← Back to the live results tracker

REPORT CARD · 2026 GENERAL

Ballot Briefing

Election Day Tuesday, Nov 3, 2026. Your mail ballot must be received by 7 p.m. Prepared Oct 8, 2026. Circled grades are leans; tap the + on any item for the full write-up.

Whose ballot

Ronnie · Arapahoe County · Littleton · CD6 · HD38

Statewide ballot measures

Period 1

14 measures, highest impact first. Constitutional amendments need 55%; statutes need a simple majority (Amendment 87 is a simple majority per the Blue Book). Vote No on 136 if you vote Yes on 87.

Amendment 87 — Graduated income tax

Constitution + statute · simple majority per Blue Book Tax cut for nearly everyone, higher rates only above ~$510K taxable income, ~$2B a year for schools, health care and child care, and the Advance network is fighting it. Confidence: fairly confident Pair with NO on 136Lawsuit pendingPolis opposes

What it does

Replaces the flat 4.4% income tax (people and corporations) with six brackets from 2027: 3.7% up to $25K, 4.2% to $100K, 4.4% to $500K, then 7.4%, 7.9%, and 8.4% above $1M. The Blue Book estimates about $2B a year in new revenue, earmarked for K-12, health care and early childhood, and exempt from the TABOR cap. Most filers get a cut of up to $325; only taxable income above about $510K pays more. Brackets are not indexed to inflation.

Who's behind it

Protect Colorado's Future: Bell Policy Center, Colorado Fiscal Institute, parent and school-funding groups, Colorado WINS (state workers). Roughly $0.7M–$1.1M raised by late September, much of it in-kind from nonprofits. Donors are disclosed, but these are press figures, not checked on TRACER (UNVERIFIED).

Who opposes it

Prop 136 (Advance Colorado, Colorado Chamber), the Brighter Colorado committee (mostly undisclosed-donor Common Sense America $250K and Advance $20K), Americans for Prosperity, NFIB. Also Gov. Polis, a Democrat, who called it 'bad policy that would destroy our economy.'

Best case FOR

Nearly everyone pays less, while about $2B a year goes to schools and health care as federal cuts and Medicaid costs squeeze the budget. Graduated taxes are the federal norm and used by 27 other states; sales and property taxes fall harder on lower earners. Spending must add to, not replace, existing budgets, with an annual audit.

Best case AGAINST

A $2B tax hike concentrated on high earners, many of them small-business owners (about 30,850 of 53,640 filers over $500K have pass-through income, per the low-tax Tax Foundation). A one-time business sale can trigger the top rates. Marriage penalty, no inflation indexing, and volatile revenue. Even a Democratic governor calls it harmful.

Red flags

If 87 and 136 both pass, the Blue Book says the result is unclear and courts or the legislature decide. A suit to remove 87 from the ballot over signature-gathering is pending (no ruling found; UNVERIFIED status). Advance Colorado's billionaire backing is reported by progressive outlets, not documented.

Sources

Proposition 136 — Income tax rate cap (4.4%)

Statute · simple majority Advance Colorado measure that does nothing on its own; its only job is to tangle up Amendment 87. Confidence: confident Advance ColoradoSpoiler for 87Dark money

What it does

Caps the state income tax rate at today's 4.4% starting 2027. The rate is already 4.4%, so there is no fiscal impact by itself.

Who's behind it

Advance Colorado (undisclosed donors) and the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. Committees A Brighter Colorado ($306K by mid-Sept; $250K from Common Sense America, $20K from Advance) and Keep Colorado Affordable.

Who opposes it

Protect Colorado's Future (the Amendment 87 coalition) and Vote Common Sense. Their argument: after the election 136 has no function except to confuse and litigate 87.

Best case FOR

Locks in the rate voters approved in 2022 and guards against a $2B tax increase; supporters say 87's tax cuts could still take effect while its hikes are blocked.

Best case AGAINST

Redundant on its own; its only effect is as a spoiler against 87, and it could erase 87's middle-class cuts too, setting up court fights.

Red flags

Neutral-sounding title, poison-pill purpose. If both pass, the Blue Book calls the outcome unclear; generally the measure with more yes votes wins, but a court would decide.

Sources

Proposition NN — Keep and spend money for education

Statute · simple majority · referred by the legislature Teachers' union and school boards back it, Advance Colorado opposes it; but it quietly loosens TABOR for good and the earmarks expire after 10 years. Confidence: leaning Ends TABOR refunds 2 yrsEarmarks sunsetAdvance opposes

What it does

Lets the state keep money above the TABOR limit that would be refunded, under a much higher new cap (the headline $4.6B is a cap, not what will actually be raised; about $500M expected above the limit). Money first reimburses senior and disabled-veteran property tax breaks, then goes to a Children's Account: at least half to K-12 for 10 years (teacher pay, class size, career-tech), the rest to preschool and child care. After year 10 K-12 gets a flat amount and the legislature can spend the rest on anything. The Blue Book projects refunds are eliminated in 2026-27 ($330M) and 2027-28 ($521M).

Who's behind it

Democrats in the legislature (Sen. Jeff Bridges, also the Democratic Treasurer nominee, per reporting). Yes for Colorado Kids is led by the Colorado Education Association with about 70 groups; roughly $2M raised, including $1M from Gary Advocacy LLC and $950K from a CEA fund (disclosed; not checked on TRACER).

Who opposes it

Advance Colorado (verified), the Brighter Colorado committee, the Anschutz-owned Gazette editorial board. Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer says about 75% of the money would not reach schools, and Common Sense Institute estimates $850.9M in refunds lost through 2028 (both from search summaries; UNVERIFIED).

Best case FOR

State adequacy studies found a $3.5–4.1B yearly school shortfall. NN uses money already collected, changes no tax rate, and funds pay, class size, preschool and child care with an audit. Most households' refunds are small (tens of dollars).

Best case AGAINST

It ends refunds in the likely years and permanently raises the ceiling. After year 10 it's a blank check. Voters rejected comparable measures three times in the past seven years. School funding rose about 25% since 2021 while enrollment fell about 2% (Blue Book argument).

Red flags

Title says 'other purposes' but undersells that refunds vanish. It interacts with Prop 137 (137 shrinks what NN can retain). Opposition money is undisclosed-donor groups; support money is union plus one big nonprofit.

Sources

Amendment 86 — Off-cycle congressional redistricting rules

Constitutional · needs 55% Advance Colorado and a Mike Johnson PAC built it to take away Colorado Democrats' option to redraw maps mid-decade. On principle (anti-gerrymander) it's closer to Mixed. Confidence: moderate Advance ColoradoSpeaker Johnson PAC $250KHard to undo

What it does

Any mid-decade change to congressional maps must be approved by the independent redistricting commission (after 3+ public hearings) and adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court, and can't intentionally favor a party. Today the constitution has no process for mid-decade redraws; maps are redrawn after each census (next 2031).

Why it's on the ballot

Colorado Democrats' own mid-decade redistricting measure was struck unanimously by the Colorado Supreme Court in June on single-subject grounds. Amendment 86 is the Republican-aligned counter that would make such a redraw much harder, as other states redraw.

Who's behind it

Advance Colorado (Michael Fields). Fair Redistricting Colorado received $250,000 in August from American Revival PAC, created by House Speaker Mike Johnson. Advance's donors are undisclosed; the Anschutz tie is reported, not documented.

Who opposes it

Colorado Draws the Line (Democratic issue committee; no money reported by early Sept). The failed Democratic effort said it won't campaign against.

Best case FOR

Even-handed on its face: bars partisan gerrymanders by either party, requires public hearings and independent review, honors the 2018 vote for an independent commission.

Best case AGAINST

Unilateral disarmament while Republican states redraw freely, and it puts a double veto (commission plus Supreme Court) between voters and any new map. Constitutional, so it takes another 55% vote to undo.

Sources

Amendment 81 — Law enforcement must report charged people to ICE/DHS

Constitutional · needs 55% Advance Colorado measure that sends people to immigration authorities on mere charges, before any finding of guilt. Confidence: confident Advance ColoradoDark money $250KImmigrant protection

What it does

Requires police, jails and DA staff to notify the federal Department of Homeland Security within 72 hours of filing charges if the person's lawful presence can't be confirmed after a 'reasonable attempt' and the charge is a violent crime, or any charge at all if they have a prior felony. Notice happens at charging, before guilt is determined.

Who's behind it

Reported as an Advance Colorado measure (Colorado Politics). Committee A Brighter Colorado raised $311K by Sept 21; top donor Common Sense America ($250K), a group that does not disclose donors. Direct TRACER pull not done (UNVERIFIED).

Who opposes it

Colorado Communities First ($200K+; Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition $158K, ACLU $58.6K), The People's No, Vote Common Sense, several district attorneys and immigrant advocates.

Best case FOR

Colorado's 2019 law bars proactive reporting even when someone unlawfully present is charged with serious violence. Supporters say the state shouldn't shield people accused of violent crimes or repeat felons, and one statewide rule beats a patchwork. It targets violent charges and prior felons, not otherwise law-abiding immigrants.

Best case AGAINST

Charges are allegations; a person may be innocent or legally present and unable to prove it in 72 hours. 'Reasonable effort' and 'lawful presence' are undefined (profiling risk). The prior-felony prong sweeps in any minor charge, however old. Fewer immigrants may report crimes. As a constitutional change, the legislature couldn't fix it.

Red flags

Amendments 81 and 82 both add 'section 17, article XVIII' to the constitution; if both pass, the numbering collides (how it gets resolved is UNVERIFIED).

Sources

Amendment 84 — Mail ballot voter ID

Constitutional · needs 55% Adds a hurdle to Colorado's main way of voting to fix a rare problem, with $4.2M of out-of-state undisclosed money behind it and a reported Advance Colorado link. Confidence: fairly confident Advance link reportedOut-of-state dark moneyVoting access

What it does

For federal and statewide elections, mail voters must write the last four digits of a Social Security number, Colorado driver's license or ID number on the return envelope, in addition to signing. A missing or non-matching number means the county contacts the voter, and the ballot isn't counted unless fixed within 8 days after Election Day. Cost: up to $2.7M in year one, about $1.2M a year after.

Who's behind it

Committee Colorado Voter Trust Initiative raised $4.2M by Sept 21: Coalition for American Prosperity and Growth (Ohio) $2.25M, A Public Voice (VA) $1M, American Jobs and Growth Fund (VA) $1M. Ultimate donors are undisclosed. Colorado Politics lists it among six Advance Colorado measures, but I found no Advance donation to this committee, so that funding link is UNVERIFIED.

Who opposes it

Defend Our Ballots, Vote Common Sense (about $495K), League of Women Voters.

Best case FOR

ID numbers are objective compared with subjective signature matching; most voters have one; it builds public confidence. The sponsor argues two factors could allow looser signature matching and fewer rejections.

Best case AGAINST

Adds a hurdle to a system used by about 92% of 2024 voters with no demonstrated security gain; eligible ballots can be lost to typos; young, elderly, low-income and new-citizen voters are likelier to be hit; unfunded county costs; constitutional, so hard to fix.

Sources

Proposition 132 — Tougher penalties for fentanyl crimes

Statute · simple majority Advance Colorado measure: mandatory 8–32 years for distributing any amount (including sharing), about $68M a year in unfunded prison cost, no judicial discretion. Confidence: confident Advance ColoradoMandatory minimums$68M/yr by year 5

What it does

Makes possession of any fentanyl amount a felony (under 1 gram becomes a treatment-mandated felony, reducible after treatment) and requires 8–32 years in prison for distributing any amount, including sharing. Removes the Good Samaritan reduction and the 'didn't know it was fentanyl' mitigation. State cost rises from $0.9M in year 1 to about $68.2M a year by year 5, plus possible prison construction, with no funding source.

Who's behind it

Advance Colorado, per Rocky Mountain Voice and the designated representatives' filings. Supporting committees: A Brighter Colorado ($250K from Common Sense America is not clearly 132-specific) and Eagle County Republican Women Club. Advance's donors are undisclosed.

Who opposes it

Coloradans for Real Safety Solutions ($1.1M: Lynn Schusterman $500K, ACLU of Colorado $200.5K, others), The People's No, Vote Common Sense, and the Colorado Democratic Party.

Best case FOR

Fentanyl is the leading cause of overdose death in the state and lethal in tiny amounts. Supporters say the 2019/2022 reforms were too lenient, that mandatory prison takes dealers off the street, and the under-1-gram treatment track pushes users toward rehab. Many DAs and sheriffs backed tougher law.

Best case AGAINST

Shared use between friends becomes an 8–32 year offense; Good Samaritan protection is removed, which may discourage calling 911; no evidence longer sentences cut deaths; about $68M a year diverted from treatment, schools and housing; felony convictions can carry immigration consequences.

Sources

Proposition 134 — Male and female participation in school sports

Statute · simple majority Statewide biological-sex rule for every school team from age 5 through college, written by social-conservative groups, with no way to verify and opposed by labor and LGBTQ coalitions. Confidence: fairly confident Protect Kids ColoradoNo verification methodFederal funding fight

What it does

Every school-based team, public to private, elementary through college, must be male-only, female-only or coed, by biological sex. Girls may play on a boys' team if no girls' team exists in that sport. Bars CHSAA and accreditors from penalizing schools that keep a girls' team female-only. No verification method is set. Replaces the current CHSAA process, which evaluates transgender students case by case.

Who's behind it

Protect Kids Colorado (co-founders Erin Lee and former GOP state Sen. Kevin Lundberg); about $135K–$160K across its three measures from Pikes Peak Citizens for Life, groups tied to evangelist Andrew Wommack, and an undisclosed-donor 501(c)(4). No reporting found tying it to Advance Colorado, Heritage/Project 2025 or Alliance Defending Freedom (UNVERIFIED either way).

Who opposes it

Families Not Politics (about $1.39M: One Colorado Education Fund, Cobalt, ACLU, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and others), No on 134 and 135, Protect Trans Kids, The People's No, and the Colorado Democratic Party. Opponents have roughly 8–9 times the money.

Best case FOR

Sex-separated sports exist because average physical differences matter for fairness, injury risk and scholarships. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2026 that states may keep sex-separated sports by biological sex, and the NCAA and 27 states follow similar rules. Transgender students keep a place on coed teams.

Best case AGAINST

Targets a very small group with a statewide ban reaching 8-year-olds in intramurals; forces every school to police sex, risking invasive scrutiny of any athletic girl; may conflict with Colorado's anti-discrimination act; the science on transgender girls who haven't gone through male puberty is disputed. The Supreme Court ruling lets states do this; it doesn't require it.

Sources

Proposition 135 — Ban surgery on minors for sex/gender 'perception'

Statute · simple majority Colorado hospitals say they already don't do these surgeries on under-18s, so the real effect is the broad wording and the ban on insurance and Medicaid coverage. Confidence: fairly confident Protect Kids ColoradoVague exemptionsInsurance ban

What it does

Bans surgery on anyone under 18 performed to alter biological sex characteristics 'in response to a minor's perception of sex or gender,' and bars state, federal, Medicaid and private insurance funds from paying for it. It names no procedures; the ban turns on purpose. Exempts circumcision and medically verifiable disorders of sex development (terms undefined). It does not restrict hormones, blockers, counseling or social transition.

Who's behind it

Protect Kids Colorado (same committee as 133 and 134). No reporting found tying it to Heritage/Project 2025, Alliance Defending Freedom or Advance Colorado; the national context is a broad movement (27 states restrict youth gender surgery per KFF), not evidence of a specific group's involvement (UNVERIFIED).

Who opposes it

Families Not Politics, No on 134 and 135, Protect Trans Kids, The People's No, Vote Common Sense, One Colorado, ACLU, Planned Parenthood; the Colorado Democratic Party.

Best case FOR

Surgery is permanent, minors may not grasp lifelong consequences, long-term data are limited and some people regret it. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommends delaying gender-related surgery to age 19. The measure mostly codifies what big Colorado pediatric hospitals say they already do and leaves hormones and counseling alone.

Best case AGAINST

Extremely rare procedures decided by patient, parents and doctors; the purpose-based wording could sweep in other care (for example, breast surgery for gynecomastia, which a Harvard study found is mostly cisgender boys) and insurers will resolve doubts conservatively. Medical bodies are split on surgery timing.

Sources

Amendment 82 — Constitutional right to buy and sell natural gas

Constitutional · needs 55% Advance Colorado measure that protects utilities' right to sell gas as much as your right to buy it, and could undercut local and state climate rules. Confidence: confident Advance ColoradoBackers unknownUtility power

What it does

Adds two sentences to the constitution: consumers have the right to buy natural gas for cooking or heating in homes and businesses, and distributors and utilities have the right to sell it. No immediate change, but it may limit state and local power to enforce gas rules such as all-electric new-construction codes.

Who's behind it

Reported as an Advance Colorado measure (Colorado Politics). The committee, Energy Freedom Alliance of the Rockies, had reported no contributions as of Sept 21, so the funders are unknown (UNVERIFIED).

Who opposes it

No Pollution in the Constitution ($317K, almost all from Conservation Colorado), Vote Common Sense, Sierra Club Colorado (per search snippet; page blocked).

Best case FOR

Gas is the main heating fuel for most Colorado homes, cheap and reliable in deep cold. Electrification mandates can raise upfront costs for renters, low-income and rural households, and some cities are banning gas hookups. A constitutional guard gives certainty.

Best case AGAINST

Burning gas emits greenhouse gases and air pollution; entrenching it hampers climate and health policy and local control of building codes. It protects utilities' right to sell, not just consumers' right to buy. Vague 'right' language invites lawsuits against safety and emissions rules, and no other state has comparable constitutional language.

Red flags

Shares 'section 17, article XVIII' with Amendment 81. One Legislative Council web page mislabels it 'Amendment 83'; the ballot calls it 82.

Sources

Proposition 133 — Mandatory life without parole for child sex trafficking

Statute · simple majority Popular and the harm is real, but it removes all judicial discretion with a mandatory life-without-parole sentence, which cuts against your anti-mandatory-minimum rule. A defensible Yes for some voters. Confidence: low — closest call Protect Kids ColoradoNo judicial discretionNot an Advance measure

What it does

Makes child sex trafficking a class 1 felony with mandatory life in prison without parole (today it's a class 2 felony: 8–48 years). Also expands the crime to include buying sex with a minor, so buyers face life too. Cost is small and delayed: about $180,000 starting in 2041-42.

Who's behind it

Protect Kids Colorado (the same committee as 134 and 135, which CLAUDE.md listed only for those two). No reporting found tying it to Advance Colorado, Heritage/Project 2025 or Alliance Defending Freedom (UNVERIFIED).

Who opposes it

Vote Common Sense and the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (per Colorado Politics). The state Democratic Party had no position on its summary page (UNVERIFIED).

Best case FOR

Child sex trafficking is among the worst crimes; someone who buys or sells a child should never be free to harm another. A bright-line penalty is clear, closes the 'buyer' gap in the definition, and many voters across parties will find it reasonable.

Best case AGAINST

Certainty of punishment deters more than severity; a no-discretion rule can't tell a trafficker from a coerced teen recruiter; automatic life may make victims less willing to testify and give prosecutors plea-deal leverage; life without parole for a non-homicide offense is a values question for anyone opposed to permanent incarceration.

Red flags

Same sponsor as 134/135; the popular item may build turnout for the other two (my observation, not reported). Voting Yes or No here does not commit you on 134 or 135.

Sources

Amendment 85 — Plain-language ballot titles (8th-grade level)

Constitutional · needs 55% Sounds harmless, and some non-Advance allies back it, but it's an Advance Colorado measure and the second half could override required fiscal-impact language in tax-cut initiative titles. Confidence: low — closest call on the ballot Advance ColoradoFriendly title, hidden clauseAuto-No rule

What it does

Requires ballot titles to be written in plain language at no more than an eighth-grade reading level. It also bars laws that require specific wording in citizen-initiative titles when that wording interferes with plain language; referred measures from the legislature are not subject to that part. Current law already requires plain language but sets no grade level.

Who's behind it

Advance Colorado. Committee A Brighter Colorado raised $306,625 by mid-Sept, including $250K from Common Sense America (undisclosed donors, D.C.-area mailbox address). Also supported by Amber McReynolds (unaffiliated, former Denver elections director), Courageous Colorado's advocacy arm, African Leadership Group, Let Colorado Vote.

Who opposes it

Vote Common Sense (about $495K, liberal coalition) and Bell Policy Center. Reports differ on the League of Women Voters (UNVERIFIED).

Best case FOR

Colorado ballot questions are among the hardest to read in the country; a concrete benchmark helps ordinary voters, and a constitutional shield stops legislators from adding confusing boilerplate.

Best case AGAINST

The standard is vague and redundant with a 2026 law, and the override clause could strip existing disclosures (taxpayer impact, cuts to the three largest budget areas for tax-cut initiatives). Even the word 'fiscal' may exceed eighth-grade level, per Bell's Joshua Mantell.

Sources

Proposition 137 — Sporting-goods sales tax to conservation

Statute · simple majority Good goals and no Advance/Project 2025 ties, but it locks about $175M a year of general-fund money away from schools and health care, and the state Democratic committee opposes it. Tips to Yes only if conservation is a top priority. Confidence: genuinely split No new taxCuts TABOR refundsCompetes with schools/health

What it does

Directs the existing state sales tax on sporting goods (bikes, camping, hunting and fishing gear, boats, RVs) to conservation and exempts it from TABOR. No new tax. About $175M in 2027-28: 47.5% to Great Outdoors Colorado, 47.5% to wildfire mitigation and forest and watershed work, 5% to outdoor equity programs. The transfer can shrink if it would reduce the Family Affordability or expanded EITC credits.

Who's behind it

Protect Colorado's Land and Water and Prevent Wildfires, about $2.96M by late Aug: The Nature Conservancy $1.57M, a California fund $300K, Trust for Public Land $200K+. Backers include GOCO, Western Resource Advocates, Denver Water board, former officials Salazar, Udall and Ritter. Donors are disclosed (press figures; UNVERIFIED on TRACER).

Who opposes it

League of Women Voters of Colorado, the Colorado Democratic Party's State Central Committee (budget concerns), a small committee (Protect Colorado's Land, Communities, and Tax Dollars), and two forest-science groups skeptical of thinning. No well-funded opposition committee found.

Best case FOR

No new tax; links people who buy outdoor gear to protecting the outdoors; nearly doubles GOCO, multiplies wildfire and forest funding about 5×, and funds outdoor equity programs. Parks & Wildlife has about $900M in five-year capital needs and federal support is unreliable.

Best case AGAINST

Locks about $175M+ a year of the general fund into one purpose while the state faces roughly $1B annual shortfalls and federal cuts; in down years health care, education and human services lose. It reduces TABOR refunds in surplus years and reduces what Prop NN can retain. Less annual legislative review of how it's spent.

Sources

Amendment 83 — Constitutional right to hunt and fish

Constitutional · needs 55% Not an Advance or Project 2025 measure and not a left-right fight, but it's heavily out-of-state funded and 'traditional methods' could be used to challenge the 1996 trapping ban. Confidence: slightly No No Advance tie foundOut-of-state hunting lobbyTrapping-ban risk

What it does

Creates a constitutional right to hunt, fish and 'take' fish and wildlife by 'traditional methods' (undefined), except nongame, endangered or federally protected species. Declares hunting and fishing the state's preferred way to manage wildlife, leaves trespass law alone, and keeps state power to regulate when 'necessary' for science, public safety or preserving hunting and fishing.

Who's behind it

Vote Yes on 83, about $1.8M through Sept 21, the most of any committee: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance (Virginia, $412K of $647K by two committees), Safari Club International $50K. No Advance Colorado or Heritage tie found (UNVERIFIED; TRACER not retrieved).

Who opposes it

Colorado's Wildlife Deserve Better, Project Coyote (First Gentleman Marlon Reis quoted), Sierra Club Colorado (per search snippet).

Best case FOR

About a third of Parks & Wildlife's budget (about $115M) comes from license sales; a constitutional right guards that heritage and rural economy from future ballot bans, and 24 other states have similar clauses. The text excludes endangered species, keeps trespass law and preserves regulatory power.

Best case AGAINST

Constitutions should protect fundamental rights, not recreation, and hunting isn't under threat. 'Traditional methods' and 'necessary' are vague and could invite suits against rules voters and Parks & Wildlife already adopted, including the 1996 trapping restrictions (Project Coyote's reading; a court outcome is UNVERIFIED).

Sources

Top of the ticket

Period 2

Statewide and federal races; forecasters rate all of them Solid or Safe Democratic, and no general-election polls turned up.

Governor / Lt. Governor — Phil Weiser (D) vs. Victor Marx (R)

Statewide · Safe D per forecasters; no polling found Weiser has the strongest anti-Trump litigation record of any statewide Democrat (60+ suits); he is mainstream, not socialist. Marx has a $57K campaign-finance fine, disproven résumé claims and ducked debates. Confidence: practical Yes, caveats Weiser: corporate-adjacent historyMarx: honesty flagsMarkert: openly pro-Trump
Vote: Weiser / Dahlkemper

Weiser (D)

Two-term Attorney General, term-limited; beat Sen. Michael Bennet in the June 30 primary. Campaign says no corporate PAC money and ~88% of donations from Coloradans; raised ~$5.6M by April (campaign figures). Running mate Lesley Dahlkemper is a Jefferson County commissioner and former CPR journalist. No Advance Colorado or Project 2025 tie found.

Weiser caveats

Bennet's campaign alleged 'pay-to-play' over Comcast and TurboTax donations while his office litigated against them; his spokesperson called the claims old and disproven. In 2022 he was the oil-and-gas-friendly establishment choice. A 2025 campaign-finance complaint was reported; outcome UNVERIFIED.

Marx (R)

Ministry founder, first-time candidate, Marine veteran; narrowly won the GOP primary over Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer. About $2.3M raised through April. State assessed a ~$57,647 fine for over-limit contributions. Résumé issues: a site claim of rescuing 45,000 women and children was removed after being disproved; a claimed Bill Owens endorsement was denied by Owens; he skipped most debates. No Trump endorsement found (UNVERIFIED). Calls Colorado abortion 'wholesale slaughter' (via progressive Colorado Times Recorder). No Advance or Heritage money found.

Markert (R, Lt. Gov.)

Retired Marine colonel; said in 2025 he disagreed with nothing Trump had done so far and would have voted yes on the 'Big Beautiful Bill.'

Others

Greg Lopez (Unaffiliated; ex-GOP congressman) / Taralyn Romero; Erik Mulder (L) / Wayne Harlos; Stephen Hamilton (AC); Jeff Peckman (Unity); Erik Underwood (Approval Voting). Nothing notable. Official ticket list not checked against the SoS (page 404'd).

Sources

U.S. Senate — John Hickenlooper (D) vs. Mark Baisley (R)

Federal · Safe D; no polling found Not your pick (you backed Julie Gonzales), but Baisley is a Trump-aligned conservative with a nearly empty campaign. Hickenlooper falls short of your 'fighter' test; his current record opposes Trump. Confidence: practical Yes, caveats Voted to confirm Trump nomineesSkipped primary debatesAIPAC claim UNVERIFIED
Vote: Hickenlooper

Hickenlooper (D)

Age 74, ex-Denver mayor and governor, Senator since 2021; beat Julie Gonzales by about 15 points. Raised ~$10.3M by June 30 (FEC via Wikipedia). Now opposes the Iran war, tariffs and ICE tactics, and supports dismantling ICE (per KUNC).

Where he falls short

Gonzales criticized him for voting to confirm many Trump nominees (Wright, Burgum, Bessent; the count is disputed, 10 vs. 'nearly half'), 'poll-tested incrementalism,' and refusing primary forums. Opposes Medicare for All and a fracking ban. A partisan release claims $333K+ from AIPAC-linked donors (UNVERIFIED against FEC).

Baisley (R)

State senator from Woodland Park, age 71, ex-aerospace engineer; raised only ~$138.6K by June 30. States United lists him as promoting election conspiracy claims (I did not read the original). No Project 2025 or Advance tie found. Platform: shrink government, property-tax reform, water tunnels.

Others

Blake Huber (L), Adam Withrow (Unity), Bob Chew (Forward), Christopher Baum (Approval Voting). Nothing notable. A protest vote for a minor party is your call.

Sources

Attorney General — Jena Griswold (D) vs. Michael Allen (R)

Statewide · Safe D per Sabato Not your first pick (Seligman), but a clear Trump-fighter and anti-monopoly voice against a DA who pledges to drop many suits against the administration. Confidence: practical Yes, caveats 2024 password leakNo prosecutor experienceAllen would drop suits
Vote: Griswold

Griswold (D)

Secretary of State since 2019, term-limited; won the primary with ~44%. Calls Trump's actions a 'campaign of retribution' and pledges to take on monopolies, grocery mergers and data centers. Endorsed by labor unions, Everytown, EMILYs List and others. No Advance or Project 2025 tie found; itemized donors not retrieved.

Competence flags

A 2024 spreadsheet exposed election-equipment BIOS passwords; an independent review found it unintentional but a policy violation, and the Denver DA called it 'sloppy,' not criminal. 2025 campaign-finance complaints (missing employer data on 492 contributions); final outcome UNVERIFIED. She has never been a practicing prosecutor, which is a fair criticism.

Allen (R)

El Paso/Teller DA since 2021, Navy veteran, 20+ years a prosecutor, prosecuted the Club Q shooter. Criticizes Weiser's ~82 suits against the administration and has pledged to withdraw from many. Per Griswold he opposes laws protecting Coloradans from ICE and backed a gestational abortion ban (her characterization; his statement UNVERIFIED). Backed by police unions, Bill Owens, John Suthers. Funders not retrieved.

Sources

Secretary of State — Amanda Gonzalez (D) vs. James Wiley (R)

Statewide · Safe D per Sabato Gonzalez defends mail voting; Wiley's platform would dismantle it (delete the voter rolls, end universal mail ballots, decertify machines) and he reportedly believes Trump won 2020. Confidence: confident Wiley: election-denial platformLibertarian name changed
Vote: Gonzalez

Gonzalez (D)

Jefferson County Clerk & Recorder, ex-head of Colorado Common Cause, attorney; beat Sen. Jessie Danielson ~63–37. Backed by Our Revolution, Colorado Working Families Party, EMILYs List, Everytown. Pledges to defend mail voting. No scandals, no Advance tie found; itemized donors not retrieved.

Wiley (R)

Former executive director of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, switched to the GOP; ran unopposed in the primary. Self-stated platform: decertify electronic voting machines, one-day in-person voting with ID, paper ballots and hand counts, end universal mail ballots. Reported: delete the voter rolls and require in-person re-registration (a similar 2024 bill carried a $9.3M fiscal note; a Republican clerks-association leader called it 'stunningly stupid'). Reportedly believes Trump won 2020 (his own words not located; UNVERIFIED as a quote). Supporters see these as security reforms.

Others

Sean Vadney (L) replaced Alex Astley after Astley withdrew and a Denver judge allowed it; Amanda Campbell (AC); Celeste Landry (Forward).

Sources

U.S. House, CD6 — Jason Crow (D) vs. Jason Clark (R)

Federal · your district · Safe D per forecasters Reliable anti-Trump vote who took personal risk doing it; mainstream, not DSA, with fair left critiques. Clark has raised $0 and has no documented Trump stance. Confidence: confident Palantir donors $15.5KLeft critique on GazaMinor-party names unverified
Vote: Crow

Crow (D)

Army Ranger veteran, House Armed Services, seeking a fifth term. Raised ~$3.2M by June 30, no corporate PAC money. Voted against the July 2026 NDAA over Trump's Iran war; one of six lawmakers in the Nov 2025 video urging troops to refuse illegal orders (Trump called it sedition; the DOJ contacted Crow). Pressed oversight of the GEO ICE facility in Aurora.

Left critiques

Palantir executives and employees gave $15,500, drawing protest at a May town hall; protesters also criticized his Gaza policy. No AIPAC link found.

Clark (R)

Aurora financial advisor; Colorado Politics calls him a 'perennial hopeful.' $0 raised as of June 30. Probably the same Jason Clark who ran for governor in 2010 and 2014 (UNVERIFIED). Replaced Mel Tewahade as the Republican nominee. No Trump statement, Advance or Project 2025 tie found.

Others

Patty McMahon (L) per one source, John Kittleson (L) per another; Meredith Ryan (Unity); Samir Ezzeldin Witta (Unaffiliated). Check your ballot for the Libertarian.

Sources

State Treasurer — Jeff Bridges (D) vs. Kevin Grantham (R)

Statewide · low stakes, thin data Housing and PERA-protective platform fits your values better, but neither candidate is a Trump fighter by role and funding and Trump-stance data are thin. Confidence: low Thin dataBridges is also NN's sponsor
Vote: Bridges

Bridges (D)

State senator and Joint Budget Committee chair; wants more state investment in housing, infrastructure and renewables, keep PERA on track to zero unfunded liability by 2048, and stop raiding the Unclaimed Property Fund. Prime sponsor of Proposition NN per reporting. No scandals, no Advance tie found; funders not retrieved.

Grantham (R)

Fremont County commissioner and former state Senate President (2017–18); would cut treasurer's-office staff growth and press harder on PERA liability. Funders and Trump stance not found.

Others

Jodie Barr (L) would move new PERA hires to defined contribution; Marilee Langner Sturgis (Approval Voting), nothing notable.

Sources

Closer to home

Period 3

Your district, city, county and local questions.

Arapahoe County Sheriff — Tyler Scott Brown (D) vs. Kevin Edling (R)

County-wide · no primary this year Brown's stated detainer policy follows Colorado law, which beats the unknown from Edling; but July 2026 arrests of ICE-office protesters and old honesty questions cut the other way. Confidence: low enthusiasm 2024 spending-authority disputeJuly 2026 protester citationsEdling's ICE stance unknown
Vote: Brown

Correction to your notes

I found no Democratic primary challenger to Brown in 2026. The scrutiny you remember is from older events and Edling's attack lines.

Brown (D), sheriff since 2019

2021 bar altercation: the Denver DA declined charges but called his conduct 'irresponsible and unprofessional.' July 2024: county commissioners stripped his spending authority over claims his office diverted $300K+ via a school-resource-officer payment split (he denies wrongdoing; says the $190K was repaid; the DA-review outcome is UNVERIFIED). Voters rejected a $464M jail by over 2 to 1. In Oct 2026 he fired and had arrested a deputy over alleged misconduct with an inmate. ICE: his office says it won't hold anyone solely on an ICE detainer. But on July 20, 2026 deputies detained and cited four protesters outside the ICE field office in Centennial (ACLU criticized; no Brown statement found). Campaign has tiny funds ($875 raised in the July filing).

Edling (R)

Retired Denver police commander (26–27 years) and Air National Guard member, lost to Brown in 2022 (55.6–41.4). Platform: car-theft arrests, adopt Aurora's chase policy, oppose a costly new jail, 'restore ethics.' Trump, ICE and 287(g) stances not found (UNVERIFIED). Tiny funds ($2,499 balance).

Sources

County Clerk & Recorder — Joan Lopez (D) vs. Annette Budd (R)

County-wide · runs your elections The clerk runs your elections; Budd's fraud-skeptic framing and voter-ID push make this the most consequential county race. Lopez's 2025 records mishap was a communication failure, not tampering. Confidence: confident 2025 cast-vote-record errorBudd: no 2020-denial statement found
Vote: Lopez

Lopez (D)

25+ years in the office, elected clerk in 2018 and 2022. In 2025 her office corrected the public 2020 cast-vote-record file after a redaction and formatting error; critics say the fix was posted quietly. The clerks association said no votes were altered and the election was audited; even a critical Gazette columnist called it incompetence, not theft.

Budd (R)

Platform: restore walk-in DMV service and 'restore trust.' Her answers lean on election-fraud framing ('way too many doors open for fraud'), cite the 2024 SoS password posting and the 2025 records episode, and call for voter ID. No explicit 2020-denial statement found; background not found (UNVERIFIED).

Sources

State House HD38 — Gretchen Rydin (D) and three others

Your district · four candidates, no Republican The only Democrat in a field with a conservative independent. Madrigal opposes Prop NN and favors the 'parental rights' agenda; Rydin's actual votes weren't examined. Confidence: moderate No Republican filedMadrigal = de facto GOPRydin's record not vetted
Vote: Rydin

Rydin (D, incumbent)

Former Littleton at-large councilmember; won the seat in 2024. No scandals found. Funders and voting record not pulled (UNVERIFIED).

Allison Madrigal (Unaffiliated)

Qualified by petition after the Republican nominee withdrew in March for illness; Republicans helped gather signatures. Founder of an anti-trafficking hotline; self-reported positions: opposes Prop NN, pro-life, 'parental rights,' school choice, pro-gun. Source is a conservative-leaning outlet, so this is her own framing.

Others

Tim Martin (Center Party) and Norm Olsen (Libertarian); no campaign sites or answers found.

State Senate

No State Senate race should be on your ballot (HD38 pairs with SD16, Kolker, next up 2028). Not address-verified; see the check box below.

Sources

CU Regent, CD6 — Ilana Spiegel (D), Veanessa Burbage (R), Joe Johnson (L)

Your district · six-year term · board is 5–4 Democratic Mostly about keeping the board majority as federal pressure on higher ed grows; Spiegel's votes on tuition and labor weren't examined and Burbage's platform is partisan. Confidence: low Swing seat for board controlVotes not researched
Vote: Spiegel

Who

Spiegel, incumbent since 2020, declined CPR's interview. Burbage (R) is a first-time candidate who wants more Republicans on the board and to protect free speech for 'Christians, Jews, and white boys.' Johnson (L), a Frederick town trustee, wants to privatize Colorado universities. Funders and Trump stances not found (UNVERIFIED).

Sources

Littleton Public Schools Issue 4A — $10.29M mill levy override

Local · property tax · simple majority Pays teachers and staff and stops pay freezes at a district with a $10.6M gap; about $150 a year on a $600,000 home. Property tax is less progressive than the income tax you favor. Confidence: moderate No organized opposition foundNo sunset in ballot text
Vote: Yes on 4A

What it does

Raises property taxes about $10.29M in 2026 (collected 2027), then up to one mill a year, for teacher recruitment and retention, safety and career-tech programs. About $25 per $100,000 of assessed value per the district; roughly $150 a year on a $600,000 home. Funds a 2% raise for all staff and cancels an $800,000 furlough day.

Who's behind it

The school board voted unanimously to refer it; Superintendent Todd Lambert supports it. Committee: Citizens for Littleton Public Schools. Donors not pulled from TRACER (UNVERIFIED). The campaign says it's unrelated to Prop NN.

Who opposes it

No committee or published opposition found (UNVERIFIED that none exists). LPS's 2020 override passed with about 57.9%.

Best case FOR

The $10.6M gap comes from the state funding formula change and enrollment falling from ~18,000 to just under 13,000. The district has already cut central-office staff and froze wages; this would be levy-funded staff pay for the first time since 2010. Neighboring districts are asking for far more.

Best case AGAINST

A property-tax increase with annual hikes and no sunset in the ballot text. Falling enrollment is structural; voters may prefer consolidation or administrative cuts first. Renters pay indirectly. No one has made this case publicly yet, so this is my construction.

Sources

Front Range Passenger Rail District Issue 7A — 0.333% sales tax (only if you're in the district)

Local · sales tax + $580M debt · simple majority of district voters Public transit and climate investment fit your values and the main opposition is a libertarian think tank; but it's a permanent regressive sales tax, and the yes side is funded by a developer and sports owners. Confidence: check eligibility first Ballot error: may not be yours to vote onNo sunsetDeveloper donors
Vote: Leaning Yes if eligible

Does it apply to you?

Only voters inside the district vote on 7A. Littleton is a listed district city, so you're eligible only if your address is inside the City of Littleton limits (unconfirmed). A printing error put 7A on about 800,000 ballots outside the district, including ~262,000 in Arapahoe County; only eligible voters' 7A votes count, so seeing it on your ballot doesn't mean you can vote on it. Confirm with the county clerk (303-795-4511) or frprdistrict.com.

What it does

Creates a 0.333% sales and use tax (exempts gasoline, food, residential utilities, prescriptions) with no end date, about $295M a year, and authorizes $580M in bonds ($785M total repayment) for Pueblo–Fort Collins passenger rail on existing freight tracks. Littleton is a planned stop. Starter Denver–Fort Collins service proceeds without the tax; a $1.5B local-return program is included.

Who's behind it

The Front Range Passenger Rail District board (referred 14–1). Coloradans for CoCo raised about $341K: Sterling Ranch LLC $125K, Eric Laufer $100K, the Rockies $50K. Six pro teams, the Colorado Democratic Party and transit advocates support.

Who opposes it

Affordable Colorado and Let's Go Colorado committees (funding unknown), Jon Caldara of the libertarian Independence Institute, El Paso County commissioners, ex-RTD board member Natalie Menten. No Advance Colorado link found.

Best case FOR

I-25 is a single point of failure; rail is the one mode never given dedicated funding; it uses existing freight track; it cuts emissions and gives non-drivers an option; audited annually.

Best case AGAINST

A permanent, regressive sales tax; $785M debt; a new, untested agency; ridership and railroad agreements unproven; RTD's FasTracks cost more and delivered less; the ballot error undermines confidence.

Sources

County Assessor — PK Kaiser (D), Jesse Lind (R), Lee Ormiston (L)

County-wide · technical job Only candidate with a documented record (claims $1.3M savings, online appeals, relief outreach for seniors and disabled veterans). Confidence: low stakes Lind and Ormiston: little information
Vote: Kaiser

Who

Kaiser ran several times before winning. Lind did not answer the Q&A; Ormiston (L), no information found. No scandals, no Trump relevance.

Sources

County Treasurer — Michael Westerberg (D) vs. Bennett Rutledge (L)

County-wide · low stakes Incumbent tax attorney with no issues found; the Libertarian is a party officer and election judge. Confidence: low stakes
Vote: Westerberg

Note

The Littleton Independent called this race uncontested, but the county's sample ballot lists a Libertarian, and the sample ballot governs.

Sources

Period 4: Quick list

County Coroner
Dr. Casey Bitting (D), unopposed. Forensic pathologist at the office since 2018; appointed in July 2026 after Dr. Kelly Lear retired. Nothing notable. Vote: Yes.
Judicial retention (19 judges)
Retain all: every judge on Arapahoe ballots is rated 'meets performance standards' by the state commissions. 1 Supreme Court justice (William W. Hood III), 6 Court of Appeals judges (Freyre, Harris, Lum, Moultrie, Schock, Sullivan), 9 18th Judicial District judges (Amico, Baker-McKay, Edson, Henderson, Jones, Karpel, Stricklin, Vahle, Washburn), 3 Arapahoe County Court judges (Apostoli, Clark, Rowles-Stokes). I did not review individual rulings; if you want to, check immigration, labor and tenant cases (UNVERIFIED). Commission evaluations: judicialperformance.colorado.gov.
Minor-party and unaffiliated candidates
Listed in the race cards above; nothing notable found on any of them.
State Board of Education
No seat on CD6 ballots in 2026 (only CD1 touches Arapahoe).

Check your ballot

Rail Issue 7A
If it's on your ballot, confirm you're inside the City of Littleton limits before spending time on it. Call Arapahoe County Elections at 303-795-4511 or see frprdistrict.com.
State Senate
I believe you have no State Senate race (HD38 pairs with SD16, last up in 2024). If one appears, the likeliest is SD27: Tom Sullivan (D), Danielle Lammon (R), Michele Poague (L). Tell me and I'll research it.
County Commissioner
Districts 2 and 4 are up in 2026; Littleton is almost certainly District 1 (next 2028). If either appears, my leans would be Jessica Campbell (D, D2) and Leslie Summey (D, D4), but I didn't vet them in depth.
RTD director, city and special districts
Probably none: Littleton elects its council in odd years, and no South Suburban, fire or library question was on the county sample ballot. An RTD director race (District N, Cindy Arcuri) is likely not your district.
Candidate lists
The Secretary of State's certified list wouldn't load for me, so names come from the county sample ballot, KUNC, Wikipedia and The Ballot Brief. One known conflict: the CD6 Libertarian is Patty McMahon in one source and John Kittleson in another.
Money figures
TRACER wouldn't load for me. Donor totals are press figures through Sept 21 or Oct 4 and have grown since (UNVERIFIED).

Teacher's summary

15 Yes, 10 No, 3 Mixed across 28 items.

Lynette · Denver · Washington Park area · CD1 · HD2 · SD31

Statewide ballot measures

Period 1

14 measures, highest impact first. Constitutional amendments need 55%; statutes need a simple majority (Amendment 87 is a simple majority per the Blue Book). Vote No on 136 if you vote Yes on 87.

Amendment 87 — Graduated income tax

Constitution + statute · simple majority per Blue Book Tax cut for nearly everyone, higher rates only above ~$510K taxable income, ~$2B a year for schools, health care and child care, and the Advance network is fighting it. Confidence: fairly confident Pair with NO on 136Lawsuit pendingPolis opposes

What it does

Replaces the flat 4.4% income tax (people and corporations) with six brackets from 2027: 3.7% up to $25K, 4.2% to $100K, 4.4% to $500K, then 7.4%, 7.9%, and 8.4% above $1M. The Blue Book estimates about $2B a year in new revenue, earmarked for K-12, health care and early childhood, and exempt from the TABOR cap. Most filers get a cut of up to $325; only taxable income above about $510K pays more. Brackets are not indexed to inflation.

Who's behind it

Protect Colorado's Future: Bell Policy Center, Colorado Fiscal Institute, parent and school-funding groups, Colorado WINS (state workers). Roughly $0.7M–$1.1M raised by late September, much of it in-kind from nonprofits. Donors are disclosed, but these are press figures, not checked on TRACER (UNVERIFIED).

Who opposes it

Prop 136 (Advance Colorado, Colorado Chamber), the Brighter Colorado committee (mostly undisclosed-donor Common Sense America $250K and Advance $20K), Americans for Prosperity, NFIB. Also Gov. Polis, a Democrat, who called it 'bad policy that would destroy our economy.'

Best case FOR

Nearly everyone pays less, while about $2B a year goes to schools and health care as federal cuts and Medicaid costs squeeze the budget. Graduated taxes are the federal norm and used by 27 other states; sales and property taxes fall harder on lower earners. Spending must add to, not replace, existing budgets, with an annual audit.

Best case AGAINST

A $2B tax hike concentrated on high earners, many of them small-business owners (about 30,850 of 53,640 filers over $500K have pass-through income, per the low-tax Tax Foundation). A one-time business sale can trigger the top rates. Marriage penalty, no inflation indexing, and volatile revenue. Even a Democratic governor calls it harmful.

Red flags

If 87 and 136 both pass, the Blue Book says the result is unclear and courts or the legislature decide. A suit to remove 87 from the ballot over signature-gathering is pending (no ruling found; UNVERIFIED status). Advance Colorado's billionaire backing is reported by progressive outlets, not documented.

Sources

Proposition 136 — Income tax rate cap (4.4%)

Statute · simple majority Advance Colorado measure that does nothing on its own; its only job is to tangle up Amendment 87. Confidence: confident Advance ColoradoSpoiler for 87Dark money

What it does

Caps the state income tax rate at today's 4.4% starting 2027. The rate is already 4.4%, so there is no fiscal impact by itself.

Who's behind it

Advance Colorado (undisclosed donors) and the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. Committees A Brighter Colorado ($306K by mid-Sept; $250K from Common Sense America, $20K from Advance) and Keep Colorado Affordable.

Who opposes it

Protect Colorado's Future (the Amendment 87 coalition) and Vote Common Sense. Their argument: after the election 136 has no function except to confuse and litigate 87.

Best case FOR

Locks in the rate voters approved in 2022 and guards against a $2B tax increase; supporters say 87's tax cuts could still take effect while its hikes are blocked.

Best case AGAINST

Redundant on its own; its only effect is as a spoiler against 87, and it could erase 87's middle-class cuts too, setting up court fights.

Red flags

Neutral-sounding title, poison-pill purpose. If both pass, the Blue Book calls the outcome unclear; generally the measure with more yes votes wins, but a court would decide.

Sources

Proposition NN — Keep and spend money for education

Statute · simple majority · referred by the legislature Teachers' union and school boards back it, Advance Colorado opposes it; but it quietly loosens TABOR for good and the earmarks expire after 10 years. Confidence: leaning Ends TABOR refunds 2 yrsEarmarks sunsetAdvance opposes

What it does

Lets the state keep money above the TABOR limit that would be refunded, under a much higher new cap (the headline $4.6B is a cap, not what will actually be raised; about $500M expected above the limit). Money first reimburses senior and disabled-veteran property tax breaks, then goes to a Children's Account: at least half to K-12 for 10 years (teacher pay, class size, career-tech), the rest to preschool and child care. After year 10 K-12 gets a flat amount and the legislature can spend the rest on anything. The Blue Book projects refunds are eliminated in 2026-27 ($330M) and 2027-28 ($521M).

Who's behind it

Democrats in the legislature (Sen. Jeff Bridges, also the Democratic Treasurer nominee, per reporting). Yes for Colorado Kids is led by the Colorado Education Association with about 70 groups; roughly $2M raised, including $1M from Gary Advocacy LLC and $950K from a CEA fund (disclosed; not checked on TRACER).

Who opposes it

Advance Colorado (verified), the Brighter Colorado committee, the Anschutz-owned Gazette editorial board. Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer says about 75% of the money would not reach schools, and Common Sense Institute estimates $850.9M in refunds lost through 2028 (both from search summaries; UNVERIFIED).

Best case FOR

State adequacy studies found a $3.5–4.1B yearly school shortfall. NN uses money already collected, changes no tax rate, and funds pay, class size, preschool and child care with an audit. Most households' refunds are small (tens of dollars).

Best case AGAINST

It ends refunds in the likely years and permanently raises the ceiling. After year 10 it's a blank check. Voters rejected comparable measures three times in the past seven years. School funding rose about 25% since 2021 while enrollment fell about 2% (Blue Book argument).

Red flags

Title says 'other purposes' but undersells that refunds vanish. It interacts with Prop 137 (137 shrinks what NN can retain). Opposition money is undisclosed-donor groups; support money is union plus one big nonprofit.

Sources

Amendment 86 — Off-cycle congressional redistricting rules

Constitutional · needs 55% Advance Colorado and a Mike Johnson PAC built it to take away Colorado Democrats' option to redraw maps mid-decade. On principle (anti-gerrymander) it's closer to Mixed. Confidence: moderate Advance ColoradoSpeaker Johnson PAC $250KHard to undo

What it does

Any mid-decade change to congressional maps must be approved by the independent redistricting commission (after 3+ public hearings) and adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court, and can't intentionally favor a party. Today the constitution has no process for mid-decade redraws; maps are redrawn after each census (next 2031).

Why it's on the ballot

Colorado Democrats' own mid-decade redistricting measure was struck unanimously by the Colorado Supreme Court in June on single-subject grounds. Amendment 86 is the Republican-aligned counter that would make such a redraw much harder, as other states redraw.

Who's behind it

Advance Colorado (Michael Fields). Fair Redistricting Colorado received $250,000 in August from American Revival PAC, created by House Speaker Mike Johnson. Advance's donors are undisclosed; the Anschutz tie is reported, not documented.

Who opposes it

Colorado Draws the Line (Democratic issue committee; no money reported by early Sept). The failed Democratic effort said it won't campaign against.

Best case FOR

Even-handed on its face: bars partisan gerrymanders by either party, requires public hearings and independent review, honors the 2018 vote for an independent commission.

Best case AGAINST

Unilateral disarmament while Republican states redraw freely, and it puts a double veto (commission plus Supreme Court) between voters and any new map. Constitutional, so it takes another 55% vote to undo.

Sources

Amendment 81 — Law enforcement must report charged people to ICE/DHS

Constitutional · needs 55% Advance Colorado measure that sends people to immigration authorities on mere charges, before any finding of guilt. Confidence: confident Advance ColoradoDark money $250KImmigrant protection

What it does

Requires police, jails and DA staff to notify the federal Department of Homeland Security within 72 hours of filing charges if the person's lawful presence can't be confirmed after a 'reasonable attempt' and the charge is a violent crime, or any charge at all if they have a prior felony. Notice happens at charging, before guilt is determined.

Who's behind it

Reported as an Advance Colorado measure (Colorado Politics). Committee A Brighter Colorado raised $311K by Sept 21; top donor Common Sense America ($250K), a group that does not disclose donors. Direct TRACER pull not done (UNVERIFIED).

Who opposes it

Colorado Communities First ($200K+; Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition $158K, ACLU $58.6K), The People's No, Vote Common Sense, several district attorneys and immigrant advocates.

Best case FOR

Colorado's 2019 law bars proactive reporting even when someone unlawfully present is charged with serious violence. Supporters say the state shouldn't shield people accused of violent crimes or repeat felons, and one statewide rule beats a patchwork. It targets violent charges and prior felons, not otherwise law-abiding immigrants.

Best case AGAINST

Charges are allegations; a person may be innocent or legally present and unable to prove it in 72 hours. 'Reasonable effort' and 'lawful presence' are undefined (profiling risk). The prior-felony prong sweeps in any minor charge, however old. Fewer immigrants may report crimes. As a constitutional change, the legislature couldn't fix it.

Red flags

Amendments 81 and 82 both add 'section 17, article XVIII' to the constitution; if both pass, the numbering collides (how it gets resolved is UNVERIFIED).

Sources

Amendment 84 — Mail ballot voter ID

Constitutional · needs 55% Adds a hurdle to Colorado's main way of voting to fix a rare problem, with $4.2M of out-of-state undisclosed money behind it and a reported Advance Colorado link. Confidence: fairly confident Advance link reportedOut-of-state dark moneyVoting access

What it does

For federal and statewide elections, mail voters must write the last four digits of a Social Security number, Colorado driver's license or ID number on the return envelope, in addition to signing. A missing or non-matching number means the county contacts the voter, and the ballot isn't counted unless fixed within 8 days after Election Day. Cost: up to $2.7M in year one, about $1.2M a year after.

Who's behind it

Committee Colorado Voter Trust Initiative raised $4.2M by Sept 21: Coalition for American Prosperity and Growth (Ohio) $2.25M, A Public Voice (VA) $1M, American Jobs and Growth Fund (VA) $1M. Ultimate donors are undisclosed. Colorado Politics lists it among six Advance Colorado measures, but I found no Advance donation to this committee, so that funding link is UNVERIFIED.

Who opposes it

Defend Our Ballots, Vote Common Sense (about $495K), League of Women Voters.

Best case FOR

ID numbers are objective compared with subjective signature matching; most voters have one; it builds public confidence. The sponsor argues two factors could allow looser signature matching and fewer rejections.

Best case AGAINST

Adds a hurdle to a system used by about 92% of 2024 voters with no demonstrated security gain; eligible ballots can be lost to typos; young, elderly, low-income and new-citizen voters are likelier to be hit; unfunded county costs; constitutional, so hard to fix.

Sources

Proposition 132 — Tougher penalties for fentanyl crimes

Statute · simple majority Advance Colorado measure: mandatory 8–32 years for distributing any amount (including sharing), about $68M a year in unfunded prison cost, no judicial discretion. Confidence: confident Advance ColoradoMandatory minimums$68M/yr by year 5

What it does

Makes possession of any fentanyl amount a felony (under 1 gram becomes a treatment-mandated felony, reducible after treatment) and requires 8–32 years in prison for distributing any amount, including sharing. Removes the Good Samaritan reduction and the 'didn't know it was fentanyl' mitigation. State cost rises from $0.9M in year 1 to about $68.2M a year by year 5, plus possible prison construction, with no funding source.

Who's behind it

Advance Colorado, per Rocky Mountain Voice and the designated representatives' filings. Supporting committees: A Brighter Colorado ($250K from Common Sense America is not clearly 132-specific) and Eagle County Republican Women Club. Advance's donors are undisclosed.

Who opposes it

Coloradans for Real Safety Solutions ($1.1M: Lynn Schusterman $500K, ACLU of Colorado $200.5K, others), The People's No, Vote Common Sense, and the Colorado Democratic Party.

Best case FOR

Fentanyl is the leading cause of overdose death in the state and lethal in tiny amounts. Supporters say the 2019/2022 reforms were too lenient, that mandatory prison takes dealers off the street, and the under-1-gram treatment track pushes users toward rehab. Many DAs and sheriffs backed tougher law.

Best case AGAINST

Shared use between friends becomes an 8–32 year offense; Good Samaritan protection is removed, which may discourage calling 911; no evidence longer sentences cut deaths; about $68M a year diverted from treatment, schools and housing; felony convictions can carry immigration consequences.

Sources

Proposition 134 — Male and female participation in school sports

Statute · simple majority Statewide biological-sex rule for every school team from age 5 through college, written by social-conservative groups, with no way to verify and opposed by labor and LGBTQ coalitions. Confidence: fairly confident Protect Kids ColoradoNo verification methodFederal funding fight

What it does

Every school-based team, public to private, elementary through college, must be male-only, female-only or coed, by biological sex. Girls may play on a boys' team if no girls' team exists in that sport. Bars CHSAA and accreditors from penalizing schools that keep a girls' team female-only. No verification method is set. Replaces the current CHSAA process, which evaluates transgender students case by case.

Who's behind it

Protect Kids Colorado (co-founders Erin Lee and former GOP state Sen. Kevin Lundberg); about $135K–$160K across its three measures from Pikes Peak Citizens for Life, groups tied to evangelist Andrew Wommack, and an undisclosed-donor 501(c)(4). No reporting found tying it to Advance Colorado, Heritage/Project 2025 or Alliance Defending Freedom (UNVERIFIED either way).

Who opposes it

Families Not Politics (about $1.39M: One Colorado Education Fund, Cobalt, ACLU, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and others), No on 134 and 135, Protect Trans Kids, The People's No, and the Colorado Democratic Party. Opponents have roughly 8–9 times the money.

Best case FOR

Sex-separated sports exist because average physical differences matter for fairness, injury risk and scholarships. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2026 that states may keep sex-separated sports by biological sex, and the NCAA and 27 states follow similar rules. Transgender students keep a place on coed teams.

Best case AGAINST

Targets a very small group with a statewide ban reaching 8-year-olds in intramurals; forces every school to police sex, risking invasive scrutiny of any athletic girl; may conflict with Colorado's anti-discrimination act; the science on transgender girls who haven't gone through male puberty is disputed. The Supreme Court ruling lets states do this; it doesn't require it.

Sources

Proposition 135 — Ban surgery on minors for sex/gender 'perception'

Statute · simple majority Colorado hospitals say they already don't do these surgeries on under-18s, so the real effect is the broad wording and the ban on insurance and Medicaid coverage. Confidence: fairly confident Protect Kids ColoradoVague exemptionsInsurance ban

What it does

Bans surgery on anyone under 18 performed to alter biological sex characteristics 'in response to a minor's perception of sex or gender,' and bars state, federal, Medicaid and private insurance funds from paying for it. It names no procedures; the ban turns on purpose. Exempts circumcision and medically verifiable disorders of sex development (terms undefined). It does not restrict hormones, blockers, counseling or social transition.

Who's behind it

Protect Kids Colorado (same committee as 133 and 134). No reporting found tying it to Heritage/Project 2025, Alliance Defending Freedom or Advance Colorado; the national context is a broad movement (27 states restrict youth gender surgery per KFF), not evidence of a specific group's involvement (UNVERIFIED).

Who opposes it

Families Not Politics, No on 134 and 135, Protect Trans Kids, The People's No, Vote Common Sense, One Colorado, ACLU, Planned Parenthood; the Colorado Democratic Party.

Best case FOR

Surgery is permanent, minors may not grasp lifelong consequences, long-term data are limited and some people regret it. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommends delaying gender-related surgery to age 19. The measure mostly codifies what big Colorado pediatric hospitals say they already do and leaves hormones and counseling alone.

Best case AGAINST

Extremely rare procedures decided by patient, parents and doctors; the purpose-based wording could sweep in other care (for example, breast surgery for gynecomastia, which a Harvard study found is mostly cisgender boys) and insurers will resolve doubts conservatively. Medical bodies are split on surgery timing.

Sources

Amendment 82 — Constitutional right to buy and sell natural gas

Constitutional · needs 55% Advance Colorado measure that protects utilities' right to sell gas as much as your right to buy it, and could undercut local and state climate rules. Confidence: confident Advance ColoradoBackers unknownUtility power

What it does

Adds two sentences to the constitution: consumers have the right to buy natural gas for cooking or heating in homes and businesses, and distributors and utilities have the right to sell it. No immediate change, but it may limit state and local power to enforce gas rules such as all-electric new-construction codes.

Who's behind it

Reported as an Advance Colorado measure (Colorado Politics). The committee, Energy Freedom Alliance of the Rockies, had reported no contributions as of Sept 21, so the funders are unknown (UNVERIFIED).

Who opposes it

No Pollution in the Constitution ($317K, almost all from Conservation Colorado), Vote Common Sense, Sierra Club Colorado (per search snippet; page blocked).

Best case FOR

Gas is the main heating fuel for most Colorado homes, cheap and reliable in deep cold. Electrification mandates can raise upfront costs for renters, low-income and rural households, and some cities are banning gas hookups. A constitutional guard gives certainty.

Best case AGAINST

Burning gas emits greenhouse gases and air pollution; entrenching it hampers climate and health policy and local control of building codes. It protects utilities' right to sell, not just consumers' right to buy. Vague 'right' language invites lawsuits against safety and emissions rules, and no other state has comparable constitutional language.

Red flags

Shares 'section 17, article XVIII' with Amendment 81. One Legislative Council web page mislabels it 'Amendment 83'; the ballot calls it 82.

Sources

Proposition 133 — Mandatory life without parole for child sex trafficking

Statute · simple majority Popular and the harm is real, but it removes all judicial discretion with a mandatory life-without-parole sentence, which cuts against your anti-mandatory-minimum rule. A defensible Yes for some voters. Confidence: low — closest call Protect Kids ColoradoNo judicial discretionNot an Advance measure

What it does

Makes child sex trafficking a class 1 felony with mandatory life in prison without parole (today it's a class 2 felony: 8–48 years). Also expands the crime to include buying sex with a minor, so buyers face life too. Cost is small and delayed: about $180,000 starting in 2041-42.

Who's behind it

Protect Kids Colorado (the same committee as 134 and 135, which CLAUDE.md listed only for those two). No reporting found tying it to Advance Colorado, Heritage/Project 2025 or Alliance Defending Freedom (UNVERIFIED).

Who opposes it

Vote Common Sense and the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault (per Colorado Politics). The state Democratic Party had no position on its summary page (UNVERIFIED).

Best case FOR

Child sex trafficking is among the worst crimes; someone who buys or sells a child should never be free to harm another. A bright-line penalty is clear, closes the 'buyer' gap in the definition, and many voters across parties will find it reasonable.

Best case AGAINST

Certainty of punishment deters more than severity; a no-discretion rule can't tell a trafficker from a coerced teen recruiter; automatic life may make victims less willing to testify and give prosecutors plea-deal leverage; life without parole for a non-homicide offense is a values question for anyone opposed to permanent incarceration.

Red flags

Same sponsor as 134/135; the popular item may build turnout for the other two (my observation, not reported). Voting Yes or No here does not commit you on 134 or 135.

Sources

Amendment 85 — Plain-language ballot titles (8th-grade level)

Constitutional · needs 55% Sounds harmless, and some non-Advance allies back it, but it's an Advance Colorado measure and the second half could override required fiscal-impact language in tax-cut initiative titles. Confidence: low — closest call on the ballot Advance ColoradoFriendly title, hidden clauseAuto-No rule

What it does

Requires ballot titles to be written in plain language at no more than an eighth-grade reading level. It also bars laws that require specific wording in citizen-initiative titles when that wording interferes with plain language; referred measures from the legislature are not subject to that part. Current law already requires plain language but sets no grade level.

Who's behind it

Advance Colorado. Committee A Brighter Colorado raised $306,625 by mid-Sept, including $250K from Common Sense America (undisclosed donors, D.C.-area mailbox address). Also supported by Amber McReynolds (unaffiliated, former Denver elections director), Courageous Colorado's advocacy arm, African Leadership Group, Let Colorado Vote.

Who opposes it

Vote Common Sense (about $495K, liberal coalition) and Bell Policy Center. Reports differ on the League of Women Voters (UNVERIFIED).

Best case FOR

Colorado ballot questions are among the hardest to read in the country; a concrete benchmark helps ordinary voters, and a constitutional shield stops legislators from adding confusing boilerplate.

Best case AGAINST

The standard is vague and redundant with a 2026 law, and the override clause could strip existing disclosures (taxpayer impact, cuts to the three largest budget areas for tax-cut initiatives). Even the word 'fiscal' may exceed eighth-grade level, per Bell's Joshua Mantell.

Sources

Proposition 137 — Sporting-goods sales tax to conservation

Statute · simple majority Good goals and no Advance/Project 2025 ties, but it locks about $175M a year of general-fund money away from schools and health care, and the state Democratic committee opposes it. Tips to Yes only if conservation is a top priority. Confidence: genuinely split No new taxCuts TABOR refundsCompetes with schools/health

What it does

Directs the existing state sales tax on sporting goods (bikes, camping, hunting and fishing gear, boats, RVs) to conservation and exempts it from TABOR. No new tax. About $175M in 2027-28: 47.5% to Great Outdoors Colorado, 47.5% to wildfire mitigation and forest and watershed work, 5% to outdoor equity programs. The transfer can shrink if it would reduce the Family Affordability or expanded EITC credits.

Who's behind it

Protect Colorado's Land and Water and Prevent Wildfires, about $2.96M by late Aug: The Nature Conservancy $1.57M, a California fund $300K, Trust for Public Land $200K+. Backers include GOCO, Western Resource Advocates, Denver Water board, former officials Salazar, Udall and Ritter. Donors are disclosed (press figures; UNVERIFIED on TRACER).

Who opposes it

League of Women Voters of Colorado, the Colorado Democratic Party's State Central Committee (budget concerns), a small committee (Protect Colorado's Land, Communities, and Tax Dollars), and two forest-science groups skeptical of thinning. No well-funded opposition committee found.

Best case FOR

No new tax; links people who buy outdoor gear to protecting the outdoors; nearly doubles GOCO, multiplies wildfire and forest funding about 5×, and funds outdoor equity programs. Parks & Wildlife has about $900M in five-year capital needs and federal support is unreliable.

Best case AGAINST

Locks about $175M+ a year of the general fund into one purpose while the state faces roughly $1B annual shortfalls and federal cuts; in down years health care, education and human services lose. It reduces TABOR refunds in surplus years and reduces what Prop NN can retain. Less annual legislative review of how it's spent.

Sources

Amendment 83 — Constitutional right to hunt and fish

Constitutional · needs 55% Not an Advance or Project 2025 measure and not a left-right fight, but it's heavily out-of-state funded and 'traditional methods' could be used to challenge the 1996 trapping ban. Confidence: slightly No No Advance tie foundOut-of-state hunting lobbyTrapping-ban risk

What it does

Creates a constitutional right to hunt, fish and 'take' fish and wildlife by 'traditional methods' (undefined), except nongame, endangered or federally protected species. Declares hunting and fishing the state's preferred way to manage wildlife, leaves trespass law alone, and keeps state power to regulate when 'necessary' for science, public safety or preserving hunting and fishing.

Who's behind it

Vote Yes on 83, about $1.8M through Sept 21, the most of any committee: Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Alliance (Virginia, $412K of $647K by two committees), Safari Club International $50K. No Advance Colorado or Heritage tie found (UNVERIFIED; TRACER not retrieved).

Who opposes it

Colorado's Wildlife Deserve Better, Project Coyote (First Gentleman Marlon Reis quoted), Sierra Club Colorado (per search snippet).

Best case FOR

About a third of Parks & Wildlife's budget (about $115M) comes from license sales; a constitutional right guards that heritage and rural economy from future ballot bans, and 24 other states have similar clauses. The text excludes endangered species, keeps trespass law and preserves regulatory power.

Best case AGAINST

Constitutions should protect fundamental rights, not recreation, and hunting isn't under threat. 'Traditional methods' and 'necessary' are vague and could invite suits against rules voters and Parks & Wildlife already adopted, including the 1996 trapping restrictions (Project Coyote's reading; a court outcome is UNVERIFIED).

Sources

Top of the ticket

Period 2

Statewide and federal races; forecasters rate all of them Solid or Safe Democratic, and no general-election polls turned up.

Governor / Lt. Governor — Phil Weiser (D) vs. Victor Marx (R)

Statewide · Safe D per forecasters; no polling found Weiser has the strongest anti-Trump litigation record of any statewide Democrat (60+ suits); he is mainstream, not socialist. Marx has a $57K campaign-finance fine, disproven résumé claims and ducked debates. Confidence: practical Yes, caveats Weiser: corporate-adjacent historyMarx: honesty flagsMarkert: openly pro-Trump
Vote: Weiser / Dahlkemper

Weiser (D)

Two-term Attorney General, term-limited; beat Sen. Michael Bennet in the June 30 primary. Campaign says no corporate PAC money and ~88% of donations from Coloradans; raised ~$5.6M by April (campaign figures). Running mate Lesley Dahlkemper is a Jefferson County commissioner and former CPR journalist. No Advance Colorado or Project 2025 tie found.

Weiser caveats

Bennet's campaign alleged 'pay-to-play' over Comcast and TurboTax donations while his office litigated against them; his spokesperson called the claims old and disproven. In 2022 he was the oil-and-gas-friendly establishment choice. A 2025 campaign-finance complaint was reported; outcome UNVERIFIED.

Marx (R)

Ministry founder, first-time candidate, Marine veteran; narrowly won the GOP primary over Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer. About $2.3M raised through April. State assessed a ~$57,647 fine for over-limit contributions. Résumé issues: a site claim of rescuing 45,000 women and children was removed after being disproved; a claimed Bill Owens endorsement was denied by Owens; he skipped most debates. No Trump endorsement found (UNVERIFIED). Calls Colorado abortion 'wholesale slaughter' (via progressive Colorado Times Recorder). No Advance or Heritage money found.

Markert (R, Lt. Gov.)

Retired Marine colonel; said in 2025 he disagreed with nothing Trump had done so far and would have voted yes on the 'Big Beautiful Bill.'

Others

Greg Lopez (Unaffiliated; ex-GOP congressman) / Taralyn Romero; Erik Mulder (L) / Wayne Harlos; Stephen Hamilton (AC); Jeff Peckman (Unity); Erik Underwood (Approval Voting). Nothing notable. Official ticket list not checked against the SoS (page 404'd).

Sources

U.S. Senate — John Hickenlooper (D) vs. Mark Baisley (R)

Federal · Safe D; no polling found Not your pick (you backed Julie Gonzales), but Baisley is a Trump-aligned conservative with a nearly empty campaign. Hickenlooper falls short of your 'fighter' test; his current record opposes Trump. Confidence: practical Yes, caveats Voted to confirm Trump nomineesSkipped primary debatesAIPAC claim UNVERIFIED
Vote: Hickenlooper

Hickenlooper (D)

Age 74, ex-Denver mayor and governor, Senator since 2021; beat Julie Gonzales by about 15 points. Raised ~$10.3M by June 30 (FEC via Wikipedia). Now opposes the Iran war, tariffs and ICE tactics, and supports dismantling ICE (per KUNC).

Where he falls short

Gonzales criticized him for voting to confirm many Trump nominees (Wright, Burgum, Bessent; the count is disputed, 10 vs. 'nearly half'), 'poll-tested incrementalism,' and refusing primary forums. Opposes Medicare for All and a fracking ban. A partisan release claims $333K+ from AIPAC-linked donors (UNVERIFIED against FEC).

Baisley (R)

State senator from Woodland Park, age 71, ex-aerospace engineer; raised only ~$138.6K by June 30. States United lists him as promoting election conspiracy claims (I did not read the original). No Project 2025 or Advance tie found. Platform: shrink government, property-tax reform, water tunnels.

Others

Blake Huber (L), Adam Withrow (Unity), Bob Chew (Forward), Christopher Baum (Approval Voting). Nothing notable. A protest vote for a minor party is your call.

Sources

Attorney General — Jena Griswold (D) vs. Michael Allen (R)

Statewide · Safe D per Sabato Not your first pick (Seligman), but a clear Trump-fighter and anti-monopoly voice against a DA who pledges to drop many suits against the administration. Confidence: practical Yes, caveats 2024 password leakNo prosecutor experienceAllen would drop suits
Vote: Griswold

Griswold (D)

Secretary of State since 2019, term-limited; won the primary with ~44%. Calls Trump's actions a 'campaign of retribution' and pledges to take on monopolies, grocery mergers and data centers. Endorsed by labor unions, Everytown, EMILYs List and others. No Advance or Project 2025 tie found; itemized donors not retrieved.

Competence flags

A 2024 spreadsheet exposed election-equipment BIOS passwords; an independent review found it unintentional but a policy violation, and the Denver DA called it 'sloppy,' not criminal. 2025 campaign-finance complaints (missing employer data on 492 contributions); final outcome UNVERIFIED. She has never been a practicing prosecutor, which is a fair criticism.

Allen (R)

El Paso/Teller DA since 2021, Navy veteran, 20+ years a prosecutor, prosecuted the Club Q shooter. Criticizes Weiser's ~82 suits against the administration and has pledged to withdraw from many. Per Griswold he opposes laws protecting Coloradans from ICE and backed a gestational abortion ban (her characterization; his statement UNVERIFIED). Backed by police unions, Bill Owens, John Suthers. Funders not retrieved.

Sources

Secretary of State — Amanda Gonzalez (D) vs. James Wiley (R)

Statewide · Safe D per Sabato Gonzalez defends mail voting; Wiley's platform would dismantle it (delete the voter rolls, end universal mail ballots, decertify machines) and he reportedly believes Trump won 2020. Confidence: confident Wiley: election-denial platformLibertarian name changed
Vote: Gonzalez

Gonzalez (D)

Jefferson County Clerk & Recorder, ex-head of Colorado Common Cause, attorney; beat Sen. Jessie Danielson ~63–37. Backed by Our Revolution, Colorado Working Families Party, EMILYs List, Everytown. Pledges to defend mail voting. No scandals, no Advance tie found; itemized donors not retrieved.

Wiley (R)

Former executive director of the Libertarian Party of Colorado, switched to the GOP; ran unopposed in the primary. Self-stated platform: decertify electronic voting machines, one-day in-person voting with ID, paper ballots and hand counts, end universal mail ballots. Reported: delete the voter rolls and require in-person re-registration (a similar 2024 bill carried a $9.3M fiscal note; a Republican clerks-association leader called it 'stunningly stupid'). Reportedly believes Trump won 2020 (his own words not located; UNVERIFIED as a quote). Supporters see these as security reforms.

Others

Sean Vadney (L) replaced Alex Astley after Astley withdrew and a Denver judge allowed it; Amanda Campbell (AC); Celeste Landry (Forward).

Sources

U.S. House, CD1 — Melat Kiros (D) vs. Christy Peterson (R) and others

Federal · your district · Safe D Openly anti-Trump and anti-oligarchy, Medicare for All, abolish ICE; she beat a 15-term incumbent while outspent. Her Israel and antisemitism record is the main contested point. Confidence: fairly confident First-time candidateIsrael/antisemitism critiquesBig outside money against her
Vote: Kiros

Kiros (D)

Age 29, democratic socialist, former attorney (Notre Dame Law 2022; Sidley Austin associate until fired in 2023 after refusing to take down an essay answering a law-firm letter on campus antisemitism; most recently a barista while in a policy master's program). Beat Rep. Diana DeGette on June 30 by about 6 points (AP call; final certified numbers UNVERIFIED). Backs Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, getting big money out, ending U.S. military aid to Israel. Vowed to 'take the fight to Donald Trump and the oligarchy.' Bernie Sanders endorsed late.

Money

Raised about $1.09M through June 30 (FEC), roughly $581K itemized and $461K small-dollar. Outside spending for her: Justice Democrats ~$500K, American Priorities ~$140K. Against her in the primary: Pro-Choice Majority Action $1.5M (funded by an EDW Action Fund with donors linked to AIPAC per KUNC), Project 218 $400K, Mile High Accountability Project $485K (undisclosed nonprofit funder). Next FEC report due mid-October.

Fair critiques

No governing record. In a 9News interview she declined to call the 2025 Boulder firebombing antisemitism (KUNC). Pro-Israel outlets highlight a TV answer calling 9/11 'inevitable' in the sense of Middle East destabilization (Algemeiner, an advocacy outlet), and her essay reportedly said there is 'no justification' for the Oct. 7 attacks (secondary source). Jewish Voice for Peace members defended her. No Project 2025 or Advance Colorado ties found.

Peterson (R)

South Denver office manager and bookkeeper; raised about $2K. Platform: end mail ballots, secure the border, oppose 'communist socialism,' chemtrail and 'weather modification' concerns; backed freeing Tina Peters. Trump stance not stated (UNVERIFIED).

Others

Chad Humphrey (L), retired Marine officer and entrepreneur, end the Fed and the IRS; Critter Milton (Unity), perennial candidate; Shimon Blau (Unaffiliated), a Denver physician who entered specifically to stop Kiros, about $185K raised, a vote for him is mostly a protest vote in a district Harris won by about 56 points. Write-ins: Kevin StClair, John Wren, Stephen Replin.

Sources

State Treasurer — Jeff Bridges (D) vs. Kevin Grantham (R)

Statewide · low stakes, thin data Housing and PERA-protective platform fits your values better, but neither candidate is a Trump fighter by role and funding and Trump-stance data are thin. Confidence: low Thin dataBridges is also NN's sponsor
Vote: Bridges

Bridges (D)

State senator and Joint Budget Committee chair; wants more state investment in housing, infrastructure and renewables, keep PERA on track to zero unfunded liability by 2048, and stop raiding the Unclaimed Property Fund. Prime sponsor of Proposition NN per reporting. No scandals, no Advance tie found; funders not retrieved.

Grantham (R)

Fremont County commissioner and former state Senate President (2017–18); would cut treasurer's-office staff growth and press harder on PERA liability. Funders and Trump stance not found.

Others

Jodie Barr (L) would move new PERA hires to defined contribution; Marilee Langner Sturgis (Approval Voting), nothing notable.

Sources

Closer to home

Period 3

Your district, city, county and local questions.

Front Range Passenger Rail District Issue 7A — 0.333% sales tax

District · sales tax + $580M debt · simple majority of district voters Public transit and climate investment fit your values and the main opposition is a libertarian think tank; but it's a permanent regressive sales tax and developers and team owners fund the yes side. Confidence: likely eligible No sunsetDeveloper donorsLikely your vote (Denver is in the district)
Vote: Leaning Yes

Does it apply to you?

Likely yes: Denver is on the Blue Book list of district municipalities and Denver's sample ballot prints 7A. The Oct 7 printing error hit Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas and Weld counties, not Denver. Not verified by address.

What it does

Creates a 0.333% sales and use tax (exempts gasoline, food, residential utilities, prescriptions) with no end date, about $295M a year, and authorizes $580M in bonds ($785M total repayment) for Pueblo–Fort Collins passenger rail on existing freight tracks. Denver is a planned permanent stop. Roughly $20–30 a year per $6,000–9,000 of taxable spending (my arithmetic; UNVERIFIED).

Who's behind it

The Front Range Passenger Rail District board (14–1). Coloradans for CoCo: Sterling Ranch LLC $125K, Eric Laufer $100K, the Rockies $50K, Daniel Caruso $25K (through Oct 4). Six pro teams, the Colorado Democratic Party and Denver Democrats support.

Who opposes it

Affordable Colorado and the Independence Institute (Jon Caldara), El Paso County commissioners, and the Anschutz-owned Denver Gazette editorial board. No Advance Colorado link found; opposition funding UNVERIFIED.

Best case FOR

I-25 is a single point of failure; existing freight track; exempts necessities; annual audit and citizen review; Denver is a permanent station.

Best case AGAINST

Regressive and permanent, $785M debt, new untested agency, the starter Denver–Fort Collins service proceeds without the tax, ridership unproven.

Sources

Denver Public Schools Issue 4A — mill levy override (up to $44M a year)

Local · property tax · simple majority Funds school workers' pay (a $1,750 base raise per employee) for about $72 a year on a median home. Property tax is less progressive than an income tax, and some money goes to charters. Confidence: moderate No sunset in ballot text$9.3M to chartersNo DPS bond this year
Vote: Yes on 4A

What it does

Lets DPS raise property taxes by up to $44M in 2026 (collected 2027) and annually after, for educator pay, career and technical education, and student mental health and special education, with audited reporting. Official cost: $11.50 per $100,000 of home value, about $72 a year on Denver's median home. Board estimate: $25.8M raises, $4M career-tech, $4.9M mental health and special ed, $9.3M for charter schools.

There is no DPS bond

A CBS 'bond and mill levy totaling $827 million' story is the 2020 package ($795M bond plus a $32M override). The 2024 bond ($975M) already passed. Only 4A is on this ballot.

Who's behind it

The DPS board voted unanimously on Aug 13, 2026; Superintendent Alex Marrero and the advisory committee support it; the teachers union supported the concept. Campaign donors not found (check TRACER; UNVERIFIED). No dark-money or Advance Colorado link found.

Who opposes it

No comments against were filed in the Clerk's notice. The Anschutz-owned Denver Gazette editorial board says No (DPS 'poorly run'). No organized campaign found (UNVERIFIED).

Best case FOR

DPS competes with neighboring districts for teachers; the lowest-paid staff get the biggest percentage raise; the state share of DPS revenue fell from about a third in 2005 to about 17%; modest cost, audited.

Best case AGAINST

DPS's share of a typical home tax bill is up about 54% since 2020 ($1,480 to a projected $2,276 in 2026, per Colorado Politics); a $975M bond passed in 2024 and another may come; enrollment is falling; some pro-public-school voters dislike money going to charters.

Sources

Denver Referred Question 2K — 20-year Xcel Energy franchise

City · no new tax · simple majority Locks in franchise revenue and funds undergrounding, but it's a 20-year deal with a monopoly utility, which cuts against your anti-corporate-power values. Confidence: what would tip it: a shorter or stronger deal 20-year termCouncil vote 10–2Monopoly utility
Vote: Mixed

What it does

Approves a 20-year franchise from Jan 1, 2027 letting Xcel use Denver streets. Keeps the 3% franchise fee (about $34.3M to the city in 2027), adds about $10M a year (1% of electric revenue) that Xcel holds and spends on undergrounding at the city's direction, and the city says it avoids about $150M a year in utility relocation costs. A companion agreement adds a $2M a year carve-out for heat pumps and EVs and $250K a year for energy navigators. A one-time $2.5M goes to utility assistance.

Who's behind it

City Council (10–2 on July 27; Shontel Lewis and Sarah Parady dissented), city climate and transportation staff, local labor groups. Xcel's campaign spending not found (UNVERIFIED).

Who opposes it

Together Colorado (nonpartisan community group) and some residents. Parady called the $125K a year in low-income assistance insufficient.

Best case FOR

Locks in revenue, gives Denver standing at the PUC, avoids relocation costs, funds undergrounding. A failed vote could force the city to pay relocation costs (Clerk's fiscal note).

Best case AGAINST

Little affordability or climate gain for a 20-year commitment to a monopoly utility; critics want a shorter or stronger deal. A prior version was pulled in 2025 after seven councilmembers asked for more benefits.

Sources

Denver City Council At-Large, Seat B (vacancy) — 10 names, plurality wins

City · everyone in Denver votes · no runoff · winner serves to July 2027, then runs again in April Mejia has the only documented tenant and anti-displacement record plus the Denver Democrats' and labor-federation backing. She has no stated position found on the camping ban, Xcel or Trump. Confidence: moderate; the race is effectively Mejia vs. Martinez Plurality race, split voteSoto: unproven legal fightWalker: Xcel employee in 2023
Vote: Melissa Mejia

Strategic note

Ten names, no runoff, so the progressive vote can split. The three with real money or organization are Monica Martinez (most money), Mejia (party and labor backing) and Julissa Soto (self-funded). No polling found. Seat opened when Sarah Parady resigned effective Aug 5.

Melissa Mejia — lean Yes

Former pastry chef and single parent; ex-Denver Planning Board member; former council aide; until recently with the Community Economic Defense Project (eviction defense). Her site claims she led the 2024 warranty-of-habitability overhaul and the state's first anti-displacement definition (self-reported; not independently verified). Denver Democrats endorsed her Sept 19, their first endorsement in a nonpartisan Denver race; state Sen. Julie Gonzales, Rep. Javier Mabrey and Aurora Councilmember Juan Marcano back her; the Denver Area Labor Federation lists her (date unclear). DSA has not endorsed. About $45.7K raised including public matching, small-dollar, no developer or outside money found. Thin on public-safety and homelessness specifics.

Monica Martinez — Mixed

Executive director of The Fax Partnership (East Colfax affordable housing and anti-displacement work); the top fundraiser at about $119K including matching, from 590 donors, with one $830 gift from developer East West Partners. No endorsements or positions on the camping ban, police, Xcel or Trump found.

Julissa Soto — lean No

Founder of a Latino health-equity consultancy and Casa Inmigrante; $50K raised, all her own or family money. She and her former campaign director are in a public legal dispute over $33,500 of campaign funds and alleged misconduct, with a protective order sought and a countersuit threatened. Nothing is proven on either side, and I read it only through a search summary because the Denverite article was blocked. Her website also still showed placeholder disclosure text.

Jeff Walker — Mixed to No

Former elected RTD director and planning board member; a 2023 profile said he works for Xcel in land rights (current job UNVERIFIED), and the Xcel franchise (2K) is on this ballot. Only $6.8K raised; in 2023 he opposed rent control.

The rest

Alfredo Reyes (former Latino Cultural Arts Center director, ~$43K with matching), Whitney Traylor (trial attorney, ~$25K with matching), Jake Browne (cannabis journalist, ~$25K; his own donor-tracking site is the source for some numbers), Cynthia Diaz (cafe owner, ~$2K), Gabriel Konkle (organizer against surveillance and data centers, ~$1K), and write-in Raymon Anthony Doane. No independent-expenditure money found in the race (UNVERIFIED; check the Clerk's campaign-finance portal).

Sources

State House HD2 — Scott Baldermann (D) vs. Carey Marin (R)

Your district (medium-high confidence) · open seat · Safe D Union, YIMBY and labor endorsements and the only Democrat; but a 2019 self-funding history and a police-in-schools vote may bother some progressives. Confidence: low information Open seatSelf-funding historyMarin: nothing found
Vote: Baldermann

Baldermann (D)

Former Denver school board member (elected 2019 on the teachers-union-backed slate, re-elected 2023); started a construction-tech company. Backed by AFSCME, CWA, PDA Colorado, YIMBY Denver and Colorado Ceasefire (from a search snippet). In 2019 he put in $334K of his own money (over 95% of his funds), and critics said he was trying to buy a seat. He voted 4–3 to return police to schools. 2026 funders and Trump stance not found (UNVERIFIED).

Marin (R)

Business owner; no other reporting, funders or Trump stance found (UNVERIFIED).

Context

Rep. Steven Woodrow is retiring. HD2 is safe Democratic (Woodrow won 74% in 2024). Districts come from a Census geocoder point; confirm on your ballot. If it's HD5: Justine Sandoval (D) vs. Johnnie W. Johnson (R). If HD6: Iris Halpern (D, ex-EEOC attorney, union-backed) vs. Kathleen Angel (R).

Sources

State Senate SD31 — Matt Ball (D)

Your district (medium-high confidence) · only name on the SoS list Only candidate on the official list; appointed in 2025, record not researched. Confidence: low information Appointed, not electedRecord not pulled
Vote: Ball

Who

Former Denver director of policy, chosen by a Democratic vacancy committee in January 2025 after Chris Hansen resigned (won a seven-way contest). Criticism targets the vacancy process, not Ball personally. BallotReady lists a Republican, Michael DiManna, who is not on the Secretary of State list (likely not certified; UNVERIFIED). Voting record, funders and Trump stance not researched (UNVERIFIED); no scandal found.

Sources

State Board of Education, CD1 — Lisa Escárcega (D), Frederick Espinoza (R), Clayton Casciato (L)

Your district · Denver, Glendale, Englewood, Sheridan, Cherry Hills Village Incumbent and former school administrator; mainly about keeping a Democratic board majority. The other two have little public record. Confidence: low information Low information
Vote: Escárcega

Escárcega (D)

On the board since 2021 and vice chair since 2023; former head of the Colorado Association of School Executives and former chief accountability officer at Aurora Public Schools. Funders and Trump stance not found (UNVERIFIED); no scandal found.

Others

Espinoza (R) and Casciato (L): background and positions not found (UNVERIFIED). Both would likely shift toward school choice and a smaller state role, but I found no platform detail.

Sources

Denver Referred Question 2J — Civil Service Commission and Department of Safety

City · charter amendment · simple majority Removes the U.S.-citizenship requirement for commissioners (fits immigrant inclusion) but also lifts the command-staff caps and changes discipline timelines. Confidence: read the details Bundled amendmentCommand-staff caps removed
Vote: Mixed

What it does

Updates Denver's police and fire civil service charter: removes the citizenship requirement for Civil Service Commissioners, updates discipline-review timelines, lets probation be extended for approved medical or military leave, and strikes the charter caps on police (18) and fire (7) command staff. Fiscal effect de minimis.

Best case FOR

Modernizes 1904-era language, and the citizenship change is inclusive of immigrants.

Best case AGAINST

Removing command-staff caps lets leadership ranks grow without voter approval; changed discipline timelines could weaken or speed accountability depending on details (UNVERIFIED; I read only the summary and fiscal note). No against comments were filed.

Sources

Denver Referred Question 2I — optional two-year budget

City · charter amendment · simple majority Adds a public-input requirement, but a two-year forecast is risky and it shifts power toward the mayor. Confidence: process measure About $50K one-time
Vote: Mixed

What it does

Lets Council adopt a two-year budget term by ordinance (annual stays the default), moves the Mayor's budget briefing to the first Friday of September, adds a public-input process, and requires budget cuts when revenue falls 2% or 5% below projection. One-time cost about $50K.

Best case FOR

Better long-term planning, more public input, frees staff time. Sponsors were Councilmembers Amanda Sawyer, Shontel Lewis and Stacie Gilmore.

Best case AGAINST

A filed comment says Denver's revenue is 56% sales tax and a mid-2025 $200M gap shows two-year forecasts are risky, and that it shifts power toward the mayor (unverified claims).

Sources

Denver Referred Question 2H — Auditor's authority to enforce wage laws

City · charter amendment · simple majority Protects Denver's wage-theft enforcement from legal challenge; no cost and no comments filed against. Confidence: confident
Vote: Yes

What it does

Clarifies that the Auditor's Office may keep enforcing wage, worker-protection and workplace-rights laws as Council requires by ordinance. No fiscal impact (the Auditor already does this). The office has enforced prevailing wage since 1950 and, per a filed comment, collected about $10M and helped 15,000+ workers in the last decade (unverified).

Best case FOR

Protects wage-theft remedies from legal challenge.

Best case AGAINST

None filed. A possible argument is that enforcement belongs in an executive agency, not an independently elected auditor (my construction, not quoted).

Sources

Denver Initiated Ordinance 311 — ban on force-fed foie gras

City · citizen initiative · simple majority A values-neutral animal-welfare measure: widely seen as cruel, but a niche restaurant regulation with a broad product definition. Confidence: not tied to your values No city costBroad definition
Vote: Mixed

What it does

Bans force-feeding birds to enlarge their livers and bans selling, importing or receiving foie gras and other products from force-fed birds in Denver. Fines of $1,000–$5,000 per violation and possible license suspension; effective July 1, 2027.

Who's behind it

Pro-Animal Colorado, a volunteer-led effort with no paid circulators per the Clerk's filing. The same group's 2024 Denver fur and slaughterhouse measures lost. Funding not checked (UNVERIFIED).

Best case FOR

Banned in NYC, Pittsburgh, Portland and California; minimal enforcement cost; widely regarded as cruel.

Best case AGAINST

Government overreach on a legal food; threatens a few restaurants; broad definition (includes duck fat and pâtés from fattened livers); a local ban changes little about production. No committee found against.

Sources

Period 4: Quick list

Judicial retention (23 judges)
Retain all: every judge on Denver ballots is rated 'meets performance standards' by the state commissions. Supreme Court: William W. Hood III. Court of Appeals (6): Freyre, Harris, Lum, Moultrie, Schock, Sullivan. Denver District Court (6): Angel, Baumann, Elliff, Luxen, Olafson, Wallace. Juvenile (2): Gomez, McCarthy. Probate (1): Leith. Denver County Court (7): Eddy, Fay, Lombardi, Malone, Martinez-Thomas, Shamsid-Deen, Smith. I did not review individual rulings; if you want to, check immigration, labor, tenant and police-accountability cases (UNVERIFIED). Evaluations: judicialperformance.colorado.gov.
Not on your 2026 ballot
CU Regent (no CD1 seat this year), Denver Public Schools board, District Attorney, mayor and council district seats (those are 2027 or 2028), and RTD director (probably; seats B and C are elsewhere in Denver).
Minor-party and unaffiliated candidates
Listed in the race cards above; nothing notable found beyond Shimon Blau's anti-Kiros run in CD1.

Check your ballot

HD2 and SD31
These came from one Census-geocoder lookup (not a ballot lookup) and were not cross-checked against a map. If your House seat differs, the nearby options are HD5 (Sandoval D vs. Johnson R) and HD6 (Halpern D vs. Angel R). Confirm on your mailed ballot.
Rail Issue 7A
Very likely yours to vote on; Denver is in the district and the printing error did not hit Denver.
Special districts and RTD
No BID, metro-district, library, fire or park question shows on Denver's composite sample ballot, but the PDF text was jumbled, so check your ballot. Probably no RTD director race for you.
City Council At-Large
The candidate list comes from Denver's composite sample ballot; check it against your ballot.
Money figures
TRACER wouldn't load for me. Donor totals are press figures and have grown since (UNVERIFIED).
Key dates
Ballots mailed Oct 5; in-person voting from Oct 12 at Denver Central Library; last safe day to mail is Oct 26; must be received by 7 p.m. Nov 3. Questions: 720-913-8683.

Teacher's summary

14 Yes, 10 No, 7 Mixed across 31 items.

Sources: the Blue Book, county and Denver sample ballots, the Secretary of State, Colorado Politics, the Colorado Sun, CPR, KUNC, Chalkbeat and campaign sites. Colorado Politics and the Denver Gazette are Anschutz-owned; Colorado Times Recorder is openly progressive. Anything not confirmed by a primary source is marked UNVERIFIED. Research notes are in the project's research folder.