2026 Ballot Measure Guide

It’s that time again: ballots are in the mail, which means it’s time for the CGH Ballot Measure Guide! Every election cycle, we take a hard look at the measures on Colorado’s ballot and tell you exactly where we stand. Our mission is to deliver more than money to people injured through no fault of their own. We fight, inside and outside the courtroom, for a safer and more just world, through accountability, emotional care for our clients, and treating everyone as equals. That fight doesn’t stop at the courthouse doors. So this guide covers our positions on Colorado’s statewide ballot measures and on the measures facing voters in the City and County of Denver. And this year’s ballot is a long one: Colorado voters will decide 14 statewide measures, tying a record. Let’s get into it.

Colorado State Ballot Measures

Amendment 81 – VOTE NO!

Amendment 81 is brought to you by Advance Colorado, a conservative political group that doesn’t disclose its donors. Right now, Colorado law strictly limits how much local police can cooperate with federal immigration authorities. This amendment would override that law by writing a new rule into our state constitution. Police officers, sheriff’s deputies, jail staff, and prosecutors would have to notify the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (the federal agency that houses ICE) within 72 hours of charging someone with a crime. That applies whenever they can’t confirm the person is in the country legally and either the charge is a violent crime or the person has any prior felony conviction. Supporters pitch this as going after violent criminals. But the federal government already has the tools to do that. Arrest records, criminal charges, and bail information already sit in shared criminal databases that federal law enforcement can access. What this measure really does is turn local police into an arm of federal immigration enforcement. That’s why Denver District Attorney John Walsh has called it a “recipe for abuse” that invites racial profiling. At CGH, we oppose the federal crackdown on immigrants, documented and undocumented alike, who came here seeking a better life. The last thing Colorado needs is more federal immigration enforcement, and we don’t need our local police doing the federal government’s job. Vote no!

Amendment 82 – VOTE NO!

Here’s another one from Advance Colorado. Amendment 82 would add two sentences to the Colorado Constitution. The first gives consumers a right to buy natural gas for cooking and heating in their homes and businesses. The second gives utilities and gas distributors a right to sell it. Right now, nobody is banning natural gas in existing Colorado homes. At CGH, we are genuinely concerned about affordability and choice, especially for working families who heat with gas. But writing a right to one specific energy source into our constitution makes no sense. We have no idea what will power our homes over the coming decades, let alone the next century, and once something is in the constitution, it takes another statewide vote to undo it. In practice, this measure would protect the gas industry far more than it protects consumers. It could undercut the Public Utilities Commission’s Clean Heat Plan, which requires utilities like Xcel to cut natural gas emissions 41% over the next ten years and eliminate them entirely by 2050. Worse, the language is so broad that industry could use it to challenge rules that keep fracking operations a safe distance from homes and schools. A utility could even argue the PUC can’t regulate what customers pay for new gas infrastructure, like pipelines built to serve massive data centers. This amendment is overbroad and potentially dangerous. Vote no on Amendment 82.

Amendment 83 – VOTE NO!

Amendment 83 was filed by lawyers at West Group, the same office behind several of this year’s Advance Colorado measures, and its campaign is funded largely by national pro-hunting groups. It would create a constitutional right to hunt and fish using “traditional methods” and make hunting and fishing the state’s preferred way of managing wildlife. Let’s be clear: at CGH, we believe hunting and fishing play a vital role in managing ecosystems and preventing overpopulation. But our general rule applies here: if it’s not broke, don’t fix it. Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado and managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Adding a constitutional right creates new problems. “Traditional methods” is vague, and that vagueness could invite costly lawsuits against existing laws that voters approved, like the ban on the spring bear hunt and on hunting bears with hounds and bait, and the ban on leghold traps. It could also tie the hands of wildlife experts and lawmakers. At CGH, we have consistently questioned whether the ballot box is the right place to make decisions about species management, and we still do. We trust the wildlife experts at Colorado Parks and Wildlife. For those reasons, we urge a no vote.

Amendment 84 – VOTE NO!

Amendment 84 comes from the same West Group office behind Amendment 83, along with a former Republican El Paso County clerk. Right now, when you return your mail ballot, election officials compare the signature on your envelope to the signatures on file. If there’s a question, two election judges from different parties review it, and you get a chance to fix any problem. This amendment would also require you to write the last four digits of your Social Security number, your driver’s license number, or your state ID number on the outside of your ballot envelope. Your ballot couldn’t be counted until any missing or mismatched number is fixed. This is another solution in search of a problem. Colorado has one of the best election systems in the country, and 92% of Colorado voters cast mail ballots in 2024. This measure would cost up to $2.5 million to implement in its first year and up to $1.2 million every year after that. Supporters call it “two-factor authentication.” But when Texas adopted a similar requirement, rejected ballots spiked in 2022 as voters left the number blank or wrote down the wrong one. Asking voters to write ID numbers on their envelopes may also create new barriers that fall hardest on older, low-income, rural, and disabled voters, and on voters of color. And putting part of your Social Security number on the outside of an envelope invites identity theft. That concern is serious enough that even a prominent conservative radio host switched from supporting this measure to opposing it. Our voting system is already secure, fast, easy, and reliable. We simply don’t need this. Vote no!

Amendment 85 – VOTE NO!

This is another measure backed by Advance Colorado. It would add a requirement to our constitution that all state and local ballot questions be written in plain language at no more than an eighth-grade reading level. It would also prohibit the legislature from requiring specific language in citizen-initiated ballot questions if that language conflicts with the eighth-grade standard. Let’s start with what supporters get right: Colorado’s ballot questions are some of the hardest to read and understand in the country. In fact, by one analysis, Amendment 85’s own ballot question is written at an 11th-grade reading level and includes the phrase “in connection therewith.” Yes, really. We would support laws that make ballot questions easier to read. But as we noted with Amendment 81, Advance Colorado doesn’t disclose its donors, and we are deeply skeptical of its measures on this year’s ballot. Our specific concern is the second half of this amendment. In recent years, the legislature has required ballot questions on tax cuts to tell voters how those cuts would affect state and local budgets. This amendment could bar those warnings from the ballot. It’s one thing to ask people to vote for a tax cut. But voters deserve to know what state programs could be cut if they say yes. In 2022, we supported Prop GG because more information is better, and we still believe that. This amendment also puts a vague standard into the constitution with no guidance on how it differs from current law, which could invite more legal challenges to ballot questions. Plain language is a good goal, but not at the cost of the information voters need most. Vote no on Amendment 85.

Amendment 86 – VOTE NO!

This is another measure brought by Advance Colorado, and it was a particularly tough one for us. Today, Colorado’s congressional districts are drawn once a decade by an independent commission that voters created in 2018. Amendment 86 would require any change to the map between those regular redistrictings to be approved by both that commission and the Colorado Supreme Court, and it would bar any new map drawn to favor a political party. In 2024, we endorsed Prop 131, which would have overhauled our primary and general elections, even though the current system worked well for Democrats. We said then that good politics shouldn’t prevent us from supporting good policy. We still believe that. But the world has changed. When Republicans in Texas and other states began redrawing their congressional maps in the middle of the decade for political advantage, Colorado’s constitution made it extremely difficult to respond. Amendment 86 would lock that in. It would also hand the final say over any challenge to the commission’s map to that same commission. If voters ever decide the current districts no longer serve Colorado, the body that drew them shouldn’t get to decide whether they change. We believe the best answer for the country is national, independent redistricting that bans partisan gerrymandering everywhere, and we would support that change, as most Democrats in Congress have. But until that happens, we can’t fight with one arm tied behind our back. If Republicans are going to gerrymander not just once a decade but at every opportunity, then states like Colorado should be able to fight back and keep Congress from being controlled by one party against the will of the majority of voters. Vote no!

Amendment 87 – VOTE YES!

At CGH, we have routinely opposed cuts to Colorado’s flat income tax that mostly benefit the wealthy, and we have supported measures that ask rich people to pay more. Right now, TABOR (Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) requires a single, flat 4.4% income tax. That means a poor person, a middle-class person, and a rich person all pay exactly the same rate, which simply doesn’t make sense. Amendment 87 would replace the flat tax with graduated brackets, like the federal system. Rates would drop slightly on income under $100,000, stay at 4.4% up to $500,000, and rise to between 7.4% and 8.4% only on income above $500,000. About 97% of Colorado taxpayers would get a small tax cut, up to about $325 a year. The fewer than 100,000 households whose taxes would go up earn more money than the 2.4 million Colorado filers making $100,000 or less combined. Critics point out that the new brackets aren’t indexed for inflation. That’s a fair concern, and one future legislatures and voters can fix. But it’s no reason to keep a system that taxes a millionaire and a minimum-wage worker at the same rate. The roughly $2 billion a year Amendment 87 raises would be dedicated to K-12 education, health care, and early childhood programs. With deficits of $1 billion or more in recent years and programs like Medicaid at risk, that money would cover the state’s projected $1.6 billion shortfall for the 2027-28 budget year. And it would finally strike at the heart of one of TABOR’s cruelest provisions: the flat tax requirement. To be clear, in many years this would hit the owners of CGH squarely, potentially costing us thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars more in taxes. We are lawyers who are fortunate to make good money and pay a lot in taxes, and we are happy to pay more for the betterment of Colorado. Vote yes!

Proposition NN – VOTE YES!

Thanks to TABOR, Colorado has chronically underfunded its public schools for three straight decades. Two studies commissioned by the legislature in 2023 found that the state underfunds its schools by $3.5 billion to $4.1 billion a year. Colorado ranks 43rd in the nation for teacher pay competitiveness and sits in the bottom 20 states for per-student funding. Proposition NN, which the legislature referred to voters, would raise the TABOR cap so the state can keep more of the tax revenue it already collects. That money would first fund a 2% increase in K-12 school funding every year, about $107 million in the first year, with any extra going to K-12 schools and other programs for kids over the next ten years. After ten years, the 2% increase continues, but the legislature can spend any extra however it chooses. An independent audit would show every year how the money is spent. Now, supporters say this measure wouldn’t raise taxes. We find that slightly inaccurate. While tax rates would not go up, Proposition NN would very likely shrink or eliminate the TABOR refunds Coloradans sometimes get back. According to the state’s own analysis, a single filer earning $50,000 would give up about $21 in 2027 and $39 in 2028, and a single filer earning $100,000 would give up $28 and $68. We think that’s a trade worth making. Our children are our future, and Colorado has shortchanged its schools for far too long. Vote yes to let the state keep more of our tax dollars to fund those schools.

Proposition 132 – VOTE NO!

This is another measure backed by Advance Colorado. Right now, Colorado reserves its harshest fentanyl penalties for the most serious cases, like dealing large quantities, selling to a child, or causing a death. Proposition 132 would make distributing any amount of fentanyl, including sharing it, a felony carrying a mandatory minimum of eight years in prison and up to 32. It would also make possessing any amount a felony. At CGH, we oppose the War on Drugs in all its forms. Draconian punishments have failed our state and our nation, and we are under no illusion that longer sentences rehabilitate anyone. The most sympathetic stories supporters tell are heartbreaking: teenagers who took what they thought was a Xanax and died because it contained fentanyl. But under this measure, a friend who shared that pill, likely without knowing what was in it either, would face the same eight-year mandatory minimum as an actual drug trafficker. Today, people who can show they didn’t know a substance contained fentanyl can get reduced penalties in certain cases. Proposition 132 would take that away. Fentanyl deaths are real and tragic, and nearly 1,000 Coloradans died from fentanyl last year. But in our view, the fentanyl crisis is a product of the War on Drugs itself, and of the laws that drove the drug market underground in the first place. We should do everything we can to prevent fentanyl deaths. But more criminalization instead of real harm reduction will have the opposite effect. This measure narrows the Good Samaritan protections that encourage people to call 911 when someone is overdosing. It relies on court-ordered treatment to reduce some charges but doesn’t fund that treatment. And it would imprison people for years at a time with no improvement in community safety. At CGH, we say vote no.

Proposition 133 – VOTE NO!

Proposition 133 would make child sex trafficking a Class 1 felony with a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole. Today, it’s a Class 2 felony with a sentencing range of 8 to 48 years in prison, plus mandatory parole. The measure would also expand the crime to include trading anything of value to buy or sell sex with a minor. Lawmakers considered these same changes this year and rejected them in committee. Let us be clear: child sex trafficking is a horrific crime that causes serious and long-lasting harm, and anyone who commits it deserves to be punished severely. But at CGH, we have consistently opposed longer mandatory sentences, and this measure raises a real danger. Many trafficking victims are pressured into helping their traffickers, which means a victim could end up sentenced to life without parole. Proposition 133 would also take away a judge’s ability to consider the facts of each case at sentencing. As we asked about bail in 2024, why take away judges’ discretion? The measure prioritizes punishment over prevention, and it is unlikely to stop trafficking, either. The penalties for this heinous crime are already harsh, and yet trafficking hasn’t gone away. Most tellingly, the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault and the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, groups that advocate for survivors, both oppose this measure. Some will say a no vote is soft on traffickers. It isn’t. It’s standing with the advocates who work with survivors. We have long believed that harsher punishments alone don’t solve crime. For those reasons, we urge a no vote.

Proposition 134 – VOTE NO!

Proposition 134 would require every school sports team in Colorado, from elementary school through college, to be designated as male, female, or co-ed. Students could play only on teams that match their biological sex, though girls could still join a boys’ team if no girls’ team exists. Right now, individual schools, districts, and athletic associations set their own eligibility policies, and we see no reason to change that. At CGH, we have always stood with the LGBTQ community and supported equality, and that isn’t changing now. This measure is also badly written. It defines sex by a student’s reproductive system but sets no standard for how schools are supposed to determine it, and no mechanism for enforcing it. Even its backers can’t agree on how it would work: one says it’s “a birth certificate or a cheek swab,” while another says she’d rather not have to implement sex testing at all. Supporters say the measure is about fairness for girls. But a law with no clear standard could subject many girls, not just transgender students, to uncomfortable physical inspections, especially girls who are tall, strong, or athletically gifted. It was put on the ballot by Protect Kids Colorado, which Colorado Newsline has described as a conservative anti-LGBTQ advocacy group. At the end of the day, we believe this issue has been consistently overblown at the local, state, and national levels. Very few transgender students play on teams that don’t match their sex at birth, and depending on a student’s age and medical treatment, any athletic advantage may be small. The current system allows local control on a difficult issue, and it should stay that way. We shouldn’t pass a law that breeds hate in our state. Vote no!

Proposition 135 – VOTE NO!

Proposition 135 comes from Protect Kids Colorado, the same group behind Proposition 134. It would prohibit any surgery on a minor performed in response to the minor’s perception of sex or gender, and it would bar Medicaid, private insurance, and state or federal funds from paying for those surgeries. (It does not ban hormone therapy, puberty blockers, or counseling.) First, the measure is too broad. Because the ban turns on a surgery’s purpose rather than a list of procedures, it could interfere with care for both transgender and non-transgender minors and leave patients, doctors, and insurers guessing about what is allowed. Second, that uncertainty creates a chilling effect. Insurers could use the measure to limit coverage for a wide range of treatments, and doctors may cut back on care for fear of legal consequences. Third, at CGH, we have consistently opposed laws that put the government between patients and their doctors. This one would put the government between families and their doctors, regardless of what a family decides or a physician recommends. Supporters argue that minors aren’t mature enough to make permanent medical decisions on their own. But under Colorado law, they already can’t: surgery on a minor requires a parent’s consent. We take some solace in knowing that these surgeries are rare. A Harvard study of 2019 insurance data estimated that only about 2.1 out of every 100,000 youths aged 15 to 17 had a gender-affirming surgery, about 1 in a million for ages 13 and 14, and none for ages 12 and under. Most of those procedures were chest surgeries on non-transgender boys to remove abnormal breast growth, exactly the kind of care this vague measure could sweep in. And according to news reports, Colorado hospitals don’t currently offer these surgeries to minors at all. These decisions are difficult, but they are best made by the child, their parents, and their doctors. Government should have no role. We urge a no vote.

Proposition 136 – VOTE NO!

Proposition 136, backed by Advance Colorado, is the right-wing answer to Amendment 87. Where Amendment 87 would end our flat income tax, Proposition 136 would cap Colorado’s individual and corporate income tax rates at the current 4.4% in state law. According to the state’s nonpartisan analysts, on its own, this measure doesn’t do anything. Yes, you read that right: a ballot measure that, by itself, does nothing. It doesn’t change the current tax rate, and voters already have a say over every income tax increase, because TABOR requires us to approve each one at the ballot box. The only practical effect of Proposition 136 is to challenge Amendment 87, which we strongly support for the reasons described above. Advance Colorado’s own president has written that, “as an additional benefit,” it would counter Amendment 87. If both measures pass, it’s unclear which would win, and the legislature or the courts might have to sort it out. Don’t let that happen. Vote no.

Proposition 137 – We are neutral.

Proposition 137, backed by a coalition of conservation groups, wouldn’t create a new tax. Instead, it would redirect the state sales tax revenue from purchases and rentals of items like bikes, camping gear, boats, hunting and fishing equipment, RVs, and fitness equipment (an estimated $175 million a year) to conservation, wildfire mitigation, watershed restoration, and outdoor recreation programs. That money would also be exempt from TABOR. In years when the state collects more than its TABOR limit, that means smaller refunds, an estimated $26 to $83 for single filers. In many ways, we support this measure. We believe funding conservation, wildfire mitigation, and watershed restoration is important. The money would help protect drinking water, reduce wildfire risk, create new parks and trails, and protect wildlife habitat, and supporters point to research showing that every dollar spent on disaster mitigation saves six down the road. But we also worry that this law would interfere with the legislature’s judgment. That concern is shared by the Colorado Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, Colorado Wild, and Clean Energy Action, all of which oppose it. This measure would set this money aside for conservation even in terrible budget years, when it would otherwise go to the state’s general budget. That raises a tough question: in a year when the budget is in rough shape, should we cut conservation or Medicaid? And if both pass, Proposition 137 would reduce the money Proposition NN keeps for our schools. Those decisions are best left to our elected officials rather than to a ballot measure. For those reasons, we are staying neutral in this fight, and we respect either choice.

City and County of Denver Ballot Measures

Referred Question 2H – VOTE YES!

Denver’s Auditor’s Office already enforces the city’s minimum wage and wage theft laws under ordinances passed by City Council. Referred Question 2H would add one line to the city charter confirming that the Auditor has the power to enforce wage, worker protection, and workplace rights laws as Council requires. Why put it in the charter? Because powers granted by ordinance can be taken away. That isn’t hypothetical: Council stripped the office’s subpoena power for wage investigations in 2022 before restoring it in 2024. Writing this authority into the charter gives Denver workers stability. And that work matters: in 2025 alone, the Auditor’s Office recovered a record $2.3 million in stolen wages for more than 4,200 workers. It protects every worker in the city, including undocumented immigrants. There is no organized opposition. On this record, this is an easy yes.

Referred Question 2I – VOTE YES!

Referred Question 2I would allow Denver to plan and adopt its budget on a two-year cycle instead of one. The city could stick with one-year budgets when the economy is uncertain, and City Council would still approve spending every year. The measure would also give Council and the public more time to review the mayor’s proposed budget by requiring the mayor to release it earlier. And it would add a budget-deficit safeguard: a 2% gap between projected revenues and spending would trigger a public budget reduction plan, and a 5% gap would require the mayor and Council to cut spending to balance the budget. The city estimates the change would cost about $50,000 to implement. Opponents worry that a two-year cycle requires the city’s finance department to forecast further into the future, and they point to last year’s $200 million budget shortfall. That’s a fair concern. But overall, we believe better planning for long-term projects, freed-up staff time, and more time for Council and the public to weigh in outweigh it. Vote yes!

Referred Question 2J – VOTE YES!

This is a government cleanup measure with no organized opposition. Denver’s Civil Service Commission and classified service system govern police and fire personnel, but many of the rules date back to 1904 and have been amended piecemeal ever since. Referred Question 2J would clean up outdated language, add gender-neutral language, and change disciplinary review timelines. It would let probation periods be extended for medical, military, or other approved leave, so new hires called to military service or facing a medical issue have time to complete their probation. It would also remove a citizenship requirement for commission members. Two years ago, we supported removing the citizenship requirement for Denver’s police officers and firefighters (Referred Question 2T), and the same reasoning applies here. The measure would also remove the charter’s caps on the number of police and fire command positions, letting city leaders set that number based on department needs. The city’s finance department expects little financial impact. Overall, this measure would have very little day-to-day impact on the people of Denver, but it would clean up problematic language written more than 100 years ago. Vote yes on 2J.

Referred Question 2K – We are neutral.

Referred Question 2K would approve a new 20-year franchise agreement with Xcel Energy, running through 2047. The franchise sets what Xcel must do in return for using public property like streets, alleys, and rights-of-way to deliver electricity and natural gas. Under Denver’s charter, voters must approve each new franchise every 20 years. Under the current agreement, Xcel pays the city a 3% franchise fee, which it passes on to customers’ electric and gas bills, and that fee keeps flowing even if voters say no. First, the good: when this deal first came to City Council last year, Council voted it down and used its leverage to get a better one from Xcel. This deal is better than the one Council rejected. It would provide an estimated $150 million a year in utility relocation benefits and $10 million a year to bury power lines. Without a franchise, Denver would have to pay Xcel to move its lines for city projects. And a no vote would start an uncertain period: Boulder went about 10 years without a franchise agreement. However, there are still questions about whether this deal is good enough. Critics point out that Xcel pays its national CEO $16 million while committing a base of only $125,000 a year to assistance programs. And Denver only has real leverage when the franchise is about to expire, so locking in a 20-year deal until 2047 may not make the most sense. Ultimately, do your own research and come to your own decision. We are neutral on this one.

Initiated Ordinance 311 – VOTE YES!

Initiated Ordinance 311 would ban producing or selling products made by force-feeding birds, including foie gras, in Denver starting in July 2027. (Foie gras made without force-feeding would still be legal.) Force-feeding birds to make foie gras is cruel and inhumane, and Denver should ban it. You may have noticed that in 2024, we opposed both the fur ban and the slaughterhouse ban that the same group put on the ballot. This measure is different. Unlike the slaughterhouse ban, it wouldn’t cost Denver a ton of jobs. There are no farms in Denver that force-feed birds, and foie gras is served at a relatively small number of restaurants here. And unlike the fur ban, we don’t think it will simply push sales to the suburbs. Very few people travel to a restaurant just to order foie gras, so we expect this to have little, if any, impact on Denver restaurant jobs. In 2024, we said real change on animal welfare comes from places like California that have the economic might to move the rest of the country. California already bans force-fed foie gras, and voters in Washington, D.C., face a similar question this November. Denver joining them adds to that momentum. Some opponents call this a government mandate on what people can eat. But restaurants could still serve foie gras made without force-feeding. The only thing banned is the cruelty. At the end of the day, the practice itself is cruel, not just the product. We recommend a yes vote.

DPS Ballot Issue 4A – VOTE YES!

Ballot Issue 4A is a mill levy override: essentially a property tax increase to pay for educational programming in Denver Public Schools. DPS faces serious funding pressure as enrollment declines, because Colorado funds schools per student. Ballot Issue 4A would raise roughly $44 million a year. $25.8 million of that would give a $1,750 raise to every full-time DPS employee, prorated for part-timers. Because the raise is a flat amount, lower-paid employees, including bus drivers, custodians, and food service workers, would get the largest percentage increase. It would also provide $4 million for career and technical education, $2.9 million for student mental health, and about $2 million for special education. Another $9.3 million would go to the district’s charter schools, as state law requires. For the owner of a median-priced Denver home, worth about $624,800, this would mean a property tax increase of roughly $72 a year. We do have some concern about how many mill levy overrides Denver voters have approved over the years. This would be the eighth since 1988, and all of them remain in effect. But just as we support Proposition NN at the state level, we ultimately believe more funding for Denver schools is essential, and $72 a year for the median Denver homeowner is negligible. Vote yes.

Ballot Issue 7A – VOTE YES, with reservations.

This measure appears only on ballots inside the Front Range Passenger Rail District, which includes Denver. It would add a 0.333% sales tax, roughly one-third of a penny on a $1 purchase, raising about $295 million a year, and let the district borrow $580 million. The money would extend the planned Colorado Connector passenger rail line south from Denver to Colorado Springs and Pueblo and add more frequent trains along the whole route. The northern route from Denver to Fort Collins is already funded by RTD and the state and is expected to begin service in 2029. Front Range rail has been promised for a long time. Boulder and Longmont residents have been waiting for the commuter rail RTD promised in its 2004 FasTracks vote. We believe passenger rail is desperately needed in Colorado, and connecting some of our most important cities is smart policy. However, we are wary of funding it with another sales tax increase. Sales taxes hit the poor and middle class harder than the rich, and people in Denver and the metro area already pay substantial sales taxes. (To its credit, the tax would not apply to groceries, gas, home utilities, or prescription drugs.) In 2020, we wrote that TABOR makes it practically impossible to raise revenue without hitting the poor, and that’s still true. Overall, though, we believe the railway is worth it, but we hope governments find a different way to fund projects like this in the future. Vote yes on 7A.