1. Referendum -- aproposal by the Legislature which is referred to citizens for a vote
2. Initiative -- aproposal by citizens who have gathered the required number of signatures (five percent of the total number of votes cast for Secretary of State in the previous general election)

1. Amendments to the Colorado Constitution -- may be referred to the voters by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the General Assembly or may be proposed by citizens using the initiative process. Only the voters (not the legislature) can change the Colorado Constitution. These proposals are called amendments.
2. Amendments to the Revised Statutes (propositions) -- may be referred to the voters by a majority vote of both houses of the General Assembly or may be proposed by citizens using the initiative process. Although approved by voters, amendments to the Colorado Revised Statutes may subsequently be changed by the legislature. These proposals are called propositions and are changes to the statutes.
   

• Repeals the constitutional provision that requires residential property tax assessment rates equal 45% and non-residential property tax rates equal 55% of the total share of state property taxes;
• Repeals the requirement that the non-residential property tax assessment rate be fixed at 29%; and
• Repeals the requirement that the General Assembly adjust the residential assessment rate in order to maintain the 45%-55% ratio of residential to non-residential property taxes.
  

Amendment 76 - Citizenship Qualification of Electors

This proposal is a citizen initiative to change certain language pertaining to voting in the Colorado Constitution.

• Changes the language from “Every Citizen” to “ONLY A CITIZEN” of the United States; and
• Requires voters to be 18-years of age.
  

Text of measure

Background:

The eligibility requirements for voting in Colorado elections are stated in the Colorado Constitution and state law. Under current law, a U.S. citizen who is 18 years of age, has lived in the state for 22 days before an election, and has registered to vote may vote in all elections. While the Colorado Constitution guarantees the vote to “every citizen,” it does not prohibit extension of voting eligibility to persons under 18 years of age or non-citizens.

Since 2019 state law allows 17-year-olds to vote in primary elections if they will be 18 years old by the time of the general election. The proposed Amendment 76, if passed, will not affect the citizenship, residency, or voter registration requirements of current law, but it will prohibit eligibility for the 17-year-olds who are now able to vote in primary elections.

Those in favor say:This proposal guarantees the Colorado Constitution will prevent future policies to allow non-citizens to vote. Voting is a fundamental right. It will provide constitutional protections by specifying exclusively who can vote in Colorado.

Those opposed say:The proposal seeks to solve a problem that does not exist as it proposes unnecessary and potentially controversial changes to language in the Colorado Constitution. It may create voter confusion regarding state and local elections and could discourage or disenfranchise voters.

Amendment 77 - Local Voter Approval of Casino Bet Limits and Games

This proposal is an initiated amendment to the Colorado Constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning voter approved changes to limited gaming in Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek.

• Amends the state constitution to provide for local elections in the towns of Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek to revise limits applicable to gaming;
• Authorizes voters in the above named cities to increase the amount of single bet limits above $100 and to approve additional casino games; and
• Amends state law regarding casino tax revenue to allow money to go to programs to improve community college student retention and increase credentials completion, in addition to the current supplement for student financial aid and classroom instruction programs.

Background:

In 2008 Colorado voters approved a change in the state constitution to allow bet limits of $100 on casino gambling in the cities of Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek.They also approved adding the games of roulette and craps to those games which were originally allowed in 1990 (slot machines and the card games of blackjack and poker).

Under current law, seventy-eight percent of the tax revenues from gaming is distributed to the state’s public community colleges, junior colleges, and local district colleges to supplement existing state funding for student financial aid and classroom instruction programs. This ballot initiative would expand uses of this revenue to include programs to improve student retention and increase credential completion.

Those in favor say:

1. This proposal gives voters in Central City, Black Hawk and Cripple Creek the right to approve a maximum single bet of any amount and add games such as Baccarat, but not to alter gaming laws. It gives residents in the three towns the option to hold a local election and decide whether to extend betting limits and games.
2. During the pandemic, unemployment numbers show that Colorado’s three gaming towns, which have built their economies around tourism, have been battered the most. This proposal is an important step to start improving the economies in these towns.
3. The goal of this measure is to boost travel and tourism jobs while providing more tax revenue to increase the graduation rate at community colleges. Millions of dollars are being cut from community college budgets due to the pandemic.
   

Those opposed say:

1. Removing bet limits may result in increased financial problems and pathological addiction for some gamblers who would bet larger amounts of money.
2. Increased gambling in these towns could lead to impacts on other nearby communities, but they do not have a vote in this matter and would not receive compensation to deal with these impacts.
3. Gaming revenue for funding community colleges is an unstable source and is dependent on economic conditions. The benefit of any additional funding to community colleges does not outweigh all the negative aspects of this proposal.

Proposition EE - Cigarette, Tobacco and Nicotine Products Tax

This proposal is a referred measure from the legislature to increase tobacco taxes.

• Increases taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products;
• Creates a new tax on nicotine (vaping) products; and
• Authorizes the new tax revenue to be spent on expanded preschool programs, K-12 education, affordable housing, eviction legal assistance, tobacco prevention, health care and general state spending.

Proposition 113 - Adopt Agreement to Elect US President by National

Popular Vote

This proposal is a referendum petition seeking voter approval of previous legislation on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.*

• Amends Colorado statutes to allow Colorado to enter into an agreement among states to elect the President of the United States by national popular vote; and
• Takes effect when states with enough electoral votes to form a majority (270) have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

Background:

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is meant to assure that the presidential candidate with the most votes nationally will be elected president. States joining the compact agree to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of the vote in their state.

Currently voters across the United States vote for President and Vice President as a ticket with the total number of votes making up the popular vote. In December following the presidential election, electors from the Electoral College vote for President and Vice President. The US Constitution gives each state the power to appoint their electors. The Electoral College has 538 electors, the total number of senators and representatives in Congress from each state and the District of Columbia. Colorado has 9 electors.Political parties choose Colorado’s electors. In order to win the presidency, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 Electoral College votes. Colorado, along with all other states except Nebraska and Maine, awards all of its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state’s popular vote. If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral College votes, the House of Representatives chooses the President while the Senate chooses the Vice President. The last time this happened was 1824. There have been five elections which had different results between the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. The most recent ones were in 2000 and 2016, and the remainder were in the 1800’s.

The Colorado General Assembly passed legislation to join the compact in the 2019 session. Voters in Colorado have the ability to petition to review legislative actions. A petition effort gathered sufficient signatures to place this question on the 2020 ballot.

This proposal commits Colorado to award its electoral votes to the candidate for president who wins the largest share of the national popular vote. It will only take effect when states with enough electoral votes (270) to form a majority have joined the compact. Currently 15 states and the District of Columbia with 196 electoral votes have joined the compact. These numbers include Colorado.

Those in favor say:

1. The National Popular Vote guarantees the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all fifty states and ensures one person equals one vote in every Presidential election no matter where the voter lives. In 2019, the legislature and the Governor added Colorado to the National Popular Vote interstate agreement. Colorado became the 15th state to join. The National Popular Vote will become the way we elect our President once enough states representing the majority of presidential electors join the agreement.
2. The President represents the entire country and should be elected by the majority of all Americans. Every vote for President should be relevant and equal regardless of whether the person votes with the majority of that state or what size of state that person lives in.

Those opposed say:

1. Colorado’s nine electoral votes should go to the candidate who wins the most votes in Colorado, not California or Texas. National Popular Vote would move presidential election political power to big states and large metropolitan areas
2. The National Popular Vote would result in more polarized elections and less consensus-building. Under the current system, candidates work to build the broadest coalition possible to win a majority of the Electoral College by competing for swing voters in swing states. That helps prevent extreme candidates from succeeding. This proposal would motivate candidates to energize turnout in areas where they are strongest by making extreme promises.

*A ‘Yes’ vote retains Colorado’s participation in the National Popular Vote agreement.

*A ‘No’ vote removes Colorado from the National Popular Vote agreement.

Proposition 114 - Reintroduction and Management of Gray Wolves in

Colorado

This is an initiated proposal to amend the Colorado Revised Statutes to reintroduce and to manage gray wolves to Colorado.

• Develops a plan to manage and reintroduce gray wolves to Colorado west of the Continental Divide by December 31, 2023; and
• Uses state funds to assist livestock owners in preventing conflicts with gray wolves and to pay fair compensation for livestock loss.

Background:

Gray wolves inhabited the southern Rocky Mountains for years, until 1945, when the last one was killed in southwestern Colorado. Wolves evolved alongside their prey, such as deer and elk. Bringing wolves back will help restore this predator-prey balance, keeping prey and landscape they graze on healthier. Colorado is home to about 710,000 deer and elk, roughly three quarters of which live west of the Continental Divide. There are presently about 2000 wolves in the northern Rocky Mountain region. There have recently been confirmed sightings of gray wolves in Colorado It is unclear if it is a self-sustaining population.

If this proposal is approved, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission will hold statewide hearings about scientific, economic, and social considerations, and include public input on updated plans. The Commission would be responsible for wildlife management and regulation activities. They would work in conjunction with the US Fish and Wildlife regarding any federal endangered species designation, and would need federal approval prior to reintroduction of the gray wolves.

Those in favor say:

1. Reintroducing wolves would go far to restore the natural balance to the Colorado Rocky Mountain wildlife for generations to come.Without them the deer and elk population can overgraze sensitive habitats. This would ensure a permanent gray wolf population to the state and would benefit the fish, wildlife and plant communities of the region, including growth of streamside vegetation that has benefited fish, amphibians, beaver and songbirds.
2. This has been done in other states with successful recovery efforts.
   

Those opposed say:

1. The presence of wolves can cause conflict with humans and animals that live in Colorado. Gray wolves are known to prey on livestock, particularly when the deer populations are low in certain areas of the state.
2. Since gray wolves from neighboring states have already been seen, it seems that wolves may be establishing their own presence, making a program unnecessary. Allowing wolves to come back on their own would give Coloradans more time to adapt to their presence.

Proposition 115 - Prohibitions on Late-Term Abortions

This is an initiated proposal to amend the Colorado Revised Statutes to prohibit an abortion after 22 weeks gestational age of the fetus.

• Prohibits abortion after 22 weeks gestational age of the fetus;
• Allows an abortion after 22 weeks when necessary to save the life of the mother;
• Provides for a criminal penalty for anyone who performs an illegal abortion; and
• Suspends for three years the medical license of a physician who performs an illegal abortion.

Background:

Current Colorado law allows abortion at any time during a pregnancy. Prenatal screening for genetic and structural fetal abnormalities are typically completed before 22 weeks. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion before the fetus is viable. Further regulation comes from the states which may regulate or prohibit abortions after fetal viability. The state law must contain exceptions for pregnancies that endanger the woman's life or health.

There are only 6 other states and 5 countries in the world that permit late abortions.

Those in favor say:

1. This measure places a reasonable restriction on abortion after viability, while still allowing a pregnant woman several months to make a choice about her pregnancy.
2. The measure also provides an exception that allows an abortion after 22 weeks when necessary to save the life of the mother.
3. In no case, can a woman be criminalized or penalized for seeking an abortion if this measure passes. This is a balanced approach with reasonable exceptions to a very personal issue.

Those opposed say:

1. This one-size-fits-all measure would hurt real people going through unimaginably complicated personal situations.
2. Decisions around pregnancy are best made by a woman and her family, in consultation with her doctors and in accordance with her faith — not by politicians.
3. This proposal is an intentionally confusing initiative being pushed by many of the same politicians and groups who have repeatedly tried to ban abortion outright in Colorado.

Proposition 116 - State Income Tax Rate Reduction

This proposal is an initiated amendment to the Colorado Revised Statutes which decreases the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.55%.

• Reduces the state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.55% for all taxpayers on federal taxable income of every individual and corporation beginning on January 1, 2021.

The change from a progressive tax system to a flat 5% income tax for all taxpayers went into effect in the mid-1980s. The new income tax system resulted in large tax receipts for the state. These were diverted to Colorado taxpayers in the form of refunds through an initiated constitutional amendment TABOR (the Taxpayers Bill of Rights) approved by Colorado voters in 1992. The tax rate was lowered to 4.63% in the 2000’s by the legislature. Any change in the TABOR amendment or any new tax levied by Colorado governments must be approved by a vote of the people.

State income tax collections are the main source of General Fund revenue which is the primary source for financing state government operations. Currently, most of the money in the General Fund is spent on health care, education, human services and other state programs.

Those in favor say:

1. This proposal reduces income taxes for ALL Colorado taxpayers. With so many people out of work and struggling financially from the hardships of the COVID 19 pandemic, Coloradans need to keep more of their hard-earned money. Small businesses need relief from their tax burden in these hard times.
2. State revenue has risen every year for a decade. This proposal would decrease state revenues by less than 0.5% of this year’s budget. The last time Colorado made a modest reduction to its income tax rate, the state’s economy expanded. Income tax revenues actually increased by more than double the rate of inflation. Private enterprise, not more government spending, drives job creation and economic growth, which Coloradans need more than ever.
   

Those opposed say:

1. Few taxpayers would benefit from the proposed tax cut. About 75% of taxpayers would receive less than $50 a year. Wealthy people with incomes over $500,000 which represents less than 2% of taxpayers, will receive over half of the total tax savings.
2. Colorado’s economy and its people have suffered from the COVID economic and health crisis in recent months. The cuts in revenue following a tax cut would add to the losses in education, transportation, health care and other state services. At a time when much additional aid is needed, there will only be reduced funds to aid Coloradans. Resulting layoffs and reductions of critical state services will damage Colorado’s economy and quality of life even more.

Proposition 117 - Voter Approval for Certain Fee Based Enterprises

This proposal amends the Colorado Revised Statutes to require voter approval for some fee based enterprises.

• Requires voter approval for state enterprises which have or are projected to have revenues of more than $100 million from fees in the first five fiscal years; and
• Combines the revenue collected for enterprises which are created simultaneously or within the preceding five years and serve the same purpose when calculating the amount of revenue.

Background:

The Colorado Constitution defines a state enterprise as a government-owned business which issues bonds and receives less than 10% of its annual revenue from the state.It receives its revenue in return for providing a good or service. This definition was included in the 1992 TABOR amendment.

Since 1992 the number of state enterprises has risen from 6 to 22, and the amount of enterprises funds grew from $742 million dollars in 1993 to $17.9 billion in 2018.Enterprises range from Division of Wildlife (began in 1992) to the Front Range Waste Diversion Enterprise (began in 2019).All of these entities charge fees for services only from the persons using those services and none of that revenue is treated as taxes that fund general services.These revenues do not count toward the TABOR revenue limit.

Many counties and municipalities in Colorado also operate enterprises.This proposal does not affect any of them.

The proposal will require voter approval of any new enterprise that is projected by legislative fiscal personnel to receive fee revenue of more than $100 million in its first five years.If an enterprise actually receives funds in the first five years in excess of $100 million, it will have to get voter approval.After the first five years, it will not have to go to the ballot.If more than one enterprise is created which serves essentially the same person, all of their funds will be added together to measure for the $100 million voting threshold.If passed, this legislation will go into effect January 1, 2021.It will impact only the enterprises authorized after that date.

Those in favor say:

1. Fees are growing exponentially and this revenue falls outside of TABOR limitations. Use of enterprise fees is just a way to get around TABOR.
2. To make legislators accountable. this money should be made subject to oversight. Voting on fees puts the power in the people’s hands. These fees are no different than taxes andshould undergo voter approval.
   

Those opposed say:

1. Enterprise rules were approved under TABOR and are operating now as they were intended.
2. The enterprise fees make those who use the services provided pay for them, not all taxpayers.