DENVER — We’re less than a week from the Nov. 8 midterm election in Colorado in which people are voting on 11 statewide ballot questions, the state’s top offices, a U.S. Senate seat, eight Congressional seats, and the balance of the state House and Senate.
In our ballot question guide, you’ll find information about all 11 ballot measures you’ll be voting on. You can find more about each issue by clicking on the name of each issue or the links below to read our full stories about each measure.
You can also learn more about the people you’ll be voting on in our 2022 candidate guide.
Now that we are less than a week from Election Day, people are advised to drop their ballots at the nearest dropbox or to vote at an in-person polling place. People can register to vote in Colorado up to and on Election Day. Watch our full 360/In-Depth Special on all 11 ballot questions in the player below.
Amendment D
What it would do if passed
Amendment D, if passed, directs Colorado’s governor to reassign judges from the 18th Judicial District to the new 23rd Judicial District by Nov. 30, 2024. The legislature created the new district in 2023. Currently, the 18th Judicial District is the largest in the state and is comprised of Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert and Lincoln counties. Once the 23rd Judicial District is in place in 2025, it will consist of Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln counties, while the 18th Judicial District will include Arapahoe County.
Arguments in favor
Proponents of Amendment D say it will help ensure judges are in place for 2025, will ensure a smooth transition, cost less money than alternatives, and could skirt potential law issues around how judges are seated.
Arguments against
Opponents of the measure say they feel like the judges for the 23rd judicial District should be seated through processes in the state constitution and state statute involving judicial vacancies that could lead to the governor appointing nominated candidates.
Click here to read our full in-depth report on Amendment D, or watch the story in the player embedded below.
Amendment E
What it would do if passed
Amendment E would expand the homestead exemption for homeowners who lost their spouse in the line of military duty, or if their spouse was a veteran who died as a result of service-related injuries or disease. Fifty percent of the first $200,000 of a home’s value would be tax-exempt.
Arguments in favor
Proponents of the measure say the savings would be helpful for people who do not have their spouse’s second income and who deal with trauma after their spouse’s death. It would also benefit families of people who served our country.
Arguments against
There is no organized opposition to Amendment E. The argument against voting in favor against the measure, according to the Blue Book, is the measure would not benefit Gold Star spouses who cannot afford to own a home, and the homestead exemption is meant to help permanently disabled veterans who cannot work full-time, which is not always the case with Gold Star spouses.
Click here to read our full in-depth report on Amendment E, or watch the story in the player embedded below.
Amendment F
What it would do if passed
Amendment F would drop the minimum requirements for how long a nonprofit must be in existence in order to hold a bingo-raffle license from five to three years. It would also allow, but not require, nonprofits to compensate their volunteers running the games financially or through in-kind benefits, like paying for gas or meals. Wages would be capped at minimum wage through June 2024, but the cap would be lifted afterward.
Arguments in favor
Proponents of Amendment F say the number of bingo halls in Colorado has dropped from 49 to 14 over the years. Because bingo games are a source of revenue for nonprofit organizations, that money has dried up as well. Lowering the timeframe it takes for organizations to be eligible to get a license, and being able to pay volunteers who cannot currently be paid, would help encourage more bingo games and more revenue for the nonprofits, the proponents say.
Arguments against
Arguments against the measure include the idea that having to pay wages in order to operate bingo-raffle games could further cut into a nonprofit’s revenue and could increase the number of organizations running the games, spreading the pool of revenue out further. Some Veterans of Foreign Wars posts in Colorado also worry the change could let less-reputable organizations benefit from the games, and that the legislature could further cut down on the timeframe if the measure passes.
Click here to read our full in-depth report on Amendment F, or watch the story in the player embedded below.
Proposition FF
What it would do if passed
Proposition FF asks voters if they want to create a statewide program to offer free meals for all public students in Colorado starting in the 2023-24 school year, which would be paid for through federal reimbursements and a cap on charitable tax deductions for people making $300,000 or more a year. It would help feed children at school in the face of rising food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Arguments in favor
Proponents of the measure say it will help students focus better, improve their behavior and grades, and put back into place a program that the federal government offered during the first two years of the pandemic that gave waivers to districts that wanted to make school meals free for all students. Having free meals for all students would help those who can’t afford a meal for various reasons from falling behind in school and being stigmatized by their peers, proponents say. The program would also be paid for by the state’s highest earners at minimal cost to them.
Arguments against
Arguments against the measure include that it raises taxes on some households — only people making $300,000 or more — and their taxes on charitable donations, would some say could lead to less charitable donations. But the average change in tax burden for people making between $300,000 and $999,999 is between $813-$923 a year, according to the Blue Book. For people making $1 million or more, the change in tax burden would be about $1,166. Other arguments against is that individuals should be responsible for paying to feed their children. Some also argue that Colorado schools need to use school funding for other means.
Click here to read our full in-depth report on Proposition FF, or watch the story in the player embedded below.
Proposition GG
What it would do if passed
Proposition GG asks voters if Colorado should change petitions and ballots for citizen-initiated ballot measures that change the individual income tax rate to feature a table showing the effects of the tax change based on people’s different wage brackets.
Arguments in favor
Proponents argue that showing a person’s current income tax estimate and the change if the measure passes would be an easy way to help inform them of the true changes the ballot measure would make if passed. The way that Colorado’s ballot language is written can sometimes be confusing, and more people would know whether an income tax cut or hike would have a true benefit to their bottom line, and how it would benefit or hurt the state’s budget, proponents say.
Arguments against
Opponents of the measure say the ballot would be even longer than it already is and add another complexity for people who are voting. Another argument against the measure is this information is already included in the Blue Book sent to each voter. The length of a ballot also adds paper and printing costs for local election offices.
Click here to read our full in-depth report on Proposition GG, or watch the story in the player embedded below.
Proposition 121
What it would do if passed
Proposition 121, if passed, would lower the state income tax rate — the tax on the wages a person owns — from 4.55% to 4.4% for businesses and corporations. It would save employees money on a scale based on how much a person makes, with more savings coming for higher earners. It would also reduce the amount of money going into Colorado’s General Fund by several hundred millions of dollars each year.
Arguments in favor
Since Colorado has had to issue TABOR refunds to taxpayers often in recent years, cutting the income tax rate would reduce the likelihood Colorado is collecting money it will have to send back to taxpayers. Some proponents say that people need to save more money during this time of inflation.
Arguments against
Opponents of the measure say it is another tax cut that benefits the rich and corporations, has little benefits for middle and low-income Coloradans, and could hurt the state’s ability to pay for necessary projects or protect the budget in the event of an economic downturn. Coloradans making $70,000 to $99,999 would see an average yearly savings of $89, and that amount gets smaller with each lower wage bracket. Meanwhile, people making $500,000 to $999,999 would have around $725 each year, while people making $1 million or more would save an average of $6,647. The 1.2 million estimated taxpayers making under $15,000 a year would see an estimated $7 in annual savings, according to the Blue Book. If passed, the measure would reduce General Fund revenue by an estimated $638 million in budget year 2022-23 and an estimated $412 million for budget year 2023-24.
Click here to read our full in-depth report on Proposition 121, or watch the story in the player embedded below.
Proposition 122
What it would do if passed
Proposition 122 asks voters if they want to allow for healing center across the state where people would be able to go in order to use certain psychedelics — dimethyltryptamine (DMT), ibogaine and mescaline — in a supervised environment starting in 2026. It would also allow for the supervised use of psychedelic mushrooms containing psilocybin and psilocin at supervised and licenses facilities by people age 21+ by late 2024. And it would decriminalize personal possession, growing, sharing, and use of the five aforementioned psychedelic substances for people age 21+. Local governments would be able to regulate, but not ban, the facilities and use of the substances, and the measure’s passage would establish penalties for people under age 21 and people who provide the substances to people under age 21.
Arguments in favor
Proponents of the measure say its approval will open up new treatments for mental health and addiction, as an increasing number of studies have shown benefits involving psychedelics when it comes to depression, anxiety, PTSD and pain management. It would also cut down on the number of people facing jail or other criminal penalties for crimes associated with psychedelics, which often are not addictive. Some proponents point to Denver’s decriminalization of psilocybin mushrooms as an example of the potential ramifications of the measure.
Arguments against
Opponents of the measure say there are no approved therapies for psychedelics and no federal approval for them, so putting regulations in place could be difficult. Some opponents who are opposed to drugs being decriminalized or legalized are oppose to the measure and say the measure could bolster a black market for the substances. Even some who believe psychedelics should be decriminalized are opposing this measure because they fear that putting too many regulations in place could hurt the industry at its onset, and that healing centers could be monopolized by non-local, wealthy companies, as out-of-state political groups have poured millions into the campaign in favor of the measure.
Click here to read our full in-depth report on Proposition 122, or watch the story in the player embedded below.
Proposition 123
What it would do if passed
Proposition 123 would dedicate up to 0.1% of the state’s income taxes each year for affordable housing projects across the state. It would not raise income taxes, only rededicate that portion of them toward the new projects. If passed, the measure is expected to raise $145 million in budget year 2022-23 and $290 million in budget year 2023-24 and beyond. That money would go toward local governments and nonprofits acquiring and preserving land for affordable housing development, giving assistance for developing affordable housing and multi-family rentals, increasing payment assistance programs for first-time homebuyers, going toward a program to address homelessness through rental assistance, and boosting the capacity of local planning departments.
Arguments in favor
Proponents say the measure is necessary because Colorado has seen a sharp drop in the number of housing units built each year, prices have skyrocketed statewide while wages have not, new construction is not often being built for lower- and middle-income families, and mountain towns are unaffordable for most low- and middle-wage workers whom the towns need to help businesses survive. The measure would allow local communities more flexibility to respond to their exact needs when it comes to housing.
Arguments against
Opponents say that redistributing state income taxes could result in less money subject to the TABOR cap, which could reduce any refunds for Coloradans. Some opponents also say the measure does not do enough to address the underlying causes of the lack of affordable housing, and that giving more money to developers and landlords through the grant programs could further exacerbate the housing crisis.
Click here to read our full in-depth report on Proposition 123, or watch the story in the player embedded below.
Proposition 124
What it would do if passed
Proposition 124, if passed, would allow retail liquor stores to apply to state and local governments for the ability to be able to open additional locations over time, with no limit on the number after 2036. The number of stores someone would own would start at eight when the measure passes, move to 13 in 2027, then 20 in 2032, then an unlimited number starting Jan. 1, 2037.
Arguments in favor
Proponents say gradually lifting the number of available locations would bolster their businesses and give them a better advantage in the long term compared to grocery store chains.
Arguments against
Opponents of the measure say its passage could disadvantage small, locally owned liquor stores that either don’t want to, or can’t afford to, expand and that large retail liquor stores with more money to expand would stand to see more benefits. Many local liquor stores are owned by persons of color and women, who could see decreases in business if larger stores are able to expand. Millions of dollars from large liquor retailer Total Wine and More have gone into supporting the measure.
Click here to read our full in-depth report on Proposition 124, or watch the story in the player embedded below.
Proposition 125
What it would do if passed
Proposition 125, if passed, would allow licensed grocery and convenience stores that already sell beer to also sell wine and to conduct alcohol tastings starting next March.
Arguments in favor
Proponents argue voters should pass the measure as a matter of convenience so they can buy wine with their groceries just like they can buy beer in many places. It would also allow convenience stores that sell beer to sell wine, giving customers more options and more accessibility, proponents say.
Arguments against
Opponents of the measure say if it passes, it could force hundreds of small liquor stores that sell wine to close because people will have more convenient options to buy wine. Because the malt beverage retailer licenses would automatically convert to include wine sales, it would double the number of locations that could sell wine automatically.
Click here to read our full in-depth report on Proposition 125 or watch the story in the player embedded below.
Proposition 126
What it would do if passed
Proposition 126, if passed, would allow for third-party companies to deliver alcohol from places that are allowed to sell it and make takeout and alcohol delivery from bars and restaurants permanent. Takeout and delivery of alcohol from bars and restaurants would also be allowed to expand to others.
Arguments in favor
Proponents argue that allowing alcohol delivery and takeout saved some businesses during COVID-19 restrictions, particularly restaurants struggling with overhead when they could only sell food. Some business owners say allowing third-party companies to do so for them would save them some costs of having to hire drivers and buy a vehicle or buy liability insurance for delivering alcohol. Proponents also say it could help people who want to support local businesses who are getting food and drink delivered to their homes.
Arguments against
Opponents of the measure include many liquor store owners who say it will hurt their bottom line because they are already allowed to deliver alcohol under strict standards to be sure the alcohol doesn’t get into the hands of minors. Other opponents say they don’t trust third-party delivery companies to be sure minors are not ordering the deliveries, or people who might give the alcohol to minors afterward. Opponents argue that regulating alcohol delivery and where the alcohol goes would be made more difficult if Proposition 126 passes.
Click here to read our full in-depth report on Proposition 126, or watch the story in the player embedded below.
Head to our politics section for more election coverage.