Election 2026: Arvada, Jeffco, and Colorado ballot guide

Ballot language:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution requiring law enforcement to notify the department of homeland security when a person is charged with either a violent crime or any crime if the person has a prior felony conviction if law enforcement cannot determine that the person is lawfully present in the United States?

Ballot Information:

Advance Colorado – introduced this amendment

Amendment 81 amends the constitution to mandate that law enforcement contact the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the parent agency of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), within 72 hours if a person suspected of not having legal immigration status is charged with a crime of violence or the person is charged with any crime and has previously been convicted of a felony. This mandate applies to police officers, corrections officers, and attorneys and investigators working for district attorneys.

• In 2025, Colorado passed SB25-276 to expand the civil rights of immigrants. This bill sets strict limits as to when peace officers, pretrial officers, and other public employees can share personal information with DHS.
• Studies show immigrants – both legal and those without documentation – commit crimes at lower rates than U.S. born residents. A seminal study using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety found immigrants of all statuses were arrested at half the rate of U.S. born citizens for violent and drug crimes and at a quarter of the rate of U.S. born citizens for property crimes.

Arguments against:

• The measure risks the detention and deportation of innocent individuals and those who are legally in the United States. Not only will it lead to fractured families and lost economic opportunity, but it’s also likely to make those from immigrant communities less likely to report crimes out of fear of detention and deportation. Current systems are capable of ensuring that victims get justice and guilty individuals are punished.
• A person who is a lawful resident or U.S. citizen could be subjected to this provision in error, possibly due to racial profiling; a person charged with a crime of violence is not necessarily guilty. The person is entitled to due process protections, including a presumption of innocence, until proven guilty.
• Cooperating with ICE is inappropriate, given the complete immunity under which the agency is operating. Colorado authorities are able to handle crimes; there is no need to bring in federal authorities.

Other Groups that Oppose:
League of Women Voters, Rocky Mountain Equality, Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition (CIRC), Bell Policy Center

Ballot language:

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?

Ballot Information:

Advance Colorado – introduced this amendment

This Advance Colorado dark money initiative seeks to establish via an amendment to the Colorado constitution that “consumers have the right to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in homes or businesses throughout the state” and that “utilities and distributors have the right to sell natural gas.”

Arguments against:

• Amendment 82 would enshrine in the state’s constitution the right for companies to sell natural gas and for customers to buy it. These activities are already legal in our state. Giving one industry a constitutional right is simply dangerous and would be all but impossible to reverse.
• Energy costs are huge expenses for companies and individuals. Using alternative and sustainable energy is a choice that can lower costs. Let’s ensure that the state, municipalities, and even our school districts have the ability to choose the energy products that are right for them, rather than give monopoly utilities and fossil fuel companies the right to increase costs and pollute our air.
• Denver Post article with more info.

Other Groups that Oppose:
League of Women Voters, Conservation Colorado, Jeffco Dems

Ballot language:

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?

Ballot Information:

The Wisconsin-based International Order of T. Roosevelt spent $1.5 million for this campaign to protect hunting and fishing as a constitutional right in Colorado. The group led similar campaigns that were successful in other states. 23 states have adopted hunt and fish amendments since 1996.

Arguments against:

• Not within democratic principles for constitutions, removes wildlife policy from the citizen initiative process, and locks in vague language that future courts must interpret.
• Limits who can shape wildlife policy and what future policymakers can do.
• Explicitly protects ‘traditional methods’ of hunting without defining them specifically, so this could mean cruel practices like steel-jawed leghold traps, wildlife killing contests, hunting bears through baiting, with hounds, or in the spring when cubs are vulnerable.
• Article from the Denver Post about this Amendment.

Other Groups that Oppose:
Colorado Hunters & Anglers for Sensible Wildlife Conservation, Protect Colorado’s Constitution

Ballot language:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution requiring a voter to sign and include the last four digits of their social security number or their Colorado driver’s license or identification card number on the outside of their mail ballot for any federal or state election, and, in connection therewith, allowing the voter to correct missing or incorrect information, including with alternative forms of identification; and prohibiting a county clerk and recorder from counting the mail ballot unless the problem is fixed?

Ballot Information:

It would require a voter to include either the last four digits of their Social Security number or their Colorado Real identification number Colorado Real identification driver’s license number or the last four digits of another form of Colorado identification that meets the requirements of the federal Real ID Act on the self-affirmation of a returned mail ballot. A voter who is provided the right to vote otherwise than in person by the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act may use identification approved under that act.

It would also require election officials to compare the information voters provide to the statewide voter registration database. If there is any discrepancy, the voter must be notified. The voter may provide a copy of their identification to correct the discrepancy, and the ballot cannot be counted until the discrepancy is corrected. In addition to the above items a U.S. passport, U.S. military ID card or tribal photo identification may be used.

Arguments against:

• It is a form of voter suppression because it creates more hoops for voters and could lead to valid votes not being counted because of errors or omissions.
• There is no evidence that people are submitting ballots that are not their own. Colorado already has a system of signature verification.
• Adding more barriers to voting would make it harder to vote and would cause more ballots to be rejected unnecessarily.
• It does not belong in the Colorado Constitution because it will impede state legislators’ abilities to adapt to changing conditions.
• It requires additional personal information to be provided on the outside of the ballot envelope. If it is incorrect or missing, the ballot is set aside and not counted until the deficiency is resolved. This will cause more work for county clerks to process ballots, slowing down the process and requiring more resources. It will require additional funding for voter outreach.

Other Groups that Oppose:
League of Women Voters of Colorado, Boulder County Board of Commissioners, Jeffco Dems

Ballot language:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning ballot question language, and, in connection therewith, requiring all state and local ballot questions to be written in plain language and at no more than an 8th grade reading level and prohibiting a state statute from requiring language that conflicts with these requirements in ballot questions for citizen-initiated measures?

Ballot Information:

Currently, the following requirements already govern the way ballot initiatives are written in Colorado:

Proposition GG (2022): Requires the ballot titles and fiscal impact summaries for initiatives that affect income taxes to include information on how the change would affect income taxes for different income categories

HB21-1231: Requires ballot titles to include language for measures that increase or decrease taxes to reflect how the changes would affect state and local budgets.

HB26-1320: Requires ballot titles to use accessible language that is understood by the widest possible audience, and include specific language for reducing or increasing tax revenue through tax changes.

HB21-1321: Requires information on services impacted by tax changes to be included in ballot measure titles.

Arguments against:

• The amendment would add to the constitution: “No statute may interfere with this provision by mandating language preceding, following, or in a ballot title of an initiative.” This overrides existing requirements for Ballot and title language and it specifically prohibits the legislature from adjusting language requirements. It does not belong in the constitution.
• 8th grade level may require ballot initiatives be written to be very simple and not accurately describing the changes.

Other Groups that Oppose:
League of Women Voters of Colorado, Boulder County Board of Commissioners, Jeffco Dems

Ballot language:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning congressional redistricting, and, in connection therewith, reenacting the current process for congressional redistricting in the Colorado Constitution and prohibiting modifications to a final map unless at least three public meetings are held, the modifications do not have the effect of dividing communities of interest or purposefully favoring one political party, and are approved by the congressional redistricting commission and the Colorado Supreme Court?

Ballot Information:

Submitted to the ballot by Advanced Colorado

This amendment requires Congressional Maps to be approved by both a nonpolitical commission and the Colorado Supreme Court. This dark money initiative requires any mid-decade redistricting to be approved by both the state’s independent redistricting commission and the Colorado Supreme Court. Additionally, the initiative would prohibit the approval of maps that have been drawn purposefully to favor one political party.

Arguments against:

• Generally this is a good idea; but, why is the State of Colorado required to follow rules like these when other states don’t? Multiple Republican states are already heavily partisan gerrymandered (an estimated total of 16 additional GOP seats before this year) and other states have employed mid-decade gerrymandering at the direct order of the President (for an estimated total of 26 additional GOP seats for this year’s election). Our current and future United States House of Representatives is no longer an institution of democracy but an institution of partisan theft and corruption. This should be a national law to require ALL states to fairly run elections and end gerrymandering. But this is unilateral disarmament. If the Republicans are going to cheat, subvert democracy, and actively steal elections then the great State of Colorado should fight fire with fire.

Other Groups that Oppose:
Jeffco Dems

Ballot language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning criminal penalties for fentanyl and certain synthetic opioids, and, in connection therewith, increasing the felony classifications of drug-related crimes for distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, sale, or possession of fentanyl and certain synthetic opioids; creating mandated treatment for certain drug felony violations based on possession amount; and changing sentencing provisions to narrow or eliminate exemptions for crimes related to fentanyl and certain synthetic opioids and drug-related deaths?

Ballot Information:

Submitted to the ballot by Advanced Colorado

This dark money initiative seeks to establish mandatory felony charges and stricter sentencing ranges for the possession and distribution of fentanyl.

• Makes the distribution, manufacturing, dispensing, or selling of any amount of fentanyl a level 1 drug felony, the most severe classification, with a required sentence of eight to 32 years in prison.
• It also increases the charge for possession to a level 4 drug felony with mandated treatment or a level 3 drug felony based on the amount of fentanyl in possession.
• Takes away the possibility of removing a possession-related drug felony from one’s record.
• If this measure is passed, individuals who distribute less than four grams of a drug that results in a death can no longer receive immunity from criminal prosecution if they report the overdose to authorities.

Arguments against:

• Increased sentences and penalties for drug-related crimes do not reduce drug use or related overdose deaths. Instead, they disproportionately impact communities of color and create additional barriers to economic stability for people struggling with addiction. With limited resources and a lack of accessible treatment for those struggling with addiction, Initiative 85 could make treatment harder to access by mandating treatment and increasing waitlists.

Other Groups that Oppose:
The Bell Policy Center

Ballot language:

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?

Ballot Information:

A “yes” vote supports requiring life in prison without parole or release for persons convicted of human trafficking* a child for sexual servitude.

A “no” vote opposes this ballot initiative, keeping human trafficking* of a child for sexual servitude classified as a class 2 felony, punishable by eight to 24 years in prison.
*As of 2026, human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude was defined as:[1]

• Selling or otherwise knowingly facilitating the commercial sexual activity involving a person under age 18 or
• Knowingly advertising, offering, or selling travel services that facilitate commercial sexual activity involving a person under age 18.

This ballot initiative would add a third element to this definition: knowingly exchanging anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a person under age 18.

Arguments against:

• It’s a Trojan horse using the language of child protection to advance a broader political agenda rather than reflect the best practices for supporting survivors.
• Common Sense Institute says it would increase Department of Corrections costs by about $50,000 in its first year, with costs rising by another $50,000 in subsequent years. [seems low]
• Judges should be the ones to decide sentences based on each unique case.
• Mandatory life sentences could be used against survivors of human trafficking or individuals trying to help trafficking victims.
• No exemptions for victims of sex trafficking who are forced to traffic others. As a result, this measure could lead to unduly harsh sentences for victims and prevent them from having opportunities to rebuild their lives.
• House Bill 1082, the “Children are not for Sale Act,” sought to impose the same penalties now proposed in the ballot measure Colorado residents will decide in November. That measure failed.

Other Groups that Oppose:
Families Not Politics, Vote Common Sense

Ballot language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new law restricting participation in all K-12 and collegiate school sports based on the participant’s sex as determined by certain aspects of their biological reproductive system, and, in connection therewith, requiring a school, institution of higher education, or athletic association to designate each school or intramural athletic team or sport as male, female, or coeducational; only allowing participants to compete on the team or sport of their designated sex or to compete on a coeducational team; creating an exception to allow a female to participate on a male-designated team or sport if there is no female team available; prohibiting a government entity, licensing or accrediting organization, or athletic association from entertaining a complaint, opening an investigation, or taking other adverse action against a school for maintaining separate teams or sports for females; and providing the commissioner of education with the authority to enforce the proposed initiative for K-12 school districts?

Ballot Information:

Initiative 109 proposes amending the Colorado statutes to:

• require that all elementary through collegiate school-based athletic teams and sports be designated as male-only or female-only based on biological sex, unless the team or sport is designated as open to participation by individuals of any sex or gender;
• require schools and school districts to implement policies to ensure that students are assigned to gender-designated teams that align with their biological sex; and
• prohibit investigations of, or penalties for, a school that designates a team or sport as female-only.

Arguments against:

• A “no” vote on Initiative 109 means that individual schools, school districts, and athletic associations may continue to set their own policies about who is eligible to participate on a team or in a sport. Prohibiting any exceptions violates state anti-discrimination law and hurts kids.
• The measure defines biological sex in terms of production of reproductive cells. ”Male” is defined as children or adults whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of sperm cells. “Female” is defined as children or adults whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of ova, or egg cells. The measure does not impose a specific method for determining or demonstrating biological sex.
• The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and places of public accommodation based on a person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. Public K-12 schools, colleges, and universities may not exclude students from extracurricular activities that align with their gender identity, even if their gender identity is different from their biological sex. It is unclear at this time how the measure will impact current state anti-discrimination law.

Other Groups that Oppose:
Colorado PTA, Families Not Politics, One Colorado, Rocky Mountain Equality, Inside Out Youth Services, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, and Interfaith Alliance of Colorado

Ballot language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes modifying existing law by prohibiting surgery on a minor for the purpose of altering the minor’s biological sex characteristics, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting any health-care professional or other person from knowingly performing, prescribing, administering, or providing any surgery to a minor for the purpose of altering the minor’s biological sex characteristics and prohibiting the use of state or federal funds, Medicaid reimbursement, or insurance coverage to pay for this type of surgery?

Ballot Information:

Initiative 110 proposes amending the Colorado statutes to:

• prohibit surgeries on minors that alter their biological sex characteristics as a treatment in response to their perception of sex or gender, with certain exceptions; and
• prohibit the use of state or federal funds or insurance coverage to pay for these surgeries.

The measure prohibits surgery on minors for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics as a treatment in response to the minor’s perception of sex or gender. The measure does not list specific surgical procedures that are prohibited; instead, the prohibition is based on the reason that a surgery is performed on a minor. The prohibition includes gender-affirming surgeries, which are a range of procedures that may be provided to transgender individuals to make their physical appearance match their gender identity. Examples include altering, removing, or reconstructing sexual and reproductive organs; modifying body shape; changing facial appearance; or altering vocal characteristics. The measure may also limit other surgeries for minors, including non-transgender minors, if the treatment is interpreted as being in response to the minor’s sex or gender perception. Initiative 110 allows male circumcision and treatments for medically verifiable disorders of sex development or acquired physical or chemical abnormalities. Non-surgical gender-related treatments, such as social transition options and counseling, are also not restricted by the measure.

Arguments against:

• A “no” vote on Initiative 110 maintains Colorado law, which protects access to surgery altering minors’ biological sex 16 characteristics and allows public and private health insurance programs to pay for these surgeries.
• There are real medical exceptions that are missing from this measure. Kids with a medical need would be at risk of not being able to get care if it was deemed “gender affirming”.
• Doctors would not be able to prescribe necessary care.

Other Groups that Oppose:
Colorado PTA, Families Not Politics, One Colorado, Rocky Mountain Equality, Inside Out Youth Services, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Cobalt Advocates

Ballot language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes capping the state income tax rate at 4.4% of federal taxable income for individuals and corporations?

Ballot Information:

Starting with the tax year beginning January 1, 2027, and all future tax years thereafter, this measure looks to cap income tax at the current 4.4%.

The Graduated Income Tax Measure and this Income Tax Rate Cap Ballot measure are in contradiction of each other. If Amendment 87 (GIT) passes, it will increase CO revenue. If both measures pass, there is some confusion as to what would happen. Some say the one that receives the most votes gets implemented, or just parts of 87 (ie. keep the overall rate 4.4% but allow lower-income people to pay less. This would reduce the total Colorado revenue.)

Arguments against:

• The rich should pay their fair share – reduces burden on poorer taxpayers
• Colorado faces budget problems and has to cut services in Healthcare, Education, childcare, etc) This would increase the revenue shortfall.
• Allows more flexibility in governing Colorado and providing needed services.Other Groups that Oppose:

Other groups that oppose:
Protect Colorado’s Future, Vote Common Sense,Colorado Immigration Rights Coalition Action Fund, Cobalt Foundation, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Conservation Colorado, Colorado Fund for Children and Public Education, Colorado PTA

Ballot language:

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new law to increase water and land conservation funding without raising taxes, and, in connection therewith, through a voter-approved revenue change, allowing the state to keep and spend a portion of revenue from the state sales tax on sporting goods and equipment to conserve and protect Colorado’s water, land, and forests, prevent wildfires, support outdoor recreation training and activities, and reduce revenue spent on these conservation purposes if necessary to preserve funding for certain tax credits?

Ballot Information:

The state’s Legislative Council Staff estimated about $175 million could be redirected to conservation and wildfire prevention, compared with $12.4 million to the Healthy School Meals for All Program in 2025

Arguments against:

• Potential greenwashing of industrial logging for wildfire prevention given that the main backer, The Nature Conservancy, has been supportive of logging interests and has ties with large companies
• Reduces budget for the ‘perpetually short’ state General Fund, restricting the ability of legislators to allocate funds according to their judgment of the needs of Colorado
• Reduces refunds to Colorado residents under TABOR by about $175 million

Other groups that oppose:
The League of Women Voters of Colorado

Ballot language:

Ballot Language is not available on Jeffco Clerk or Arvada Fire websites.

Ballot Information:

Strategic Plan —Arvada Fire remains committed and on track to implement all major goals outlined in our 2024-28 Strategic Plan. Those goals covered the successful merger, wildfire preparedness and mitigation, support for employee wellness, community risk reduction (CRR), and the recruitment and retention of employees. In 2025, the addition of a Captain position in CRR helped continue to position Arvada Fire as an industry leader in the space. Arvada Fire also reached 100% staffing in 2025

Arguments for:

• The Arvada Fire Protection District will be able to maintain current levels of service
• A sales tax provides an alternative to, and some relief, property taxes
• The sales tax exemptions for many day-to-day necessities will reduce the regressive aspects of a sales tax: groceries, medicine, diapers, feminine hygiene products, agricultural supplies, services
• Expenses have increased across the board, including equipment, vehicles, training, and medical supplies. At the same time, emergency call volume grows each year — driven by more medical emergencies, greater wildfire risk, and higher training requirements

Arguments against:

• The AFPD should make adjustments to live within its current budget constraints
• A property tax is seen by some as a more predictable and direct source of funding
• Only cities should collect a sales tax
• Sales taxes are regressive
• Current sales tax in most of Arvada is 7.96%