a myth that they get more money from new taxes.

A Yes vote will allow the state legislature to keep excess taxes collected and exempt it from the TABOR refund laws.  The retained excess must be spent on (K-12 education, programs that support children, and any other purposes).  Notice how they didn't specify amounts or percents; you know that 1% or less will go to schools and the other 99% will go to "any other purposes".  This is the trick that they use to make you think its going to schools, but in reality it is going under the table to self serving, self gratifying partisan pockets and career welfare polititions. Reference "any other purposes to be determined by the state legislature", page 41 of the Blue Book.

A No vote will keep the greedy theives from stealing your TABOR refund.  Schools already have plenty of money, its called property tax and its is mandatory.  Don't be double taxed by paying property tax and giving up your refund under the pretense that a portion MAY go to schools.  A No vote will keep TABOR in force; demand your TABOR refund, otherwise they will continually think of ways to purposely over tax you so they can spend your refund on hidden, unaccounted, partisan, career criminals.

Proposition 132: Increase Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes

Background: Fentanly is extremely dangerous or even deadly even in small quantities. Fentanly is often cut or mixed with other driugs to make them more potent. Just a small amount needs to be added to the cut, but the problem is, what if they add too much on purpose or by accident?  An unsuspecting person could die from that batch; this happens a lot. This is why there are so many overdose deaths.  This is why addiction to "common drugs" is so soon and so strong and sometimes deadly.

A Yes vote will make possession of any amount of fentanyl a felony. Fentanly distribution will require a minimum 8 year sentence. And it eliminates options to reduce penalties for certain possession and distribution offenses.  The intent is for drug users to not buy fentanly laced drugs because of the increased penalties. The intended response is that drug dealers will not sell in Colorado because of low sales and increased penalties. These are noble intents, but how will it play out?  What if the neighbor kid 2 houses down the street bought a laced joint and is caught, now he will be in prison for 8 years?  What if he wasn't caught and that laced joint killed him? Interesting questions. This a tough one to decide.

A No vote will maintain current penalties.  Minor possession is a misdemeanor.  Tiered felony penalties for distribution based on amount, and has options to reduce penalties for certain possession and distribution cases. Currently judges and lawyers and district attorneys work out the penalties concerning quantity, possession and distribution.  

Proposition 133: Penalties for Human Trafficking of a Minor

A Yes vote will mandate a sentence of life in prison without parole for child sex trafficking convictions and expand child trafficking to include buying sexual activity with a minor.

A No Vote will keep current laws where penalties range from 8 to 48 years plus mandatory parole.

Proposition 134: Male and Female Participation in School and Collegiate Sports

Background: The sex of a person is their sexual organs, reproductive organs when born.  People are born Male or Female.  Gender usually matches their biological sex, but not in all cases. Some biological males have a famale-like gender and some biological females have a male-like gender.  Males want to compete with males and females want to compete with females.  Co-educational and intramural or elective sports or leagues are often open to both sexes; this is fair for both sexes; their teams aren't male or female; their teams are just teams.  There are times when there is a male sport but no corresponding female sport; in these cases if there is a female who wants to compete on the male team then this is allowed and acceptable. This does not mean there is a shared locker room; there are still separate changing and showering facilitites for males and females. Males have different hormones than females; males have different bodies than females.  Males are generally taller and leaner.  This is why males compete with males and females compete with females; this why the sports are separated.

Recently controversy has started with biological males who claim to have female-like gender. They claim that they belong on the female team; some liberal flagrant teams have allowed this (even high schools and colleges). Even professional teams will not take a stance, instead they are open to the decisions of the league administrators (who haven't openly given a yes or no answer). The females on the team do not want to compete against males. This is unfair for the females, the males on the female team can push out and replace the female players; this is the whole point of separating the two sports. This is unfair, the males should be on the male team. Females are losing playing time, losing recognition to move up from HS to college or college to the pros; their records (points, scores, etc). are being replaced by male records; they are losing sports scholerships. Females are being erased from their sports.

These fake-females even have the audacity to use female locker rooms.  What happened to protecting females from males entering female only lockers and showers. There used to be laws protecting them from this, why arent they being enforced? Why are females continually the victims?

Historically there have always been a few gay, homosexual males on male teams; this is still fair, males competing with males; why is it now acceptable for them to enter female teams? Historically there have been male-like gender females in female sports; this is still fair because biological females are competing with biological females. 

A Yes vote will require that all Colorado elementary through collegiate sports teams be designated as male-only or female-only based on biological sex.  Unless the team or sport is designated as open participation to any sex or gender. Furthermore these Colorado schools are required to implement policies to ensure that students are assigned to gender-designated teams that align with their biological sex. Also this Proposition PROHIBITS investigations or penalties for schools that designate a sport or team as female-only. (Can you believe that these schools are actually being ATTACKED?)

A No vote will continue the mayhem and confusion and attacks on females and female sports by letting administrators allow that perceived-gender determines sex; allowing biological males to enter female sports. This will force those gender-confused biological males to leave female sports and instead compete against biological males or to start a league of their own or go to a state that allows females to be victimized by gender-confused males.

Proposition 135: Prohibit Surgery on Minors in Response to Perception of Sex and Gender

Background: These gender surgeries on minors are currently banned in Colorado, but there is such a push by transgender "rights" activists to push their extreme agenda even onto minors. Transgender rights are important for the rights of aduts who choose to live this way; non-discrimination for housing, loans, jobs, non-hate crimes, use of nouns, etc.  But the extreme trans-activists, who want to push gender reassignment onto minors, are actually child predators; they pretend to be out for the best interests of the child, but in reality, they want to victimize children in order to push their extreme and dangerous agenda.  The purpose of this bill is to protect children from these child predators. Children have fleeting phases where they may be confused, curious, pretending, defiant, rebellious or seeking negative attention.  They need to be protected from these child predators so that they are not allowed to make these life altering changes to their bodies. Current laws allow these surgeries for adults; if they still feel this way as aduts, then current law allows these consequential alterations to adults.

A Yes vote will prohibit surgeries on minors that alter their biological sex characteristics as a treatment in response to a minor's perception of sex or gender AND prohibit the use of state or federal funds or insurance coverage to pay for these surgeries. Under current Colorado these are not allowed on minors; so why is this Proposition here?  This Proposition is intended to be a preemptive move IN CASE in the future, the extreme trans-activists target minors to victimize them to allow these mutilations of their bodies. Perhaps the trans-extremists were working on a Propsition that didnt make it to the ballot in time. Perhaps it was lacking funding or endorsing or backing. Perhaps it will be passed in the near future.  If so, then Proposition 135 will be there to block it.

A No vote will maintain current law which currently protects minors from these child-predator, trans-activists.

Proposition 136: Income Tax Rate Limit

Background: Previously we covered Amendment 87 which is to change the Colorado Income tax rate from 4.5% to a variable rate ranging from 3.7% to 8.4% based on higher rates for higher incomes (but higher incomes already pay higher taxes with the current 4.4% rule; raising the tax percent on higher incomes harshly punishes the more wealthy).  Remember that the majority of tax payers are happy with the 4.4% rule; the rich, the middle class and the poor, have been using this tax rate since 1987 AND they have been getting their TABOR refunds.

So what is the true purpose of Amendment 87? Who is supporting it since the majority are happy with the current tax rate? The true intent and the true supporters of Amendment 87 are the ones who want to steal your TABOR REFUND.  Amendment 87 abolishes the TABOR refund of overcollected income tax; this is the true purpose of Amendment 87; their tax rate talk of taxing the rich and graduated tax rates is just a hook to get you to pass it under a false pretense to steal your TABOR REFUND.

A Yes vote will change the wording on the current Colorado tax rate from 4.4% to a max of 4.4%.  This seems to be a response to counteract Amendment 87 (if it passes) which asks for a variable/graduated  tax rate ranging from 3.7% to 8.4% based on higher rates for higher incomes. 

If Amendment 87 passes, then a Yes vote on proposition 136 will reset the max tax rate from 8.4% back to 4.4%. If both pass, then there will likely not be an overcollection of taxes, therefore the anti-TABOR aspect of Amendment 87 will be nullified.

If Amendment 87 does not pass, then a Yes vote on proposition 136 will keep things the way that they are currently.

I recommend a YES vote on proposition 136. This blocks the ill intent of Amendment 87, and is a safe move whether Amendment 87 passes or not.

A No Vote will will keep Colorado's tax rate where it is at 4.4%, HOWEVER, if Amendment 87 passes, then a No vote on proposition 136 will let Amendment 87 take over which will have increasing percents based on increasing income AND it will abolish TABOR (they will keep your tax refund (about $2 Billion annually) and spend it as they see fit, claiming schools and other projects that already have approved budgets.  If Amendment 87 does not pass, then a No Vote on proposition 136 will keep all of the current taxation as is (fixed rate of 4.4% with TABOR refunds if excess income taxes are collected. A No Vote only works out if Amendment 87 also does not pass; but what if Amendment 87 passes, then the No Vote on 136 is bad. It is risky to vote No on 136, its is much wiser to vote Yes on 136, that way it doesn't matter which way 87 goes.

I recommend a YES vote on proposition 136. This blocks the ill intent of Amendment 87, and is a safe move whether Amendment 87 passes or not.

Proposition 137: Direct Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation

A Yes Vote will direct a portion of existing sales tax revenues from purchases and rentals of sporting goods to be used for certain conservation, wildfire risk mitigation, outdoor recreational programs AND exempt it from TABOR tax refunds.  This is another trick to overtax you, and to Not give you a REFUND.  These tricks show up every time there is a ballot. They always claim that the money is going to wonderful causes and you don't need your refund. They will spend your refund for you because you don't know how to spend it yourself. The problem is that these wonderful causes never get the money; these wonderful causes already have budgets; you can't just dump in extra money, it exceeds their budgets.  It's just another ploy by bloated, career bureaucrats, tax dependent, political welfare dependent, career criminals stuffing your money into their special, hidden, unaccounted pockets.

A NO Vote will keep these sports related sales taxes accountable to TABOR limits and will be refunded if overcollected. All of these great causes (certain conservation, wildfire risk mitigation, outdoor recreational programs) ALREADY have their own budgets and get the money that they asked for.

Arapahoe County: Municipal Ballot Measures and Special District, Front Range Passenger Rail District

City of Aurora: 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D 

Special District, Front Range Passenger Rail District: 7A

Ballot Issue 3A: Referred Measure to Dedicate Sales Tax for Community Faciities

A Yes Vote will

A NO vote will