This year’s ballot is a long one. With many important issues up for a vote, it’s critical to take time to understand what is proposed to change. We’ve taken the jargon of a few hot-topic issues and translated them for you. (We’re still working on some and will publish as completed.)

But don’t just take our word for it, be sure to check the Secretary of State Website to get more information and analysis.

Amendment J: Repealing the Definition of Marriage in the Constitution (Repealing the Constitutional Definition of Marriage)

Official language:

Passes with a majority vote because it repeals language in the state constitution.

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution removing the ban on same-sex marriages?

In other words:

Amendment J essentially seeks to reinforce same-sex marriage in Colorado, which is already legal. By voting “yes,” the language in the Colorado Constitution will be changed to remove the specific designation that marriage is between a man and a woman. Voting “no” will keep the language unchanged. Removing this language serves to protect same-sex marriage laws from potential repeal by the Supreme Court.

The arguments for and against this amendment are fairly cut and dry.

Argument For: Those in support believe in protecting same-sex marriage from Supreme Court interference

Argument Against: Those opposed believe that the language should not be changed and that the only valid marriage is between a man and a woman.

Additionally, there is no fiscal impact, which makes sense, as taxing Americans to remove a sentence would be absurd. This is the essential information you need to know about Amendment J and the decoded legal jargon surrounding it.

While same-sex marriage is legal nationwide due to a ruling by the Supreme Court, the Colorado Constitution still indicates that the only recognized form of marriage is between a man and a woman. Amendment J aims to remove this language. According to the Colorado Blue Book: “In 2006, Colorado voters approved an amendment to Colorado’s constitution stating that only the union of one man and one woman is a valid or recognized marriage in Colorado. Amendment J repeals this language, which has been declared unconstitutional by state and federal courts.”

Voting “yes” on this amendment will change the language in the constitution and protect same-sex marriage from possible repeal by the Supreme Court. It is important to note that there is no fiscal impact for Amendment J, and the major group supporting it, Freedom to Marry Colorado, has raised $400,000 in support.

Amendment 80: Constitutional Right to School Choice (School Choice in K-12 Education)

Official language:

Requires 55% approval because it adds language to the state constitution.

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution establishing the right to school choice for children in kindergarten through 12th grade, and, in connection therewith, declaring that school choice includes neighborhood, charter, and private schools; home schooling; open enrollment options; and future innovations in education?

In other words:

Basically, this measure wants to change the Colorado Constitution to:

  • Give parents more control over how their kids (K-12) are educated. This would legally recognize that parents have the right to make decisions about their child’s schooling.
  • Expand what “school choice” means – it would not just be about public schools. It would also include:
    • Neighborhood and charter public schools
    • Private schools
    • Homeschooling
    • Open enrollment (so kids could go to schools outside their assigned district)
    • New education options that could pop up in the future

Under current Colorado law, students can attend any public school for free even if it’s in a different district. Public schools include neighborhood schools, charter schools, and some online schools. Each school has policies allowing parents to enroll students in the public school of their choice.

Amendment 80 proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to:

  • create the right to school choice for children in kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) and create the right for parents to direct the education of their children; and
  • define school choice to include public neighborhood and charter schools, private schools, home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education.

According to the Colorado Sun, this amendment is backed by a conservative political nonprofit connected to religious homeschooling.

The website of the United Way of Larimer County states the arguments below of for and against:

Arguments For: formalizing the right to school voice empowers parents to find the best educational fit for their children. Guarantees a constitutional right of school choice is a right of parents and students including all forms of schools, public and private.

Arguments Against: the current system already offers sufficient school choice. They warn that the measure could lead to the diversion of funds from public schools, potentially harming the quality of education and making it harder to ensure equitable access for all students.

Amendment 80 Explained: School Choice in Colorado – United Way of Larimer County (uwaylc.org)

Amendment 80 explained: Putting school choice in Colorado’s constitution (coloradosun.com)

Prop 127: Prohibit Bobcat, Lynx, and Mountain Lion Hunting (Prohibit Trophy Hunting)

Official language:

Proposition 127 would prohibit intentionally killing, wounding, pursuing, entrapping, or discharging a deadly weapon at bobcats, lynx, and mountain lions in Colorado. While the measure uses the term “trophy hunting,” it bans all hunting, pursuing, or entrapping of bobcats, lynx, and mountain lions regardless of intent. Individuals convicted of any of these activities are subject to up to 364 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both, and a five-year prohibition on holding a license issued by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), with more stringent penalties for subsequent convictions.

In other words:

What would Proposition 127 do?

Should there be an amendment to the Colorado statues to ban the trapping or hunting of bobcats, lynx, and mountain lions and establish penalties for violations.

Proposition 127 would prohibit killing, wounding, entrapping, pursuing or even shooting at these animals.

Individuals convicted of these activities are subject to up to 364 days of jail time, a $1,000 fine, and a five-year ban prohibition on holding any licenses issued by Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission. This would include state park passes as well as hunting and fishing licenses.

Would there still be instances where these animals can be killed lawfully?

Yes, in specific scenarios such as:

  • In defense of a human life, livestock or personal property.
  • As a result of a motor vehicle accident.
  • By specified contractors with special licenses from CPW.

Argument For: These species can naturally regulate themselves without the need for hunting. They provide specific ecological contributions, and they should be protected by state law. Additionally, hunting or trapping lynx is already banned and there have been no issues with lynx populations under this form of management.

Argument Against: This measure could limit the ability of CPW to make decisions on how to best manage Colorado’s ecological objectives. Lynx hunting has been illegal for a while, so this measure also only effects the hunting and trapping of bobcats and mountain lions.  Both of which have stable populations. Additionally, landowners would no longer receive any reimbursement for damage caused by mountain lions or bobcats.

Fiscal impact: If CPW stops selling mountain lion hunting licenses their revenue is projected to drop, earning them $450,000 less than previous years.  Additionally, CPW will spend approximately $50,000 less each year due to not reimbursing people for damages caused by mountain lions and bobcats.

Prop 128: Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence (Concerning Eligibility for Parole)

Official language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning parole eligibility for an offender convicted of certain crimes, and, in connection therewith, requiring an offender who is convicted of second degree murder; first degree assault; class 2 felony kidnapping; sexual assault; first degree arson; first degree burglary; or aggravated robbery committed on or after January 1, 2025, to serve 85 percent of the sentence imposed before being eligible for parole, and requiring an offender convicted of any such crime committed on or after January 1, 2025, who was previously convicted of any two crimes of violence, not just those crimes enumerated in this measure, to serve the full sentence imposed before beginning to serve parole?

In other words:

    • Should there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statues regarding parole eligibility for specific crimes?
    • Should people who commit crimes of violence be required to serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for parole, up from the current requirement of 75%?
    • Additionally, should people who commit three crimes of violence be ineligible from receiving parole or time reductions to their sentence?
    • Here is an example of how it would change the timeframes of someone sentenced to 20 years:
      • In current law: They would serve a minimum of 15 years before being eligible for parole.
      • With Prop 128: They would serve a minimum of 17 years before being eligible for parole.

Argument For: Those in favor of Proposition 128 argue that keeping people convicted of violent crimes in prison longer would increase public safety. Stating that the victims and their families deserve the sense of security that is provided by the perpetrators serving a longer sentence.

Argument Against:  Those against argue that this proposition takes away incentives for inmates to comply to prison rules and to use rehabilitation programs. Stating that when inmates have no chance at parole or receiving time reductions, they have less motivation to work on themselves. They also argue that this will result in higher prison populations and increased tax spending.

Fiscal Impact: This measure would increase spending in two ways. The first being a required one-time update to the Department of Corrections computer systems, this has an estimated $12,000 cost. The second and larger spending increase would happen in approximately 20 years, when people convicted of violent crimes after proposition 128 begin to serve longer average sentences. This will cause an estimated increase of 12 to 28 million dollars annually.

Prop 131

Proposition 131, if approved, would

  • Create an all-candidate primary election for certain state and federal offices, where the top four candidates advance to the general election
  • Allow voters to rank those candidates in the general election, with votes counted over multiple rounds to determine who wins the election.

Yes: A “yes” vote on Proposition 131 establishes an all-candidate primary for all voters regardless of their political party for certain offices and advances the top four candidates to a general election where voters rank the candidates in order of preference, once certain conditions in state law are met.

No: A “no” vote on Proposition 131 continues the existing primary election system and the current method of selecting candidates and counting votes at general elections.

In Other Words:

Proposition 131, if approved, would change how votes in elections are counted in Colorado. These election changes would be applied to elections for Congress, the state legislature, governor and other state offices, removing Republican and Democratic primaries. All qualified candidates will be listed on one primary ballot, with the top four moving on to a general election. Voters would pick their top four candidates, ranking them from 1-4. When determining a winner, if a candidate is the top choice of the majority of voters that candidate would win, if there is no majority winner the candidate with the least amount of first round votes is eliminated, those whose first vote was the eliminated candidate would then have their second choice counted towards the first choice votes already counted. If a voter has not ranked a second choice, their vote is then “exhausted” and taken out of calculations. The process continues until a candidate has the majority of votes. Proposition 131 would create the possibility of candidates within the same party to run against each other in a general election, if two candidates from one party are selected in the primary to move on.

Arguments for from the Blue Book

1) The all-candidate primary gives all voters an equal opportunity to decide which candidates make the general election ballot. There are many districts in Colorado that are safe for one major political party, which means that whoever wins that primary election almost always wins the general election. Turnout is lower in primary elections, and the voters who do participate are often the most partisan. Opening primary races to more voters allows greater participation in these elections and could also make general elections more competitive.

2) Proposition 131 allows voters to rank the top four candidates in general elections, giving them more choice to express their voting preferences. General election voters are not necessarily limited to one candidate from each party, giving Coloradans more options. Voters are more empowered to give a top ranking to their favorite candidate, while still supporting backup choices. Ranked choice voting could lead to election results that better reflect the will of the voters.

In Other Words:

Support for proposition 131 focuses on the fact that proposition 131 broadens elections from the two-party system that currently dominates the ballots, allowing for a more diverse primary and general election. Supporters also believe it will amplify the people’s voice as they can select more than one candidate. Proposition 131 is backed by a group named Yes on Prop. 131.

Arguments Against from the Blue Book:

1) The new election system proposed by Proposition 131 is more complex and expensive. Voters will have to vote in two different systems for each election and may receive multiple ballots. Taxpayers will pay for extensive voter education and outreach efforts. Even so, some voters will still be confused and will incorrectly fill out their ballots, which could change election winners. The complexity of counting ranked results could lead to questions about whether the results are fair.

In Other Words:

People who oppose proposition 131 focus on how the new election system could confuse voters, causing them to incorrectly fill out their ballots, and the confusing counting of ranked results could lead to people questioning the validity of elections. Proposition 131 is opposed by Voter Rights Colorado and First Choice Counts.

Prop JJ

Proposition JJ, if approved, would:

  • Allow the state to keep sports betting tax revenue above the amount previously approved by voters, and use this money for water projects, rather than refunding it to casinos and sports betting operators.

Yes: A “yes” vote on Proposition JJ allows the state to keep and spend more money for water projects when sports betting tax revenue is collected above the amount previously approved by voters.

No: A “no” vote on Proposition JJ means the state will pay refunds to casinos and sports betting operators when sports betting tax revenue is greater than the amount previously approved by voters.

In Other Words:

When sports gambling was passed in 2019 from proposition DD, Colorado began a 10% tax on casino’s proceeds, capped at keeping $29 million dollars. When the tax revenue goes over $29 million dollars, the excess money is then refunded to casinos and licensed sports betting operators. Proposition JJ would allow Colorado to keep the excess tax revenue, instead of refunding it, using the excess revenue on the Colorado Water Plan. The $29 million the state currently collects is used to pay expenses created by the Colorado Division of Gambling, then up to $1.74 million dollars goes to reimbursing traditional gambling organizations that have lost revenue due to sports gambling. The rest goes to pay for projects under the Colorado Water Plan, funding is divided up by the Colorado Legislature, determining what the money will be used for in the Colorado Water Conservation Board projects bill. For the 2023-24 fiscal year Colorado made $29.9 million off sports gambling taxes, leaving $900,000 thousand dollars that would go back to casinos and licensed sports betting operators, unless proposition JJ is passed, which would then send that money to the Colorado Water Plan instead. The total amount amassed from the tax on sports betting is projected to be $30.2 million in 2024-25 and $31.5 million in 2025-26, $1.2 million and $2.5 million more than the current amount the state can keep. This money, under the current law, would be returned to casinos and licensed sports betting operators, but JJ would change that and would then be placed into the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s budget.

Arguments For from the Blue Book:

Proposition JJ allows the state to retain additional sports betting tax revenue already being collected under the current tax rate to support much needed water projects, rather than making refunds to casinos and sports betting operators. Water is scarce in Colorado, and demand will continue to increase as the state’s population grows. Colorado’s economy and way of life will suffer if the state cannot meet its water demands. Retaining all of the collected tax revenue from sports betting will strengthen financial support for water conservation and protection projects in Colorado.

In Other Words:

Support for proposition JJ focuses on the fact that keeping all tax dollars collected from sports betting in Colorado would be beneficial to the increasing water scarcity in Colorado by funding water conservation programs. Proposition JJ is supported by the group Yes on JJ and has raised $490,000 dollars to support the cause.

Arguments Against from the Blue Book:

Proposition JJ is effectively a tax increase because it eliminates sports betting tax refunds that the state would otherwise be required to pay. When the state collects more revenue than voters approved, it should provide refunds rather than expand a government program. State water projects already receive the full amount of money approved with Proposition DD. If the state refers a ballot question with a limited amount of new taxes, it should stay within that limit.

In Other Words:

Arguments against JJ say that it is basically a tax increase to sports betting companies, as they will no longer recieve the tax returns they are accustomed to. No organized group is opposing the proposition.

Prop KK: House Bill 24-1349 – Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax

Proposition KK, if approved, would:

• Create a new state tax on firearms sellers equal to 6.5 percent of their sales of firearms, firearm parts, and ammunition, and exempts this money from the state’s revenue limit as a voter-approved revenue change.
• Use the new tax revenue to fund crime victim support services, mental health services for veterans and youth, and school safety programs.

YES: A “yes” vote on Proposition KK creates a new tax on firearms, firearm parts, and ammunition, and uses the revenue for crime victim services, mental health services for veterans and youth, and school safety programs.
NO: A “no” vote on Proposition KK means the state’s taxation of firearms and ammunition will not change.

Official language:

Shall state taxes be increased by $39,000,000 annually to fund mental health services, including for military veterans and at-risk youth, school safety and gun violence prevention, and support services for victims of domestic violence and other violent crimes by authorizing a tax on gun dealers, gun manufacturers, and ammunition vendors at the rate of 6.5% of the net taxable sales from the retail sale of any gun, gun precursor part, or ammunition, with the state keeping and spending all of the new tax revenue as a voter-approved revenue change?

In other words:

Colorado is looking at placing a 6.5 percent tax increase on firearms and using that money to fund services for crime victims, mental health programs, and safety programs. If approved, the proposition is estimated to generate 39 million dollars in the 2025-26 period for the state budget that will then fund the selected programs. The 6.5 percent increase would be added to the current federal tax of 10 percent on handguns and 11 percent for all other firearms and all ammunition, funding federal hunting programs and wildlife conservation, on top of state and local taxes that are on all goods. The increase adds $35.75 in taxes to a 500-dollar handgun, $60.45 in taxes to a 930-dollar handgun, and $1.30 in taxes to a 20-dollar box of ammunition. The tax would exclude retail sales to law enforcement officers and agencies, active duty military members, sellers who sell less than 20,000 dollars annually, and private sales between people who are not firearms dealers This money will fund crime victim support services, veterans’ mental health services, youth behavioral health services, and school safety. Some of these programs are struggling financially, as funding for victim services comes from fines paid by people convicted of federal crimes, and the number of federal payments to states has declined significantly in recent years. The state tax would likely be able to supply more consistent funding.

Arguments For :
1) Gun violence causes substantial physical, mental, emotional, and financial harm. Taxing firearm and ammunition sellers is an appropriate way to fund programs that reduce the negative impacts of gun violence. There is a connection between the prevalence of firearms in the community and negative outcomes, including homicides, domestic violence, suicide, and violent crimes, and the associated trauma and mental health harm. This measure taxes firearms to provide much needed services to address these issues.
2) Reliable access to victim and mental health services is critical for impacted communities. Victims of domestic violence, military veterans, and at-risk youth deserve dependable support to recover from their trauma. Current funding sources for these services are inconsistent and in some cases disappearing, while demand continues to rise. Without steady funding, these services may be reduced or eliminated. Proposition KK provides dedicated money to sustain and expand violence prevention, healing, and recovery programs.

In other words:
Arguments for proposition KK focus on the ability of the new tax to support victims of gun violence through the continuous funding of programs that can help.

These arguments come from a group of organizations under the umbrella name of Yes on Prop KK, each individual group is listed here https://www.yesonpropkk.com/coalition.html. The group has raised 73,000 according to the latest campaign filing report from the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.

Arguments Against:
1) Citizens have a state and federal constitutional right to own firearms. This measure places an additional burden on the ability of law-abiding Coloradans to exercise this right. Legal firearm sales should not be taxed to address problems caused by the harmful or illegal use of firearms, or to fund other state programs addressing public health. Furthermore, sales to people convicted of certain crimes are already prohibited and will not contribute financially to solving the harms to society they have caused. If the state wants to strengthen support for crime victims and persons needing mental health services, it should prioritize these programs within the state’s current resources.
2) Firearms are used for many legitimate purposes, including self-defense and personal and community safety. Placing an additional tax on firearms and ammunition reduces the ability of people, particularly those with limited financial means, to access these tools. People seeking to buy firearms may choose to buy them in other states to avoid the new state tax, hurting Colorado businesses and potentially encouraging illegal purchases of firearms.

In other words:
Arguments against proposition KK focus on the fact that the increased tax would make it more difficult for people to afford firearms in Colorado, possibly driving people to buy firearms in other states to avoid the tax.
These arguments come from the group Stop Tax Increases, the group is currently being penalized by the state for not filing financial information, missing disclosure deadlines. They do not have a website.

Prop 130: Funding for Law Enforcement

Official language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning state funding for peace officer training and support, and, in connection therewith, directing the legislature to appropriate 350 million dollars to the peace officer training and support fund for municipal and county law enforcement agencies to hire and retain peace officers; allowing the fund to be used for pay, bonuses, initial and continuing education and training, and a death benefit for a peace officer, police, fire and first responder killed in the line of duty; and requiring the funding to supplement existing appropriations?

In other words:

Proposition 130 sets aside $350 million for police training, pay, bonuses, and education. Additionally proposition 130 gives a $1 million benefit to the family of any fallen peace officer, police officer, fire fighter, or first responder if they die while on-duty. The exact distribution of the money isn’t listed anywhere aside from the million in benefits to families.

Those for proposition 130 claim that law enforcement is a critical and underfunded public need and that the million dollar death benefit would help with the otherwise low returns from some public offices. Those against proposition 130 claim that there has been no evidence that increased funding towards law enforcement has made communities safer and that the measure only explicitly requires the legislature to provide the death benefit, while the grant funding to local law enforcement agencies will depend on future legislative decisions.