Colorado voters are deciding on three contentious ballot measures that could fundamentally reshape the state’s tax structure, youth medical policies, and school sports programs, according to The Federalist.
The initiatives arrive as Colorado faces questions about whether its political trajectory will continue leftward or whether residents will pump the brakes on recent policy shifts that have seen businesses exit and living costs climb.
Amendment 87: Replacing the Flat Tax
Amendment 87 would dismantle Colorado’s current 4.4 percent flat income tax in favor of a graduated system with multiple brackets. Supporters, including the Bell Policy Center and Protect Colorado’s Future, maintain the change would reduce rates for most households while significantly increasing them for earners above approximately $500,000. Revenue generated from the higher brackets would be earmarked for education, health care, and early childhood programs.
The proposed system contains a notable feature that critics say will eventually affect all taxpayers: the brackets would not adjust for inflation. Nash Herman of the Independence Institute has pointed out that as incomes rise over time — often driven primarily by inflation rather than real wage growth — more taxpayers would gradually be pushed into higher tax brackets, creating what amounts to a long-term tax increase affecting Coloradans well beyond the current top income tier.
The amendment would also remove constitutional language from the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) requiring all taxable income to be taxed at a single rate. New revenue from the higher rates would be classified as a voter-approved change, exempting it from TABOR’s spending limits and refund requirements.
Business groups have raised alarms about the measure’s impact on job growth and economic development. Companies with $3 million or more in taxable profit could see their tax bills nearly double under the new structure. A 2025 Colorado Chamber of Commerce report documented that nearly 100 companies have either left the state or declined to locate there since 2019, many citing regulatory costs as a primary factor. Those departures affected an estimated 13,607 jobs.
The measure has proven controversial enough that even the Denver Post, known for its left-leaning editorial positions, has recommended voters reject it, stating that Amendment 87 “will do more harm than good.”
Proposition 134: Sex-Based Sports Eligibility
Proposition 134 would require student athletes to compete on teams designated for their biological sex, defined by reproductive systems, or on coeducational teams. Under the measure, a female student could participate on a male-designated team if no corresponding female team exists. The proposition would also bar government entities, licensing organizations, and athletic associations from penalizing schools that maintain separate teams for female students.
The measure represents citizen pushback against policies enacted by Colorado’s Democratic-controlled legislature and Governor Jared Polis, who have spent recent years expanding protections and requirements related to transgender students in schools.
Opponents contend the proposal would restrict opportunities for girls who have historically competed on boys’ teams in sports like baseball and football. They also warn it could lead to intrusive verification procedures for female athletes. The Denver Post’s editorial board characterized the measure as “bad legislation” and “mean-spirited.”
Supporters counter that biological males retain inherent physical advantages in strength, speed, and bone density even after medical transition, creating unfair competition that results in lost scholarships, reduced playing time for female athletes, and safety concerns in locker rooms. Proponents note that 27 other states have adopted similar policies.
Proposition 135: Restricting Youth Surgeries
Proposition 135 would prohibit healthcare professionals from performing surgery on anyone under 18 for the purpose of altering sex characteristics “in response to a minor’s perception of sex or gender.” The measure would also ban the use of state or federal funds, Medicaid reimbursements, or insurance coverage to pay for such procedures. Exceptions would be included for male circumcision and for treatment of certain sexual development disorders or acquired abnormalities.
The proposition follows years of policy expansion in the opposite direction. Last year, Governor Polis signed HB25-1309, the Protect Access to Gender-Affirming Health Care Act, which codified what proponents call “gender-affirming health care” as a mandatory coverage provision in individual and group insurance plans. The law defines such care broadly to include medical, surgical, behavioral, and mental health therapeutics and related services. Under that law, insurers cannot deny or limit care that a provider determines is “medically necessary,” regardless of the patient’s age or sex. It also exempts testosterone prescriptions from certain Prescription Drug Monitoring Program tracking requirements.
Major Colorado medical organizations oppose Proposition 135, arguing the ban interferes with decisions that should remain between patients, parents, and doctors, and could have broader effects on medical care. Proponents cite guidance from groups such as the American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommending that “gender-related chest, facial, and genital surgeries” wait until at least age 19. They also reference cases of detransitioners who say they were “too young to consent” to irreversible operations.
Testing Colorado’s Political Direction
The three measures arrive at a moment when Colorado’s Democratic supermajority has pushed through an extensive agenda of progressive policies. The results of those policies have become visible in economic indicators: employer departures, job losses, and rising living costs have marked recent years.
Amendment 87 represents a continuation of that policy direction, locking in what critics describe as a permanent tax increase that ignores inflation, removes a core TABOR protection, and places additional burdens on businesses that have chosen to remain in the state.
Propositions 134 and 135, by contrast, represent grassroots efforts to establish limits on recent policy shifts, particularly regarding biological sex distinctions in sports and age restrictions on irreversible medical procedures.
While these citizen-initiated measures would not reverse every recent law if passed, they would test whether Colorado voters are willing to impose boundaries on how far the state’s leftward policy shift will extend. The outcome will signal whether the state’s political transformation continues unabated or whether a significant portion of residents have decided the pendulum has swung far enough.
Source: thefederalist.com — https://thefederalist.com/2026/10/27/colorado-ballot-puts-tax-the-rich-and-trans-the-kids-to-the-test/