The measure would ban surgeries “for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics” and would apply to both transgender and non-transgender patients under 18

Colorado voters will decide in November whether to give K-12 public schools billions more dollars using money that taxpayers would otherwise get back in state refunds through the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. Proposition NN, authored by public education advocacy groups and Democratic state lawmakers, was referred to the ballot earlier this year by the legislature when it adopted Senate Bill 135 along party lines. The proposal represents the largest push by education advocates to raise new tax dollars for public schools since an unsuccessful effort in 2018. And if it succeeds, it would be the first time voters have passed a statewide measure to fund K-12 since Amendment 23 in 2000, which required the state to spend more on education — but didn’t provide any new money to do so. If it passes, it would eliminate the refunds owed under the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights indefinitely, all but removing a restriction on state government spending that has sent billions back to taxpayers since 1992. Here’s what the measure would do, who has thrown their support behind it and who stands against it. ## What Proposition NN would do Proposition NN aims to pump billions of additional dollars into K-12 education, specifically to help schools manage class sizes, expand career and technical education programs, boost teacher pay and find ways to retain teachers. The measure, if successful, would increase the TABOR cap on government growth and spending by the highest annual amount the state has spent on K-12 funding in previous years. That’s currently about $4.6 billion, but the measure is unlikely to generate that much money in a given year for at least the next decade, according to legislative forecasters. The TABOR cap limits how much money state lawmakers can spend to the state’s annual growth in inflation and population. Any money collected over the cap must be refunded to taxpayers. If voters approve the measure, taxpayers would give up their TABOR refunds so the state can spend that money on education. The dollars generated by the measure would first be used to increase school funding by 2% annually, or about $107 million in the first year. For the next decade, the state would spread any other dollars from the TABOR surplus among K-12 education and other programs targeting children, mostly early childhood programs like preschool access and childcare. At least half of all the money retained by the state in a single year would support K-12 schools. For example, if the state keeps $500 million in TABOR surplus and a 2% increase in K-12 spending accounts for $100 million, another $150 million would go to school districts while the remaining $250 million could go toward other programs for kids. After a decade, the state would still be required to increase K-12 spending by 2% annually, but the other funding restrictions expire, allowing the legislature to spend the rest of the money on anything it chooses. Should voters give Proposition NN the green light, it isn’t expected to generate anything close to $4.6 billion annually for schools for the foreseeable future. For one thing, the state isn’t collecting enough tax dollars right now to have that large of a TABOR surplus. Legislative staff estimate the state will exceed the current TABOR cap by about $464 million this fiscal year. Moreover, the measure keeps in place a few other programs that would get TABOR surplus dollars before K-12. The first $200 million or so in TABOR refunds are used to reimburse local governments for the cost of a property tax break for seniors. In years when the state budget grows fast enough, Colorado also provides two tax credits for low-income families that would leave less money for education. As a result, Proposition NN is only expected to generate $329.9 million for schools this budget year, and $521 million in 2027-28. In Year 1, that would reduce taxpayer refunds by $28 for a single filer making $100,000 a year, or $56 for joint filers. In the second year, taxpayers would miss out on $68 in individual refunds and $96 if they file jointly. Nonetheless, the measure could fundamentally reshape the state’s tax policies and its budget for a generation or more. ## Who is behind Proposition NN and why The Colorado Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, is leading the “Yes for Colorado Kids” campaign in support of Proposition NN. The group has long been working to get an education funding measure in front of voters, arguing the state falls short of properly funding public schools. Backers of the measure say Proposition NN will allow the state to ramp up spending closer to the true cost of educating kids today — more than three decades after Colorado voters enacted strict limits on state spending when they passed TABOR in 1992. They point to two studies commissioned by the legislature in 2023 that found the state is underfunding schools by $3.5 billion to $4.1 billion a year. In the pie that is the state budget, K-12 schools get a huge slice of funding — $5.6 billion for operations in the most recent year, second only to healthcare. Local communities also help fund their schools. Between state and local dollars, the total budget for K-12 schools this year is $10.2 billion — an amount that has increased incrementally year over year. School leaders celebrated a turning point in education funding in 2024, when state lawmakers repealed a policy that had allowed the state to cut school funding in the wake of the Great Recession. Known as the budget stabilization factor, the policy allowed lawmakers to pay schools $10 billion less than the state constitution required over the 15 years it was in effect. More recently, the state enacted a new school funding formula that promises to deliver schools an additional $500 million once it’s fully implemented. Still, educators and public school advocates say Colorado continues to lag behind other states in education funding. Another source of tax dollars for schools is critical as Colorado tries to weather repeated state budget deficits and as schools struggle to keep teachers in classrooms, said Kevin Vick, president of CEA. Schools have “been far below where they should be funded for a long time,” Vick said. “That’s really what brought on the urgency for this year. We are at a tipping point right now where if we’re cutting things for kids any further, we’re really doing them a disservice, even though educators are making their best efforts with what they have.” The committee supporting Proposition NN has raised more than $2 million in campaign donations as of Sept. 16, most of it from two groups. Gary Advocacy LLC, a political nonprofit tied to Gary Community Ventures, a charitable foundation that promotes education and childcare initiatives, gave $1 million, while the Colorado Education Association’s campaign fund, Colorado Fund for Children and Public Education, contributed $950,000. ## Who is opposing Proposition NN and why Conservative political activists and business groups have launched a number of campaigns to defeat Proposition NN, arguing that it would eventually cost taxpayers billions of dollars and exacerbate the state’s cost of living crisis. Geoff Sakala, executive director of the Your Family’s Future Alliance, called it part of a coordinated effort, alongside another tax ballot measure, Amendment 87, to “dismantle” the protections offered by TABOR. “TABOR belongs to Colorado taxpayers,” Penn Pfiffner, the group’s chairperson, who also leads the conservative TABOR Foundation, said in a statement. “These measures would permanently alter the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights and cost taxpayers billions of dollars in future refunds. Once those protections are gone, they will be difficult to restore.” Total spending on K-12 has risen about 25% since 2021, thanks to rising property taxes at the local level and legislative efforts to unwind the state budget cuts made during the Great Recession. In that same period, enrollment has fallen by about 2%, according to state enrollment data. Opponents of Proposition NN aren’t convinced school districts even need more money — but if they do, conservatives argue, the state should pay for it within its existing budget, by cutting other expenses that are growing more rapidly, like healthcare. Conservatives have formed a number of committees to fight the measure, though only one had reported raising much money as of Sept. 16. One committee opposing Proposition NN, Brighter Colorado, had raised more than $306,000. The group is also supporting a number of other conservative ballot measures and opposing another backed by Democrats — Amendment 87, which would implement a graduated income tax system that raises taxes on higher earners. The majority of the campaign’s funding so far has come from conservative political nonprofits: Common Sense America and Advance Colorado. The Colorado Sun considers both of them dark money groups because they don’t disclose their donors. Your Family’s Future Alliance had raised $15,000. Affordable Colorado, Let’s Go Colorado, Keep Colorado Affordable, and Don’t Price Us Out have also been registered in opposition to the measure, but have not reported any contributions to date. ## How Proposition NN appears on the ballot Shall state investment in K-12 public education increase two percent each year for the next ten years, with investments used to increase teacher pay, improve teacher retention, lower class sizes, and increase access to career and technical courses, without raising taxes but instead funded by raising the annual limit on state fiscal year spending only by the amount spent on public K-12 education as a voter-approved revenue change, and requiring an annual publicly released, independent audit to show how the new investments are spent? Read the nonpartisan state ballot guide analysis of the measure here. _🗳️ All of our election coverage is free. If it helped you, donate to support our work._ #### Editor’s picks ## Election Day is Nov. 3. Here’s what you need to know about Colorado’s candidates, ballot measures and how to vote. ## Colorado says goodbye to a “doozy” of a water year with more moisture in the forecast ## Mahjong, the 150-year-old Chinese tile game with a complicated history, is taking over Colorado #### Type of Story: News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

Amendment 87 would raise an estimated $2 billion a year for public services, while cutting taxes for individuals and businesses that make less than $500,000 a year

Proposition 136 wouldn’t change current tax rates, but it could undermine a separate proposal to raise taxes on higher earners

Colorado voters will decide in November whether to require that people convicted of child sex trafficking be sentenced to prison for life, without any chance of parole, by passing Proposition 133. The proposal also expands the definition of child sex trafficking to include buying sexual activity with a minor. Here’s what the measure would do, who is behind it and who is opposing it: ## What Proposition 133 would do Proposition 133 would change state law to increase the penalties for child sex trafficking to a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole, the same punishment required for people convicted of first-degree murder. Currently, judges have discretion to sentence anyone convicted of this crime from eight to 48 years in prison in addition to mandatory parole. It also would expand the definition of human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude to include trading anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor. Under current law, trafficking is defined to include selling, recruiting, and transporting a minor for commercial sexual activity. ## ☀️ READ MORE ### Election Day is Nov. 3. Here’s what you need to know about Colorado’s candidates, ballot measures and how to vote. ▶ FULL STORY The same changes were included in a bill sponsored by state Rep. Scott Bottoms, a Colorado Springs Republican, that was rejected by Democrats in a House committee this year. Proposition 133 would increase spending on prisons Nonpartisan legislative fiscal analysts say the measure, if passed, would require more money from the state’s budget to be spent on prisons starting in about 14 years as people who would have received shorter sentences under current law stay behind bars. The analysts estimate that requiring a mandatory lifetime prison sentence for child sex trafficking would require the state prison system ****to spend an extra $180,000 starting in 2041. That amount is expected to grow to an extra $540,000 in 2043 before leveling off because of inmates dying or potentially receiving a commutation or pardon. ## Who is supporting Proposition 133 and why? A group called Protect Kids Colorado led the effort to get Proposition 133 on the ballot. The same group also successfully petitioned to get two other measures, focused on transgender children, on the ballot — propositions 134 and 135. Erin Lee, executive director of Protect Kids Colorado, says her group mainly relied upon a network of more than 3,000 volunteers in all 64 of Colorado’s counties to gather the necessary voter signatures to get the measures on the November ballot. The group had raised about $116,000 through mid September. Proposition 133 is also supported by Colorado’s Catholic bishops, who organized three signature gathering drives to help all three of the group’s measures to make the ballot. Supporters say imposing life sentences for child sex trafficking would stop offenders from reaching more children. They say that a strong penalty would deter people from committing the crime in Colorado. “The legislature had an opportunity to strengthen these protections and failed. Now Colorado voters have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether these crimes deserve stronger consequences,” Lee said. ## Who is opposed to Proposition 133 and why? Opponents of Proposition 133 include the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance. Abortion rights advocates are also against the initiative. A coalition of groups, including environmental, labor and abortion rights organizations, that are opposing a variety of ballot proposals, including Proposition 133, had raised about $495,000 through mid September to fight a ****range of measures. Victims’ rights groups say Proposition 133 isn’t necessary and could end imprisoning human trafficking victims, who are often pressured to help traffickers by posting ads, recruiting other victims and transporting them. Colorado law allows any victim who is charged with human trafficking to claim as a defense that they were forced or coerced. Proposition 133 supporters say the ballot initiative would not affect that protection. But Onnastasia Cole, policy and outreach manager for the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said victims may not always have evidence to prove they were forced into being accomplices. A judge also would not be able to use discretion to sentence someone convicted of human trafficking to a lesser sentence if they had also been victimized themselves, Cole said during a briefing by opponents. Other opponents fear the expanded definition of human trafficking could be used by abortion opponents to prosecute anyone who helps a minor travel to Colorado to get an abortion. The expanded definition of trafficking in the proposition could be interpreted as meaning providing transportation or paying for lodging for an abortion, said Kiera Hatton Sena, political director for Cobalt Advocates, an abortion rights group. People could be reluctant to offer transportation or lodging for an abortion because of the fear of prosecution and a possible life sentence, she said. “A law does not have to result in successful conviction to cause harm,” said Sena, who also thinks the proposition could be used to challenge Amendment 79, approved by Colorado voters in 2024, which guarantees access to abortions. Lee said any claim the measure could be used to target those helping minors get abortions is “patently false. ”Our many volunteers have vastly ranging stances on the issue and there is nothing in Proposition 133 that creates a new crime related to abortion,” she said. ## How Proposition 133 appears on the ballot Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes modifying existing law concerning human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude, and, in connection therewith, creating new law expanding human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude to include knowingly trading anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor and increasing the penalty to be life in prison without parole or release? Read the nonpartisan state ballot guide analysis of the measure here. _🗳️ All of our election coverage is free. If it helped you, donate to support our work._ #### Editor’s picks ## Election Day is Nov. 3. Here’s what you need to know about Colorado’s candidates, ballot measures and how to vote. ## Colorado says goodbye to a “doozy” of a water year with more moisture in the forecast ## Mahjong, the 150-year-old Chinese tile game with a complicated history, is taking over Colorado #### Type of Story: News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

Colorado voters will decide in November whether to enshrine a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife in the state constitution and establish those activities as the preferred means of managing wildlife populations. Amendment 83 was brought by a conservative political nonprofit in Colorado but has been largely funded by the International Order of T. Roosevelt, a hunting advocacy group based in Marshfield, Wisconsin. It comes amid growing debate about who should have influence over decisions the state makes when managing Colorado wildlife. Here’s what Amendment 83 would do, who is behind it and who is fighting the initiative. ## What Amendment 83 would do Amendment 83 is intended to prevent the legislature or future ballot measures from restricting hunting and fishing in Colorado Proponents say “hunting and fishing are part of Colorado’s heritage and cultural identity and are important to its tourism and recreation economy,” according to the state’s official, nonpartisan Ballot Information Booklet, known as the “blue book.” Money from hunting and fishing licenses benefits habitat and wildlife management efforts across the state. One-third of CPW’s current annual revenue, about $115 million, comes from license sales, the blue book said. ## ☀️ READ MORE ### Election Day is Nov. 3. Here’s what you need to know about Colorado’s candidates, ballot measures and how to vote. ▶ FULL STORY The Common Sense Institute, a nonpartisan conservative-leaning policy research organization that examines the fiscal impacts of policies, initiatives, and proposed laws in Colorado, reports Colorado Parks and Wildlife received 68% of its annual wildlife revenue from licenses, passes, fees and permits in fiscal year 2024-25, while Great Outdoors Colorado, funded by lottery ticket sales, generated 5%. Federal grants contributed 17% and all other sources of revenue added 10%. A separate ballot measure — Proposition 137 — will ask voters if the state should divert $175 million to $180 million a year in already collected sales taxes on sporting goods equipment toward conservation, wildfire mitigation, watershed restoration and improved outdoor recreation opportunities. While state law already gives hunting, trapping and fishing an important role in wildlife management, proponents argue hunting and fishing protections can be eroded through the legislative process. If it’s written into the state constitution, it cannot. An example of the former scenario was House Bill 1258, introduced during the 2025 regular session, which sought to modify Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission statutory authority to manage wildlife through methods other than hunting, trapping and fishing by changing wording in the statute from the state “shall utilize” those methods to it “may authorize” the use of those methods, opening the possiblity for the state to use other methods to manage wildlife, which hunters and anglers believe could jeopardize their hunting opportunities. The bill, strongly opposed by hunting groups, failed to pass. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers said it provided “a clear example of the difference between statutory and constitutional protections” that could weaken the way hunters believe wildlife should be managed. In 2024, Proposition 127 unsuccessfully sought to ban the hunting and trapping of mountain lions, bobcats and lynx for fur. Amendment 83 aims to safeguard the state’s existing method of wildlife management by identifying hunting and fishing as the preferred means in the state constitution and by preserving the authority of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission and the General Assembly to use hunting, trapping and fishing for wildlife management “when regulation is reasonable and necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety or the future of hunting and fishing opportunities.” As of July 2026, 24 states have adopted the right to hunt and fish amendments since 1996. ## Who is behind Amendment 83 and why The conservative political nonprofit Advance Colorado, which doesn’t disclose its donors, filed Amendment 83. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance, a conservative nonprofit dedicated to hunting, is funding the campaign to pass the measure, having spent $1.5 million in support of the initiative through cash contributions. Farrell-Roeh, a family-owned private investment company based in Denver, gave $150,000. Other major donors include Weld County developer and trophy hunter Jeff Damaske and Safari Club International, which sued two CPW commissioners in 2025 over an opinion piece published in The Durango Herald that supported Proposition 127. Supporters of Amendment 83 argue the right to hunt and fish should not depend on statutes, future legislatures, ballot initiatives or changing commission philosophies. They cite as cautionary tales recent debates among the CPW commission over trapping and furbearer bag limits that illustrate how wildlife-management policy is vulnerable to change. Hunters have accused Gov. Jared Polis of stacking the CPW commission with wildlife advocates who oppose hunting as a form of wildlife management. In July, the commission voted 6-5 to reduce the number of furbearing animals a trapper could kill in one day from 17 per person per species to two per person per species. Chris Dorsey, a media executive, longtime host of hunting television programs and Legends of the Outdoors hall-of-famer, wrote an opinion piece in the Craig Daily Press that said Amendment 83 would not change methods CPW already uses to manage wildlife including bag limits, hunting seasons and method-of-take regulations (how animals are hunted), but that it would only “make more difficult eliminating hunting itself through emotional campaigns aimed at voters who may know little about wildlife management but are understandably fond of bear cubs.” ## Who is opposing Amendment 83 and why Opponents, including wildlife advocates, say the state’s animals are an asset that must be managed for everyone, not just for fee-and permit-paying hunters and anglers. An issue committee called Protect Colorado’s Constitution formed mid-year to oppose Amendment 83. The group’s to-date contributions are $6,171. Protect Colorado’s Constitution is one of at least three issue committees and 11 organizations battling Amendment 83. The other committees are Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation and Stop the Constitutional Power Grab. Organizations include The Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, Science for Colorado Wildlife, Western Watersheds Project and Wildlife for All. Opponents of Amendment 83 say it explicitly protects “traditional methods” of hunting, without defining what “traditional methods” means. Mountain lions on Colorado’s Eastern Slope will be managed under an updated plan after the Parks and Wildlife Commission unanimously approved it Nov. 15, 2024, in Lamar. (Colorado Parks and Wildlife photo) Colorado Hunters and Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation called the ballot measure’s language “intentionally vague” and “crafted to overturn the will of Colorado voters who banned some cruel practices decades ago.” These included the use of steel-jawed leghold traps, wildlife killing contests and hunting bears through baiting, with hounds or in the spring when cubs are vulnerable to the loss of their mother. Jay Tutchton, a retired law professor at University of Denver and chair of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission, speaking on behalf of himself, said that vagueness is rife for litigation that could end in less protection for wildlife. “That term is going to have to be explained by a judge at some point, and tradition is based on a point in time,” he said. “Like, what was traditional 100 years ago would now be objectionable today. One of the groups that supports 83 is called the International Order of T. Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt himself, and the Boone and Crockett Club, which he helped found, thought that scopes on rifles were unethical.” Tutchton also said making hunting a constitutional right would open wildlife management decisions up to lengthy litigation, which could tie CPW’s hands and limit the agency from acting during a wildlife crisis. He used the case of extreme winter conditions in 2023 that killed off large numbers of elk and antelope in Northwestern Colorado. CPW reduced hunting licenses to help herds rebound. Under Amendment 83, “a reactive decision could now be litigated and while it was being litigated we wouldn’t be able to react in a timely manner,” he said. ## How Amendment 83 appears on the ballot Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution creating a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife by traditional methods, including all species of fish and wildlife managed by the state except non-game species, endangered species, or any species that is illegal to hunt under federal law, and, in connection therewith, establishing hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations; and preserving the right of the state to regulate hunting, fishing, and wildlife management if necessary for sound scientific wildlife conservation and management, public safety, or to preserve the future of hunting and fishing opportunities for all species? Read the nonpartisan state ballot guide analysis of the measure here. _🗳️ All of our election coverage is free. If it helped you, donate to support our work._ #### Editor’s picks ## Election Day is Nov. 3. Here’s what you need to know about Colorado’s candidates, ballot measures and how to vote. ## Colorado says goodbye to a “doozy” of a water year with more moisture in the forecast ## Mahjong, the 150-year-old Chinese tile game with a complicated history, is taking over Colorado #### Type of Story: News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

Initiative 195 will ask voters to raise Colorado’s flat 4.4% income tax rate on income earned by people and corporations that exceeds $500,000

A ballot measure brought by a conservative political nonprofit would require police and prosecutors to notify the U.S. Department of Homeland Security when someone living in the U.S. illegally, or with uncertain immigrant status, is charged with a violent crime or if they’ve been previously convicted of a felony

Amendment 86 would require public input and a court review of any mid-decade congressional redistricting — that’s redistricting that happens outside of the once-in-a-decade process handled by an independent commission

Amendment 82 would add a right to natural gas in the state constitution at a time when Colorado is pushing both in policy and legislation to cut the use of natural gas as part of the state’s goal to reduce climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions. The measure was brought by Advance Colorado, a conservative political nonprofit that paid millions of dollars to collect voter signatures and get it on the ballot. Amendment 82 echoes a 2020 right to natural gas ballot proposal and a 2024 “energy choice” ballot initiative sponsored by the oil and gas industry. Both times the Colorado measures were withdrawn as part of a compromise that entailed environmental groups removing their competing initiatives from the ballot. Here’s what Amendment 82 would do, who is supporting it and who is opposing the initiative. ## What Amendment 82 would do The ballot initiative would add two sentences to the state constitution: “Consumers have a right to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in their homes and businesses throughout the state. Distributors and utilities have the right to sell natural gas for homes and businesses.” The state’s official, nonpartisan Ballot Information Booklet, known as the “blue book,” said the amendment “may limit the ability for state or local governments to enforce existing or future regulations related to natural gas.” Since the ballot initiative would add language to the state constitution it needs to pass with 55% of the vote. ## Who is behind Amendment 82 and why The conservative political nonprofit Advance Colorado, which doesn’t disclose its donors, is sponsoring Amendment 82. “Natural gas is a clean, reliable and affordable form of energy that more than 70% of Colorado homes use today. That right should be protected,” Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, said in a statement. An issue committee called Brighter Colorado was created in July to support six Advance Colorado ballot measures, including Amendment 82. The committee had raised more than $300,000 through mid-September. The largest contribution was $250,000 from the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Common Sense America. Common Sense America and Colorado Dawn, another conservative political nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors, also each directly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on signature gathering to get the initiative on the ballot. Advance Colorado contends that “natural gas in Colorado is under attack,” with the state’s ultimate goal — through the required clean heat plans — of reaching zero emissions by 2050. The Williams natural gas production facility north of Parachute on March 26, 2026. (Ed Kosmicki, Special to The Colorado Sun) “This is a major assault on the rights of Coloradans to choose the form of energy that best works for us,” Kristi Burton Brown, Advance Colorado’s executive vice president, said in a video presentation. The administration of Gov. Jared Polis issued a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Road Map in 2021, with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 50% over 2005 levels by 2030. In 2024, the state adopted a law requiring natural gas utilities to develop Clean Heat Plans to cut their emissions 22% by 2030, in part by reducing sales. The same year Denver began requiring new commercial and large multi-family buildings to use electric space and water heating. ## Who is opposing Amendment 82 and why Environmental groups, public health groups and Democratic legislators are opposing the amendment. In May, Democratic state legislators sought to introduce a last-minute bill to blunt the impact of Amendment 82 (then known as Initiative 177) saying the measure was poorly drafted and ambiguous. ## ☀️ READ MORE ### Election Day is Nov. 3. Here’s what you need to know about Colorado’s candidates, ballot measures and how to vote. ▶ FULL STORY However, within days the effort faltered and was abandoned. In response to the Advance Colorado measure, Conservation Colorado, one of the state’s largest environmental groups, sought to place four measures on the ballot aimed at oil and gas operations, including ones tightening oil and gas operators’ liability for damages and cleanup of contaminated groundwater. In the past dueling industry and environmental initiatives led to a compromise with all the proposals removed from the ballot. The Conservation Colorado measures failed to make the ballot. Conservation Colorado and Western Resource Advocates, an environmental policy group, formed an issue committee — No Pollution in the Constitution — and had raised $340,000 through mid-September. Most of the committee’s funding has come from Conservation Colorado, which doesn’t disclose its donors. A second issues committee — Vote Common Sense — also opposes the amendment. It had raised about $495,000 as of Sept. 16. The largest contribution as of mid-September to Vote Common Sense — $200,000 — came from the Washington, D.C.-based Green Advocacy Project, a nonprofit that gets its money from liberal groups with unclear funding sources. “Given the risks to utility bills and safety regulations from placing vague and misleading preferences for natural gas profits into the state constitution, our top priority will be educating voters about the dangers of Initiative 177,” Conservation Colorado’s CEO Kelly Nordini said. “If necessary, we may pursue related policies in future years, either through the legislature or via the ballot,” Nordini said. ## How Amendment 82 appears on the ballot Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution creating new law granting the right for consumers to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in homes or businesses and for distributors and utilities to sell natural gas to consumers? Read the nonpartisan state ballot guide analysis of the measure. _Colorado Sun staff writer Jesse Paul contributed to this report._ #### Editor’s picks ## Election Day is Nov. 3. Here’s what you need to know about Colorado’s candidates, ballot measures and how to vote. ## Colorado says goodbye to a “doozy” of a water year with more moisture in the forecast ## Mahjong, the 150-year-old Chinese tile game with a complicated history, is taking over Colorado #### Type of Story: News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

A federal political action committee created by U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson is bankrolling a Colorado ballot measure this year that would make it more difficult to redraw the boundaries of the state’s congressional districts outside of the process already laid out in the state constitution. The American Revival PAC gave $250,000 in August to the Fair Redistricting Colorado issue committee, which is working to pass Amendment 86 in November. ## ☀️ READ MORE ### Conservative-backed redistricting measure makes Colorado ballot ▶ FULL STORY The leadership PAC was created by Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, in 2017. It’s funded by other political action committees tied to Johnson that serve as his fundraising vehicles for Republican candidates and causes. The only other money Fair Redistricting Colorado has received came from Advance Colorado, the conservative political nonprofit that brought the measure. The group doesn’t disclose its donors. A second issue committee, Brighter Colorado, is also supporting the measure. Its major donors include Advance Colorado and Common Sense America, another conservative political nonprofit that also doesn’t disclose its donors. Advance Colorado is behind six of the 13 measures on the statewide ballot this year. And while its donors remain secret, the fact that the American Revival PAC is backing Amendment 86 is a major sign that its influence, and the people and groups influencing its work, span far beyond Colorado’s borders. Colorado Draws the Line, an issue committee tied to Democrats, says it will fight Amendment 86. But the group, which shares the same name as a nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors, hasn’t reported raising or spending any money yet. Amendment 86 was Republicans’ response to a Democratic redistricting effort in Colorado that sought to put a measure on the November ballot asking voters to amend the state constitution and redraw the state’s congressional districts for the 2028 and 2030 elections. The initiative, funded by money tied to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, would have overridden Colorado’s normal, once-a-decade redistricting process, which last took place in 2021 and resulted in a new congressional map for the state that went into effect for the 2022 election. The new districts drawn by the Democratic proposal would have given Democrats an outsized chance at flipping three seats held by Republicans, leaving the GOP with only one of the state’s eight seats. ## ☀️ READ MORE ### Colorado Supreme Court rejects Democrats’ ballot measures asking voters to redraw state’s congressional map ▶ FULL STORY #### Editor’s picks ## How one small-scale Colorado rancher has withstood drought, rising costs and Trump’s plan to import beef ## Snack, side dish, center plate: Colorado’s Soul Food Scholar has recipes for climate-friendly black-eyed peas ## Why a world-traveling mountaineer is teaching kids to sew in a small Colorado town But the Colorado Supreme Court unanimously ruled in June that the Democrats’ ballot measure violated the “single subject” requirement in the state constitution, which requires that ballot initiatives have only one central purpose. Amendment 86 would change the state constitution to require that Colorado’s Independent Redistricting Commission reconvene and hold public hearings to review any Colorado congressional map redrawn ahead of the normal 10-year process. The amendment, which requires the support of 55% of voters to pass, would also require that the Colorado Supreme Court review and approve any state congressional map redrawn in the middle of a decade before it could go into effect. The court would be forced to reject any map that fails to keep “communities of interest” whole, as well as any map that was drawn to favor one political party. #### Type of Story: News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Victor Marx on Friday announced fellow Marine veteran George Markert as his running mate. George Markert. (U.S. Marines) Markert, a retired Marine colonel, originally ran for U.S. Senate this year but failed to make the primary ballot. The Broomfield resident moved to Colorado about three years ago as he settled his family after leaving the military. “It’s an opportunity to serve,” Markert said on 710 KNUS, a conservative talk radio station where Marx announced the pick Friday morning. “It’s an opportunity to step up and lead.” #### Editor’s picks ## International adoptions by Colorado families have dropped to lowest on record ## There’s never been a Native American on Colorado’s wildlife commission. State tribes want that changed. ## One Boulder couple’s response to climate change: Grow trees, lots of trees, and give them away When he ran for Senate, his first bid for public office, Markert called himself “a constitutional conservative and proud supporter of President Trump’s America First agenda.” Marx said he picked Markert because of his ability to get things done. “You have to have a governor and a lieutenant governor who have a backbone,” he said. Friday was the deadline by which Marx had to announce his running mate, who will become lieutenant governor if Marx is elected to lead the state. Marx and Markert face the Democratic team of Attorney General Phil Weiser and Jefferson County Commissioner Lesley Dahlkemper in November. #### Type of Story: News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

A recently released wildlife study is part of a yearslong dispute over the wire-grid fence at Cielo Vista Ranch

Six of the eight Democratic statehouse candidates who were backed by $2.5 million spent by dark money groups this year lost their primaries Tuesday night against their more liberal opponents. The defeats will shift the balance of power to the left at the Colorado Capitol next year and mark a stinging rebuke of a yearslong — and until now often successful — effort to push back on liberal influence in the legislature. The money was spent by three nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors: One Main Street Colorado ($1.4 million), Fair Economy for Coloradans ($1.05 million) and the Colorado Affordability Project ($85,000). It was routed to a list of state super PACs into Democratic legislative primaries across the state, but mostly in the Denver area, that supported more moderate Democrats in their primaries against more liberal opponents. ## ☀️ READ MORE ### 3, maybe 4, state lawmakers in Colorado set to lose their primaries amid liberal Democrats’ big night ▶ FULL STORY Andrew Short, who leads One Main Street Colorado, didn’t respond to a request for comment Wednesday. In a written statement, Dennis Dougherty, who leads the Colorado AFL-CIO, said the results were “a warning sign to any politician who thinks their political future lies in corporate money rather than the interests of working people across the state.” Labor unions were the biggest spenders working opposite of One Main Street Colorado, Fair Economy for Coloradans and the Colorado Affordability Project. The biggest loss for the dark money trio happened in House District 6 in Denver, where state Rep. Sean Camacho lost to civil rights attorney Iris Halpern. Camacho is the House chair of the Colorado Opportunity Caucus, which is made up of more moderate Democrats in the legislature. The caucus, a nonprofit that doesn’t disclose its donors, has received funding from One Main Street Colorado and includes many lawmakers One Main Street Colorado has helped get elected. Camacho was first elected to the legislature in 2024 with One Main Street Colorado’s support. “The voters of HD6 have chosen a new direction, and I respect that decision,” Camacho said in a written statement Wednesday. Of the more than $1 million spent by super PACs in the contest, two-thirds went to support Camacho. Denver Progressives United, which backed Camacho and was funded by Fair Economy for Coloradans, accounted for 60% of the total spending in the contest. Another big loss for the dark money group happened in Senate District 34 in Denver, where Chela Garcia Irlando, a nonprofit leader, defeated Andrés Carrera, a policy strategist, in the Democratic party. Lawmakers debate a bill in the Senate at the Colorado Capitol in Denver on May 12, 2026. (Jesse Paul, The Colorado Sun) That contest drew the most super PAC cash among legislative races, at $1.4 million. Nearly 60% of that went to support Carrera, much of it from groups funded by One Main Street, Fair Economy for Coloradans and the Colorado Affordability Project. Garcia Irlando’s campaign sent a mailer to voters in Senate District 34 with a picture of Short, calling him a corporate puppeteer. The other Democratic statehouse primaries where One Main Street Colorado, Fair Economy for Coloradans and the Colorado Affordability Project spent money through state super PACs and lost: * Aurora Public School board member Anne Keke lost her bid to unseat state Rep. Jamie Jackson, D-Aurora, in House District 41. * State Rep. Kenny Van Nguyen fended off a challenge from Broomfield City Councilwoman Heidi Henkel in House District 33, the third most expensive statehouse primary, drawing $718,000 in super PAC cash. * Consuelo Redhorse, president of the Summit School District Board of Education, was set to defeat attorney Chris Floyd in House District 13 in Colorado’s central mountains. * State Rep. Jacque Phillips of Thornton lost to liberal organizer Gabriel Cervantes. Phillips is an Opportunity Caucus member who was elected to the legislature in 2024 with the help of One Main Street Colorado spending. State Rep. Jacque Phillips, D-Thornton, speaks before a bill signing in the governor’s office at the Colorado Capitol in Denver on May 5, 2025. (Jesse Paul, The Colorado Sun) The two Democratic statehouse primaries where state super PACs funded by the dark money trio spent and won were House District 42 in Aurora, where Sarah Woodson, who works in the cannabis industry, unseated state Rep. Mandy Lindsay, and House District 19, where Jillaire McMillan, a local parent-teacher association organizer, beat two rivals. While One Main Street doesn’t disclose its donors, The Colorado Sun has been able to glean information on where some of its money comes from through tax filings. The nonprofit reported $2.8 million in revenue in 2024. Coloradans for Progress, a political nonprofit, gave One Main Street $1 million that year. In 2024, Coloradans for Progress received $2.2 million from Chevron and $1.13 million from Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development, a nonprofit oil and gas trade organization. ## ☀️ READ MORE ### Phil Weiser overcomes big spending, name ID to beat Michael Bennet in Colorado’s Democratic primary for governor ▶ FULL STORY Coloradans for Progress also reported giving money to the conservative political nonprofit Colorado Dawn ($50,000) and the Colorado Oil and Gas Association ($400,000) in 2024. The Colorado Affordability Project was created Dec. 23 and is registered to a UPS Store in downtown Denver. Fair Economy for Coloradans is the youngest of the nonprofits. It was created Jan. 30 and formed by Scott Martinez, a Democratic campaign finance attorney. As 501(c)(4) nonprofits, One Main Street Colorado, Fair Economy for Coloradans and the Colorado Affordability Project do not have to disclose their donors. On the other side of the contests, the biggest spender was Colorado Labor Action, a state super PAC funded by unions through membership dues. That group raised about $1.2 million to spend on Democratic statehouse primaries — and won in every one they spent in. Colorado Labor Action backed Halpern, Garcia Irlando, Nguyen and Jackson. #### Editor’s picks ## Here’s what it costs to run a daycare in Colorado’s most expensive county ## The history of adobe in southern Colorado stretches back well beyond 150 years ## Steamboat Springs gravel race organizers baked cookies and knocked on nearly 300 doors to win over rural neighbors Super PACs funded by One Main Street Colorado, Fair Economy for Coloradans and the Colorado Affordability Project also struggled Tuesday in county commission races. They won one of the three county commission contests they spent in, helping community organizer Karen DeAguero beat Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design Professor Tyler Quick in Adams County. The groups failed in their attempt to help child welfare specialist Maya Wheeler unseat Commissioner Leslie Summey in Arapahoe County. (Summey was winning by a wide margin Wednesday.) The PACs also came up short in trying to unseat Arapahoe County Commissioner Jessica Campbell, who faced Cherry Creek School District Board Member Angela Garland in the primary. #### Corrections: _This story was updated at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1, 2026, to reflect that Arapahoe County Commissioner Leslie Summey fended off a primary challenge from child welfare specialist Maya Wheeler._ #### Type of Story: News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.

With luck, we’ll know Tuesday night who our next governor will be. History tells us the winner of the Bennet-Weiser Dem primary is pretty much a lock. There has been only one Republican governor in Colorado over the past 50 years, and if Victor Marx wins the GOP primary — can he really be the favorite? — it could set the party back another 50 years. But what we know for sure is that come next January, Jared Polis, who is term limited, will no longer be governor. And I think I could predict the same even if he weren’t term limited. As I’ve mentioned often enough, Polis wrote his political obituary when he granted clemency to election grifter Tina Peters, freeing her from prison on June 1 even as her sentencing was being reconsidered by order of the Colorado Court of Appeals. Everyone has a theory as to why Polis has made himself a pariah in his own party, but if you read the recent Denver Post op-ed written by two members of Polis’ 11-person clemency advisory board, it gives you a good idea how they see it. And it’s not pretty. Two longtime board members, both appointed by Polis, both Denver lawyers who have been public defenders, fault Polis for, among other things, stepping all over the judicial system, ruling for the powerful and well connected and fast-tracking Peters’ commutation in a system that often takes years to proceed. #### **Want early access to** **Mike’s columns?** Subscribe to get an exclusive first look at his columns twice a week. SUBSCRIBE As Azra Taslimi and Hanna Seigel Proff wrote, “Tina Peters’ clemency is the two-tiered system operating exactly as it always has, rewarding proximity to power, and leaving everyone else to absorb the cost.” And they’re not alone. Twice, the governor sent Peters’ application to the 11-person clemency board he had appointed. Twice, the board said no. Both times unanimously. “The governor granted her asylum anyway,” Taslimi and Proff wrote. “The problem is not about Tina Peters’ case in isolation. It is what his decision reveals. That the system bends for some and holds firm against everyone else.” You don’t often hear from members of the clemency advisory board, and there’s good reason. Not only are their meetings held in secret, but the board members don’t even take notes and they rarely publicly discuss their recommendations to the governor. Why did Taslimi and Proff break the code of silence? Before writing the op-ed, they had gone public for an article in the New York Times, with Proff saying of Peters’ commutation, “It really was a punch in the gut. It flies in the face of justice.” Proff added: “Some of these applications bring us to tears. Ms. Peters’s application just felt empty.” In the op-ed, they wrote that Peters’ applications were “performative,” probably written by her lawyers, and did not show any kind of real remorse. They said it was the kind of application for clemency that they routinely deny “because performative accountability does not warrant mercy under our set criteria.” Of course, the board is just advisory. Polis often rejects their findings. It’s his right. But in this case, Taslimi and Proff thought the public needed to understand the context of his actions. A clemency hearing is a hearing of last resort. Most applicants, unlike Peters, have gone through all their appeals. Many of the applicants the board approves, unlike Peters, have made real changes in their lives and have passed the are-you-more-than-the-worst-decision-you’ve-ever-made test. “Clemency is not a shortcut. It is what remains when every door has already closed,” they wrote in the op-ed. And clemency is what remains when lawyers are often no longer available. When applications are handwritten from the inmates’ cells. When they may not hear anything about their applications for years. When they are not able to question why the appeal went against them. Taslimi and Proff want you to know who the people left behind are. “It would be dishonest to tell this story without saying plainly what it reflects,” they wrote. “The people in our queue are not a random sample of Colorado. They reflect what decades of unequal justice have built. Hispanic Coloradans make up roughly 21% of the state’s population, but over 32% of its male prison population. Black Coloradans make up just 4.5% of the state’s population, but 18% of its male prison population. “Empirical data show that people of color are treated more harshly than their white counterparts at every stage, the harm compounding at every turn. They arrive at our table having already lost so much, asking with whatever dignity they have left for one act of grace from a system that has shown them very little.” They added that consistency in how clemency is awarded is what makes the process “defensible.” Yet, the Peters case, they wrote, “broke quickly and dramatically, for the benefit of Tina Peters. It is with all of those people in mind that we say what happened here was wrong.” We know Peters proved the board right and Polis wrong. She had absolutely no remorse for her voting machine tampering. On her first day out of prison, she went on Steve Bannon’s podcast to say she had been convicted for being a, uh, truth-teller, that she was the victim, that the vote rigging was real, that the Democrats cheated in the 2020 election and that she is still appealing her sentence. ## ☀️ MORE FROM MIKE LITTWIN ### Littwin: Polis would be gone even if he weren’t term-limited 3:05 AM MDT on Jun 28, 2026 ### Littwin: Dem gov race could dictate the future — an old senator or perhaps a history-making new one 3:05 AM MDT on Jun 24, 2026 ### Littwin: In the wake of Trump’s humiliation in Iran, he has only one card to play — lie 3:05 AM MDT on Jun 21, 20269:00 AM MDT on Jun 22, 2026 #### Editor’s picks ## Steamboat Springs gravel race organizers baked cookies and knocked on nearly 300 doors to win over rural neighbors ## Fort Carson soldiers get new dining options thanks to celebrity chef ## Pity the lonely brook trout: How to stop an invasion with this one genetic trick I don’t know if Polis caved to Trump, who pushed for her release by constantly punishing Colorado while calling Polis “weak” and worse. I’ve been told that Polis wanted to grant her clemency, as a first-time, non-violent offender, as soon as the sentence was set. He somehow believes, then and now, that the 9-year sentence was too heavy, but his advisors warned him a commutation would be a political disaster. Sometimes the advisers get it right. But Polis argues that his clemency decision was not political, but made in proud defense of the First Amendment. He even invoked — all humility way aside — the ACLU’s defense of the would-be neo-Nazi marchers in Skokie, Illinois, to defend his overwhelmingly unpopular decision. In any case, Trump is still out there in support of Peters. In a Truth Social post — as noted by John Hickenlooper in a campaign email — Trump recently asked the MAGA cultists who read his social media well of disinformation whether he should “clear her name and compensate her” for her time spent, in Trump’s words, as a political prisoner. I think we can safely predict the result of Trump’s entirely unscientific poll. And we can predict this, too — there won’t need to be any rigging for MAGA voters to get to “yes.” Just as there was no rigging needed for the Colorado clemency board to unanimously get to “no.” * * * __Mike Littwin has been a columnist for too many years to count. He has covered Dr. J, four presidential inaugurations, six national conventions and countless brain-numbing speeches in the New Hampshire and Iowa snow__. _Sign up for Mike’s newsletter._ * * * The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. **Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy**. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com. Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook. #### Type of Story: Opinion Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the author/producer’s interpretation of facts and data.