Election predictions (part 3)

This is the final installment in my Colorado election predictions. In the first post, I discussed how I'm thinking about the statewide and federal races. The second post went into state legislative races. In this post, I'll talk about the 14 ballot measures that Colorado voters will decide on in November.

This post veers more into opinion than prediction, but if I had to organize these measures by their likelihood to pass it would be something like this:

Amendment 81: Law Enforcement Communication with Federal Immigration Authorities

This feels like one of the easiest predictions on this long list. I would be very surprised if Amendment 81 passed given Colorado's political tilt. ICE is extraordinarily unpopular (it ranks 29th out of 30 nationally in this list of public opinion about government agencies).  This one will almost certainly fail.

Amendment 82: Constitutional Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas

Amendment 82 may be the silliest of the ballot initiatives put up this year (and it has some stiff competition). I think voters will see through this ridiculous attempt to enshrine the "right to buy" natural gas in the state's constitution. I expect this amendment to fail.

Amendment 83: Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish

Hunting and fishing are an important part of many Coloradans' lives. While the total number of hunters in the state is relatively small in absolute terms (in 2025, Colorado issued more than 80,000 tags for deer hunting – people can receive more than one tag, and the state issues tags to out-of-state hunters as well – so there were perhaps 70,000 Colorado deer hunters in that year), it is difficult to predict how voters might view this measure. Nearly half of states in the country have written hunting rights into their constitutions, and while it seems like a bad idea on balance to me, it probably wouldn't be a huge problem.

Amendment 84: Mail Ballot Voter Identification

Individual-level voter fraud is a made up problem. Every study that has ever looked into this issue seriously has shown that voter fraud is vanishingly rare. That said, the politics of election administration and election security is odd. Large majorities of the public –  both Democrats and Republicans – support what are often framed as "commonsense" measures (e.g. voter identification requirements). This one could pass, but it seems like it could only make Colorado's highly-rated and much emulated voting system marginally worse.

Amendment 85: Plain Language Ballot Titles

This is another strange one, and I'm not sure what to expect about the politics of Amendment 85. It is easy to frame this one as another "commonsense" measure, but voters will sometimes err on the side of small-c conservatism when it comes to ballot initiatives. The measure sounds straightforward, but it would put an eighth-grade reading-level requirement into the state constitution and limit the legislature's ability to set different requirements for citizen-initiated measures. I suspect voters will like the idea of making ballot language easier to understand, though it is less clear whether they'll think a constitutional amendment is necessary to accomplish that.

Amendment 86: Requirements for Off-Cycle Congressional Redistricting

The Great Off-cycle Redistricting War of 2025 feels like a million years ago. It was kicked off by Republicans who were seeking to build up a firewall for their party's candidates and caused reactions from Democratic states who responded in kind. This amendment is framed in neutral terms, but it is very much a part of the tail end of this conflict. Coloradans are, I believe, misguidedly proud of their independent redistricting commission, and so this measure might pass.

Amendment 87: Graduated Income Tax

From a "pocketbook voting" perspective, this amendment should be a slam-dunk. It promises tax relief to the vast majority of Coloradans (all those making less than $500,000 annually), and as a kicker will raise additional monies from the very wealthy – a populist economic message that will likely resonate with many. As to the merits of the proposal, it is difficult to find definitive evidence either for or against a progressive income tax system. Some studies have shown that the flat tax might have some small positive effect on states' economies while others argue that the regressive nature of the tax depresses economic activity from the consumer base. This measure also represents a significant threat to the TABOR policies that have controlled tax policy in the state for more than 30 years. I think this measure will pass, and if it does, I think we can expect a more concerted effort to dismantle TABOR in the near future.

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

The letters in Proposition NN indicate that this measure is a referral from the legislature, and it is part of the budgeting troubles the state has been facing. This measure would redirect some TABOR refunds to education and other programs that the state has struggled to fund. Voters are usually willing to dedicate funds to education, but they may be less enthusiastic about giving up their tax refunds. The measure's appeal will depend in part on whether voters see it as a way to improve schools without raising taxes or as another attempt to weaken TABOR. I'm not sure which consideration will carry more weight. Historically, referrals from the legislature have performed better than citizen-led initiatives, so I'd argue that this one has a better chance than most others of passing.

Proposition 132: Increase Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes

Fentanyl is the latest big-bad of the drug war. While the drug is exceptionally dangerous, it has been the subject of fear-mongering to an extraordinary degree. That said, it can be politically complicated to oppose these kinds of measures (no one wants to be seen as making things easier for illicit drug dealers and users). The fact that the War on Drugs is well into its 56th year might indicate that things are not going well. Traditional "tough on crime" policies have not had the intended deterrent effects, and might even backfire in some cases by discouraging users from seeking help. I'm not sure what to expect with this one.

Proposition 133: Penalties for Human Trafficking of a Minor

Similar to Proposition 132, 133 focuses on another high-profile crime that has crossed over into moral panic territory. The politics of this one are similar to Prop. 132., and nuance can often be lost in the very public debates that are held during political campaigns. The arguments against this measure relate to unintended consequences that are inevitable with this kind of legislating by ballot initiative. I imagine that the fate of 133 is closely tied to 132.

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

Proposition 134 is the first of two initiatives targeted at the state's extremely small transgender population. Using large-scale surveys of children in the U.S., researchers estimate that about 3% of high school students identify as transgender and only a fraction of those will be involved in school sports. I don't have specific public opinion data about Coloradans’ attitudes toward transgender people, but I would be surprised if this measure passes. That small-c conservatism that governs decisions about ballot measures could work against it: voters may be reluctant to change the rules governing school sports when the number of students directly affected is relatively small.

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

These kinds of surgeries are exceptionally rare, and there is a risk that – similar to the abortion bans that have passed in other states – there may be some spillover effects on other kinds of surgeries (like procedures for children with differences in sex development). The question is whether voters will focus on the narrow circumstances the measure is intended to address or worry about the broader implications of writing these restrictions into law. I suspect the politics will look a lot like Proposition 134. 

Proposition 136: Income Tax Rate Limit

Proposition 136 is another tax measure, but one that is in significant tension with Amendment 87. It would limit the state's income tax rate to 4.4%, making it more difficult to raise revenue through changes to the income tax system. The interesting question is whether voters will view this as a straightforward protection against tax increases or as an unnecessary constraint on the state's ability to fund public services. Given Colorado's long history with TABOR, I wouldn't be surprised if the measure attracts substantial support.

Proposition 137: Direct Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation

Proposition 137 probably has a good chance of passing, but, in general, I think these kind of funds-earmarking measures are bad ideas. We elect legislators to write budgets and set priorities, and their hands should be freer to allocate funds in ways that they believe will best serve their constituents. These representatives are democratically accountable, and if voters don't believe they are working in the best interest of the state or if their priorities are mismatched, they can remove them from office.