While the presidential campaign may be grabbing headlines, Colorado voters have a lot of important items they need to pay attention to in the upcoming election.
With state and local measures, congressional, general assembly, municipal, and judicial elections on the horizon, it promises to be a busy sprint to November 5th.
Colorado voters are beginning to receive the “Blue Book” in their mailboxes, officially marking the final leg of the election season. This ballot information booklet, sent out a month before the November election, provides analyses of the statewide measures under consideration, including neutral summaries, potential fiscal impacts, and major arguments for and against each measure.
Colorado stands out with this tradition; alongside Alaska and Massachusetts, it is one of the few states that requires neutral summaries and pro/con arguments for ballot measures. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, of the 24 states that mandate information about measures, 16 require arguments on both sides.
Around two million booklets are being sent to registered voter households, and in some areas like Denver, where there are 11 local measures, the booklet is quite substantial. That’s because this year’s ballot includes much more than just candidates, featuring a total of 14 citizen initiatives and legislatively referred statewide measures.
So, why the abundance of measures this year? Before we get to that, let’s break down the basics of the ballot.
Ballot questions can fall into two categories: statutory measures, which, if approved, become state laws that the legislature can modify, and constitutional amendments, which can only be changed through future amendments passed by voters.
Constitutional amendments have a higher threshold for approval, requiring 55% of the vote to pass, compared to the simple majority needed for statutory measures.
For the 2024 ballot, proposed initiatives were numbered sequentially based on when they were filed with the state’s Initiative Title Setting Review Board, known as the Title Board. Over 300 initiatives were proposed during this election cycle, but most were either denied a title or withdrawn. Eight initiatives were approved for circulation but failed to gather the necessary signatures for submission to the Secretary of State’s office last month.
Once the ballot was finalized on September 6th, the qualified measures were renumbered sequentially, starting with Amendment 79 for constitutional amendments and Proposition 127 for statutory initiatives.
Amendments are typically more permanent and harder to change. Constitutional amendments now require 55% of the vote to pass, a change voters approved in 2016 with Amendment 71. Propositions, on the other hand, are changes to state statutes that can be modified by lawmakers and require only a simple majority to pass (50% plus one vote).
The designation of a ballot issue indicates whether it was referred by state lawmakers or initiated by citizens. Constitutional amendments referred by lawmakers require a two-thirds vote of the legislature to be placed on the ballot and are labeled with a letter (e.g., “Amendment K”). Propositions referred by lawmakers need a majority vote and are labeled with a double letter (e.g., “Proposition KK”).
Citizen-initiated constitutional amendments are assigned numbers between 1 and 99, while citizen-initiated propositions are numbered between 100 and 199.
State law does limit the types of proposals that can appear on statewide ballots in odd-numbered years, primarily to issues arising under TABOR, such as new taxes or tax rate increases. In contrast, there are no such limitations for even-numbered years like 2024.
Back to 2024 the ballot.
As mentioned, this year’s ballot will include 14 proposed statewide measures, consisting of a blend of constitutional amendments, legislative referenda, and citizen-initiated proposals. Specifically, there are seven initiatives put forth by citizens and seven referred by lawmakers, addressing a variety of topics including taxation, elections, healthcare policies, and more.
Initially, there were expectations for up to 16 statewide measures, but two property tax-related measures—Initiative 108 and Initiative 50—were removed following an agreement reached during the 2024 special session in August.
The 14 measures now anticipated slightly exceed the average for even-year elections over the past two decades, matching the record 14 statewide measures seen on ballots in 2006 and 2008. That’s a hefty state ballot.
And if you live in Denver, you may want to invest in an even larger mailbox for 2024. Voters in the city will consider 11 local measures on the November ballot, ranging from collective bargaining and raising taxes to borrowing nearly $1 billion to improve local schools. The historically long ballot was finalized last month.
But, how did we get here?
The presence of a large ballot in Colorado stems from various factors that highlight both legislative changes and shifts in voter engagement. For better or worse, the state has a rich history of direct democracy through ballot initiatives. This allows citizens to propose alterations to laws or the state constitution, resulting in numerous measures appearing on a single ballot. Consequently, voters are presented with extensive ballots that address a broad spectrum of issues.
Over the past 30 years, there have been at least two substantial changes to the ballot process in Colorado.
In 1994, the Colorado legislature referred a constitutional amendment, known as Referendum A, to the ballot. This amendment required that all citizen-initiated measures focus on a single subject, aiming to prevent unrelated elements from being included. It passed with a significant majority, receiving 66% of the votes.
Then, in 2016, voters saw Amendment 71 on the ballot, which was introduced through the citizen-initiated process and dubbed “Raise the Bar.” This amendment altered the signature requirements for constitutional amendments in Colorado and increased the percentage of votes needed for passage.
Before Amendment 71, both statutory and constitutional measures required the same number of signatures and only needed a simple majority to pass. After its approval by a 56% – 44% percent margin, constitutional measures now need signatures from 2% of registered voters in each of the 35 state senate districts and required 55% of the vote to pass. This made it significantly harder to get constitutional measures onto the ballot in Colorado – or at least it was supposed to.
When Amendment 71 was debated, various factions quickly emerged. In 2016, every living governor of Colorado, regardless of party affiliation, backed the initiative to raise the bar. Support also came from major city leaders, including former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb and former Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers. Many current and former lawmakers in leadership roles endorsed it, along with numerous business and industry groups such as chambers of commerce, the business strategy group Colorado Concern, the state bar association, and significant organizations like Club 20. And the oil and gas industry notably contributed to the campaign, providing the largest financial backing amid ongoing conflicts in the energy sector.
A central argument for Raise the Bar was that the new requirements would ensure representation from rural and less-populated areas in the ballot initiative process. Instead of relying heavily on signatures from the Denver metro area, initiatives would need to demonstrate statewide support. Supporters also argued that Amendment 71 would protect the state constitution from being influenced by out-of-state special interests. They contended that if voters wanted a direct say in legislation, they should amend state laws through the ballot initiative process rather than alter the constitution, allowing for legislative adjustments over time.
At the same time, opposition to Raise the Bar also came from a diverse coalition, including groups like New Era Colorado, Conservation Colorado, the Bell Policy Center, the Colorado Firearms Association, the TABOR Committee, the Colorado Union of Taxpayers, and Greenpeace.
Critics pointed to the broad political support for the measure as an attempt to diminish public power. A key concern was that the new rules would effectively make constitutional changes nearly impossible for all but the wealthiest campaigns. Grassroots organizations argued that even gathering signatures in populous Front Range cities was challenging, let alone collecting them from all 35 Senate districts across Colorado.
Raise the Bar hasn’t had a smooth ride since its passage in 2016.
There have been several lawsuits and legal challenges related to Raise the Bar, primarily focusing on its implementation and the processes surrounding constitutional amendments.
Some grassroots organizations have argued that the new signature collection requirements are overly burdensome and infringe on the right to participate in the ballot initiative process. In 2018, a federal district judge blocked the State of Colorado from enforcing a key piece of Amendment 71. In his court order, Judge William J. Martinez struck down the petition requirements of Raise the Bar as unconstitutional, saying they violated the principle of “one person, one vote.”
Lawsuits have emerged questioning the validity of signatures collected under the new rules, leading to legal battles over whether certain initiatives should be allowed on the ballot. There have been legal arguments concerning whether the process of referring constitutional amendments by the legislature is circumventing the intent of Raise the Bar, which was designed to make it harder for citizens to amend the constitution. And some lawsuits have examined whether the provisions of Raise the Bar itself comply with Colorado’s constitution or whether they unduly restrict citizens’ rights.
These legal disputes reflect ongoing tensions surrounding the balance between ensuring robust constitutional protections and maintaining access to the amendment process for citizens. Since voters approved Raise the Bar in 2016, discussions have persisted about whether campaigns can effectively meet this heightened threshold.
Now, just eight years later, Colorado is facing a substantial ballot featuring seven constitutional amendments—a number which mirrors those seen in elections prior to the passage of Raise the Bar.
It prompts the question: is Raise the Bar achieving its intended goals?
While the increased signature requirements and voting thresholds have posed challenges for some initiatives, the presence of multiple amendments on this year’s ballot suggests that campaigns are still finding ways to meet these new standards—particularly those with the financial resources and political savvy to push their measures across the finish line. This trend highlights the ongoing adaptability of campaign strategies in the face of stricter regulations and raises questions about equity in access to the amendment process.
Many grassroots organizations have found it increasingly difficult to meet the new signature requirements, raising concerns that only well-funded campaigns can successfully navigate the amendment process. In addition, despite the increased barriers for citizen-initiated amendments, legislators have continued to refer constitutional amendments to voters, which some argue undermines the intent of Raise the Bar.
Moreover, in recent years, Colorado has witnessed a record number of constitutional amendments on the ballot, indicating that campaigns are still managing to navigate the new requirements, despite the increased challenges. This influx suggests that organizations are adapting their strategies to effectively gather signatures and mobilize support across diverse regions of the state.
The ability to present multiple amendments simultaneously reflects a robust engagement with the amendment process, while also hinting at the persistence and resourcefulness of advocacy groups. But it does raise important questions about how well these campaigns are connecting with voters and whether the desire for constitutional change remains strong in the face of stricter regulations – or if campaigns have simply gotten better at making their pitch.
The outcomes of Raise the Bar in Colorado have been multifaceted. The success and impact of the changes to the amendment process continue to be debated, with supporters arguing that it safeguards the constitution while opponents contend it restricts citizen participation. Although it has significantly altered the landscape for constitutional amendments, the long-term implications and effectiveness of these changes are still under evaluation. However, with seven constitutional amendments on the ballot this November, it’s difficult to argue that the process has effectively limited the number of measures presented to voters.
Ultimately, this current ballot raises a crucial question for Coloradans: should we reevaluate our approach to the amendment process? And if so, what might that look like?
It’s still up for debate. But as we consider the implications of Raise the Bar and the current landscape of constitutional amendments, it’s essential to reflect on whether the existing framework adequately balances the need for public input with the protection of our constitution.
Should we explore ways to streamline the process for grassroots initiatives, ensuring that diverse voices are represented? Additionally, we might consider the role of financial resources in shaping which measures make it to the ballot. Could there be a more equitable approach that allows for broader participation?
Engaging in this conversation could pave the way for reforms that enhance transparency, promote fairness, and uphold the integrity of our constitutional amendment process, ultimately creating a system that genuinely reflects the will of the people.
