Ari Armstrong's Web Log (Main) | Archives | Terms of Use
Vote No on Everything: Ari's Guide to the 2026 Colorado Ballot
Say no to tax hikes and culture-war nonsense.
by Ari Armstrong, Copyright © 2026
Conservatives are supposed to care about statesmanship, republicanism, and the rule of just law. Instead, shamefully, too many Colorado conservatives promote badly written ballot measures intended to fight culture wars and drive voter turnout.
At the same time, progressives relentlessly strive to expand the power of government at the expense of the rights of the citizens.
We should not wish a pox on both their houses, because the pox is horrible, and we should strive to disagree without being hateful (extreme cases aside). But we (people who care about liberty and good governance) definitely clearly should exclaim that we're tired both of tax hikes and of culture-war nonsense. Those of you who disagree on this or that hopefully still will find my analysis insightful. With that, let's go through the ballot measure for measure.
Amendment 81—Immigration Notification
This measure seeks to require law enforcement to "notify the federal Department of Homeland Security" if someone is charged with a crime who is in the country illegally or if the legal status is unknown. What's wrong with this?
This does not belong in the constitution. Indeed, the measure manifests contempt for the very idea of a constitution, which is supposed to embody fundamental law.
The language explicitly references a federal department that came into existence after 9/11. It's wrong to make a state's constitution contingent on the existence of a federal agency which could be dissolved or reorganized.
The federal government actively has interfered with criminal prosecutions in Colorado. A CPR headline states, "Scores of criminal cases disrupted by ICE deportations have cheated victims and made Colorado less safe, [some] district attorneys say."
Amendment 82—Natural Gas
This stupidly written measure guarantees, again in the state constitution, a consumer "right to purchase natural gas," irrespective of the rights of property owners and sellers. It's very possible that, in the not-too-distant future, we'll move to carbon-free electricity generation with solar and nuclear technologies. Developers have a right, which this measure violates, to build electric-only developments if they want. See also my op-ed for the Aurora Sentinel.
Amendment 83—Hunting
This measure establishes a "right" to hunt and fish. This language does not belong in the state constitution. The language about "the use of traditional methods" is ambiguous and so subject to legal wrangling. There could be (and I believe are) good reasons to ban certain types of inhumane "traditional methods." We can debate whether this is proper policy, but, in fact, wildlife currently is considered collective property, and therefore necessarily controlled by government. In general, hunting simply is not under threat. It's an important part of Colorado's tourism and recreation industry, so no politician would challenge it. What this measure is really about is the hunting of wild cats with dogs, which only a tiny fraction of hunters do, and which is reasonably debated as a matter of statutory and bureaucratic policy.
Amendment 84—Voter ID
This is yet more language that does not belong in the state constitution. Please, do not call yourself a constitutionalist if you aim to bloat the state constitution with language that belongs in statute. And it is a solution in search of a problem. Colorado's voting systems already have robust checks. Krista Kafer, who favors the measure, concedes that existing safeguards already catch the tiny number of cheats. We have to look at both sides: keeping out cheats, and letting qualified voters cast a vote. If we block one cheat at the cost of initially mucking the ballots of 100 qualified voters who, say, transpose ID digits, that is not a win for democracy. I'm not sure what the exact trade-off is, but we have every reason to think this measure will disenfranchise qualified voters far more often than it catches additional cheats, beyond what existing safeguards catch.
Amendment 85—Dumbed-Down Language
This measure aims to make ballot titles be written at an eighth-grade level or below. The basic problem with this seemingly simple language, which, again, does not belong in the state constitution, is that there is no clear or universal standard for what counts as an eighth-grade reading level. See also my op-ed at Complete Colorado.
Amendment 86—Congressional Redistricting
Let's be blunt here: Republicans want to gerrymander where it gives them the advantage and not gerrymander where it would give Democrats the advantage. In Colorado, Republicans enjoy a congressional advantage relative to statewide voter totals. In this case, the measure seeks to replace existing constitutional language (which I did not favor in the first place) with slightly revised constitutional language, making it harder to change congressional maps. I'm going to vote no just because I don't think this is needed, but I don't think it's unreasonable to vote yes. One reasonably could go either way.
Amendment 87—Progressive Income Tax
I have nothing in principle against a progressive income tax with low rates, assuming we have to have income taxes. But this measure also is an immediate net tax hike, its top brackets are punishingly high, and the brackets are not tied to inflation, meaning it's a long-term "tax creep." This is all bad from the perspective of economic liberty. See also my op-ed at Complete Colorado.
Proposition NN—Net Tax Hike for Education
This is another net tax hike via the seizure of TABOR refunds. It's supposedly for education, but money is fungible and the education requirements expire anyway. Insofar as the measure would make new funding available for schools, the funds are not well-tied to performance outcomes. The basic problem with public education is not funding, it is poor incentives and bad pedagogy, which this measure will not fix.
Proposition 132—Fentanyl Penalties
This measure would felonize any possession of fentanyl, impose extreme overpunishment for low-level distribution, and discourage the seeking of medical assistance. See CCJRC.
Proposition 133—Human Trafficking
This badly written measure creates the following absurdity: A 17-year-old and an 18-year-old legally can have sex, but, if the 18-year-old offers, say, a candy bar as an inducement for sex, the 18-year-old then is subject to life in prison. Don't pretend you are a friend of the rule of just law if you support such a legal monstrosity. See also my op-ed at Complete Colorado.
Proposition 134—Trans Kids in Sports
This is another solution in search of a problem. I agree there are certain contexts in which trans girls and women should not compete against cys girls and women, owing to physiological advantages (on average) of the former. But the absolutist language of this measure is not the answer. The language potentially applies to private groups in violation of their rights of association. Another problem: The measure defines a "female" as "a person whose biological reproductive system is organized around the production of ova." In a tiny fraction of cases, someone is born with physiological mismatch between external genitalia and internal reproductive systems. However, the language potentially is not as far-reaching as it seems, because schools can just start "coeducational or mixed" teams and leagues. As I've long argued, sports should be organized around relevant physiological characteristics (such as weight and muscle mass), not genitalia.
Proposition 135—Trans Surgeries for Minors
If I were the parent of a transgender minor child, I would not consent to any trans-related surgery. At the same time, if the child as an older teen, the parents, and the relevant medical professionals all agree to such a surgery, who am I to interfere? Remember tort action remains on the table. Let's be blunt here: This measure is born of anti-trans prejudice and hysteria. See also my op-ed at Complete Colorado.
Proposition 136—Cap Income Tax
I don't have any big objection to this, but basically it's a poison-pill measure meant to interfere with the progressive tax proposal. I don't see the need for it.
Proposition 137—Sales Tax Designation
Voters should not try to micromanage the budget.
Ballot Issue 7A—Taxes for Rail
This measure, limited in geographic scope, calls for a tax hike for passenger rail. Look, we're on the cusp of self-driving electric cars. Privatize RDT and the railways. If you're worried about poor people having access to transportation, just give them more cash or travel vouchers or whatever.