Colorado voters this fall are deciding three ballot measures that together touch the state’s tax structure, school and college sports rules, and medical treatment for minors.
Amendment 87 would scrap the state’s flat 4.4 percent income tax in favor of a graduated system. Backers, including the Bell Policy Center and Protect Colorado’s Future, say it would lower rates for most households while raising them sharply on income above roughly $500,000, with new revenue earmarked for education, health care, and early childhood programs.
The measure’s brackets would not adjust for inflation. Nash Herman of the Independence Institute has pointed out that inflation-driven income growth would push more taxpayers into higher brackets over time, meaning the change could eventually raise taxes on Coloradans well below the current top tier.
Amendment 87 would also strip out constitutional language under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) requiring all taxable income to be taxed at one rate. Revenue raised through the new higher rates would count as a voter-approved change, exempting it from TABOR’s spending caps and refund requirements.
Business groups warn companies with $3 million or more in taxable profit could see their tax bills nearly double. A 2025 Colorado Chamber of Commerce report found almost 100 companies have left or avoided locating in the state since 2019, citing regulatory costs, affecting an estimated 13,607 jobs. Even the Denver Post’s editorial board has urged a no vote on Amendment 87, writing that it “will do more harm than good.”
Sports and medical measures put forward by citizens
Two other measures, Propositions 134 and 135, were placed on the ballot through citizen initiative rather than the legislature, following years in which Gov. Jared Polis and the Democrat-led legislature expanded mandatory coverage for transgender medical treatments, required schools to affirm students’ chosen names, and shielded those policies from outside challenge. Last year Polis signed HB25-1309, the Protect Access to Gender-Affirming Health Care Act, which mandates insurance coverage for gender-related medical, surgical, and mental health services regardless of a patient’s age, and exempts testosterone prescriptions from certain prescription-monitoring requirements.
Proposition 134 would require student athletes to compete on teams matching their sex as defined by reproductive systems, or on coed teams, with an exception allowing a female to join a male-designated team if no corresponding girls’ team exists. It would bar government entities, licensing bodies, and athletic associations from penalizing schools that keep separate girls’ teams.
Opponents say the measure could limit opportunities for girls who have historically played on boys’ teams in sports like baseball and football and could open the door to intrusive verification of female athletes. The Denver Post editorial board called it “bad legislation” and “mean-spirited.” Supporters counter that males retain physical advantages in strength, speed, and bone density even after transition, creating unfair competition and safety and privacy concerns, and note that 27 other states have adopted similar policies.
Proposition 135 would bar health care professionals from performing surgery on anyone under 18 intended to alter sex characteristics in response to a minor’s perception of sex or gender, and would prohibit state or federal funds, Medicaid reimbursements, or insurance coverage from paying for such procedures. The measure exempts male circumcision and treatment of certain sexual development disorders or acquired abnormalities.
Major Colorado medical organizations oppose the ban, arguing it interferes with decisions that should be left to patients, parents, and doctors. Supporters cite guidance from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommending that gender-related chest, facial, and genital surgeries wait until at least age 19, and point to detransitioners who say they were too young to consent to irreversible procedures.
Taken together, the three measures ask Colorado voters to decide how far the state’s government should go in reshaping tax policy and in regulating decisions around sex and gender for minors and student athletes.
Add comment