Colorado Amendment 73, Establish Income Tax Brackets and Raise Taxes for Education Initiative (2018)

Elections in Colorado, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 29
• Early voting: Mail ballots available Oct. 5
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: Yes
• Voter ID: Non-photo ID required for in-person voting
• Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. House • Governor • Attorney General • Secretary of State • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • Municipal • Recalls • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

Colorado Amendment 73
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Taxes and Education
Status d Defeated
Type Amendment & Statute	Origin Citizens
List of Colorado measuresColorado Amendment AColorado Amendment VColorado Amendment WColorado Amendment XColorado Amendment YColorado Amendment ZColorado Amendment 73Colorado Amendment 74Colorado Amendment 75Colorado Proposition 109Colorado Proposition 110Colorado Proposition 111Colorado Proposition 112Submit

Colorado Amendment 73, the Establish Income Tax Brackets and Raise Taxes for Education Initiative, was on the ballot in Colorado as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute on November 6, 2018. It was defeated.

A yes vote supported the ballot initiative to establish an income tax bracket system rather than a flat income tax rate and raise taxes for individuals earning more than $150,000 per year, raise the corporate income tax rate, and create the Quality Public Education Fund.

A no vote opposed the ballot initiative to establish a tax bracket system rather than a flat tax rate and raise taxes for individuals earning more than $150,000 per year, raise the corporate income tax rate, and create the Quality Public Education Fund.

A 55 percent supermajority vote was required for the approval of this initiative. Amendment 73 was formerly known as Initiative 93.

Supermajority requirement: A 55 percent supermajority vote was required for the approval of Amendment 73.

Election results

Colorado Amendment 73
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,137,527	46.43%
No		1,312,331	53.57%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Amendment 73 have done?

The measure was designed to increase income taxes for people earning above $150,000 per year. Under the measure, the increases would have been according to brackets, rather than the state's current flat tax rate of 4.63 percent. There would have been no change in income taxes for those earning between $0 and $150,000, which would have continued to be taxed at the current tax rate of 4.63 percent. For taxable income between $150,001 and above, the new tax rates would have been between 5 and 8.25 percent. The brackets under the measure are shown in the chart below.

The measure would have decreased property taxes levied by school districts, though it would not have affected property taxes levied by other local governments. Under the measure, the property tax rate for residential property would have been decreased to 7 percent from 7.2 percent and the non-residential property ratewould have been decreased to 24 percent from 29 percent. The initiative would have also increased the corporate tax rate from 4.63 percent to 6 percent.

The measure would have established a fund called the Quality Public Education Fund. Revenue generated from the new taxes would have been dedicated to the Quality Public Education Fund to fund preschool through 12th-grade public education. Specifically, the fund would have been used to increase the statewide base per-pupil funding and increase spending for special education, preschool, English language proficiency, and gifted programs, among other things.

How would your tax rates have been affected if Amendment 73 had been approved?

Those making less than $150,000 per year would not have seen changes to their income tax rate and would have continued to be taxed at the tax rate of 4.63 percent.

Who supported and opposed Amendment 73?

The following four committees were registered to support Amendment 73:

• Great Education Colorado Issue Committee
• Great Schools Thriving Communities
• Yes on Amendment 73
• Win the Fourth Colorado Issue Committee

Together, they had raised $1.39 million and had spent $1.38 million.

The following five committees were registered to oppose Amendment 73:

• Don't Turn Colorado into California
• Blank Check, Blatant Deception
• Fix Our Damn Roads
• State Ballot Issue Committee
• Americans for Prosperity Colorado Issue Committee

Together, they had raised $2.6 million and had spent $2.53 million.

Measure design

Amendment 73 was designed to do the following:

• Increase income taxes for individuals with income above $150,000 per year according to a bracket system rather than a flat tax rate;
• Increase the corporate tax rate from 4.63 percent to 6 percent;
• Reduce residential and nonresidential property tax rates,
• Create a fund (called the Quality Public Education Fund) dedicated to public education from revenue generated by tax increases, and
• Mandate certain actions by the legislature regarding the fund and implementation.

It was also designed to change state statutes to provide details concerning the implementation of the tax increases and the public education fund.

The measure specifies that money appropriated for education from the fund must be used in addition to, not instead of, the amount of money appropriated for education from the state's general fund.

Changes in tax rates

See also: Colorado taxes

The following tax rate changes would have resulted in an estimated total revenue increase for the state of $1.6 billion, according to the fiscal impact statement prepared by fiscal analysts with the Colorado Legislative Council Staff.

Income tax

Income taxes for individuals, corporations, trusts, and estates would have been collected according to brackets rather than the current flat rate of 4.63 percent. There would have been no change in income taxes for income between $0 and $150,000. Income between those amounts would have continued to be taxed at the flat tax rate, which was 4.63 percent as of 2018. The new brackets under the measure would have been as follows:

• 5 percent for income between $150,000 and $200,000;
• 6 percent for income between $200,000 and $300,000;
• 7 percent for income between $300,000 and $500,000; and
• 8.25 percent for income above $500,000.

Corporate income tax

The corporate income tax, a flat rate of 4.63 percent as of 2018, would have been raised by 1.37 percent, bringing the rate to a new total of 6 percent.

Property tax rates

This measure applied to property taxes levied by school districts. The measure would not have affected property taxes levied by other local governments. Going into the election, residential property was assessed at 7.20 percent and the non-residential property was assessed at 29 percent. Under the measure, the property tax rate for residential property would have been decreased to 7 percent and the non-residential property rate would be decreased to 24 percent.

Quality Public Education Fund

This measure would have established a fund called the Quality Public Education Fund. Revenue generated from the new taxes would have been dedicated to the Quality Public Education Fund to fund preschool through 12th-grade public education. Specifically, the fund would have been used to do the following:

• Increase statewide base per-pupil funding to $7,300
• Increase state funding beyond fiscal year 2018-2019 levels for the following programs by the amounts specified below:
  • special education by $120 million;
  • English language proficiency programs by $20 million;
  • gifted and talented programs by $10 million; and
  • preschool funding by $10 million.

Amounts above would have been adjusted for inflation each year beginning in fiscal year 2020-2021.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

Shall state taxes be increased $1,600,000,000 annually by an amendment to the Colorado constitution and a change to the Colorado revised statutes concerning funding relating to preschool through high school public education, and, in connection therewith, creating an exception to the single rate state income tax for revenue that is dedicated to the funding of public schools; increasing income tax rates incrementally for individuals, trusts, and estates using four tax brackets starting at .37% for income above $150,000 and increasing to 3.62% for income above $500,000; increasing the corporate income tax rate by 1.37%; for purposes of school district property taxes, reducing the current residential assessment rate of 7.2% to 7.0% and the current nonresidential assessment rate of 29% to 24%; requiring the revenue from the income tax increases to be deposited in a dedicated public education fund and allowing the revenue collected to be retained and spent as voter-approved revenue changes; requiring the legislature to annually appropriate money from the fund to school districts to support early childhood through high school public educational programs on an equitable basis throughout the state without decreasing general fund appropriations; directing the legislature to enact, regularly review, and revise when necessary, a new public school finance law that meets specified criteria; until the legislature has enacted a new public school finance law, requiring the money in the fund to be annually appropriated for specified education programs and purposes; requiring the money in the fund to be used to support only public schools; requiring general fund appropriations for public education to increase by inflation, up to 5%, annually; and requiring the department of education to commission a study of the use of the money in the fund within five years?

Summary and analysis

The summary and analysis provided for this measure in the Colorado 2018 State Ballot Information Booklet (also known as the Blue Book) was as follows:

Amendment 73 proposes amending the Colorado Constitution and Colorado statutes to: increase funding for preschool through twelfth grade (P-12) public education; raise the state individual income tax rate for taxpayers with taxable income over $150,000, and increase the state corporate income tax rate to provide additional funding for education; and for property taxes levied by school districts, set the assessment rate at 7.0 percent for residential properties and decrease the assessment rate to 24.0 percent for most nonresidential properties. Current P-12 education funding. P-12 public schools in Colorado are funded through a combination of state, local, and federal sources. Based on the latest available data, total education funding is approximately $9.7 billion, of which $6.6 billion is allocated to school districts through a formula in state law. Formula funding begins with the same amount of funding per student, known as the base per pupil funding, which is constitutionally required to increase by at least the rate of inflation annually. In budget year 2017-18, the base per pupil amount was $6,546. The base funding amount is then adjusted by the following factors to determine a final per pupil amount that varies by district: district size factor, which provides additional funding based on student enrollment, with smaller districts receiving more funding; cost-of-living factor, which provides additional funding based on the cost of living in a given district relative to other districts; at-risk factor, which provides additional funding based on the number of low-income and non-English speaking students; and budget stabilization factor, which was adopted in 2010 as a budget-balancing tool and applies an equal percentage reduction in formula funding across all school districts. After the factors were applied, final per pupil amounts ranged from $7,236 to $16,247 across all school districts in budget year 2017-18. Once the funding is distributed to districts, each locally elected school board determines how to spend the revenue in its own district. Formula funding sources. Formula funding is provided by state and local sources. The state pays for the portion of the formula that school districts are unable to fund with their local revenue. Of the $6.6 billion distributed through the formula in budget year 2017-18, the state share was $4.1 billion and the local share was $2.5 billion. The state share is funded by income taxes, sales taxes, and other state revenues, while the local share is funded through local property taxes and vehicle ownership taxes. Other funding sources. In addition to funding set by the formula, districts receive additional state assistance for specific programs, known as "categoricals." Categoricals include special education, English language learning, gifted and talented and vocational programs, and transportation and totaled $297.6 million in budget year 2017-18. Additional sources of revenue for education include federal funding, district-assessed fees, competitive state grants for specific purposes, and state capital construction programs, among other sources. In many school districts, voters have approved property tax revenue above the amount authorized through the school finance formula. These additional property taxes are called "mill levy overrides," and are used for specific local education needs. As of 2018, voters in 121 out of 178 districts have approved mill levy overrides. For those districts, the additional per pupil funding ranges from $32 to $5,024 per student. Education funding under the measure. The measure encourages the state legislature to adopt a new public school finance act that distributes funding to public schools. The new distribution formula must be transparent and easy to understand, and meet criteria related to: an increase in base per pupil funding; equitable allocation of funding among districts, based on certain student and district characteristics; additional funding for certain specialized and early childhood programs; and the recruitment and retention of teachers. Until a new act is adopted, the additional revenue generated by the measure must be spent as shown in Table 1 [of the Blue Book Analysis]. Of the $1.6 billion in new revenue generated in the first year of implementation (budget year 2019-20), $866 million must be spent on specific funding criteria. The remaining $738.6 million must also be spent on public education, as determined by the state legislature. Income taxes. Amendment 73 increases income tax rates to provide additional revenue for public education. Colorado’s current individual and corporate income tax rate is a flat 4.63 percent. Beginning in 2019, the measure creates a graduated individual income tax rate for taxable income above $150,000, and increases the corporate tax rate from 4.63 percent to 6.0 percent. The measure is expected to generate $1.6 billion in budget year 2019-20, the first year of implementation, to be spent on public education. This revenue is exempt from constitutional spending limits. Those with taxable income equal to or less than $150,000 will not experience an income tax increase under the measure. The impact of the graduated tax increase on taxpayers with higher earnings will differ based on a taxpayer’s taxable income. For example, a taxpayer with taxable income equal to $250,000 would be taxed at 4.63 percent for the first $150,000 in income. The subsequent $50,000 would be taxed at a rate of 5.0 percent, and the final $50,000 would be taxed at a rate of 6.0 percent. Corporate income tax. The measure increases the corporate income tax rate from 4.63 percent to 6.0 percent. In contrast to the measure’s individual tax rate changes, the increase in the corporate income tax rate is not a graduated tax rate and applies to all corporate taxpayers. The change is expected to generate $229.4 million in budget year 2019-20. On average, each corporate income taxpayer with an income tax liability is expected to pay an additional $14,139 per year under the measure. Property taxes. Property taxes are paid on a portion of a property’s value, determined by an assessment rate. Under current law, the assessment rate for most nonresidential property is set at 29 percent, and the rate for residential property is determined by the state legislature based on a formula in the state constitution. Over time, the residential assessment rate has declined from 21 percent in 1983 to the current rate of 7.2 percent. Based on the most recent projection published by Legislative Council Staff, the rate is expected to fall to approximately 6.1 percent for 2019 and 2020. The actual rate will be determined during the 2019 legislative session. Changes to property taxes under Amendment 73. For school district property taxes only, beginning in 2019, Amendment 73 reduces the nonresidential assessment rate from 29 percent to 24 percent, thereby reducing taxes for nonresidential property. The measure reduces the current residential assessment rate from 7.2 percent to 7.0 percent, and sets it at this lower rate, keeping it from falling further. Relative to a projected 6.1 percent residential assessment rate, the rate under the measure will result in a tax increase for residential property taxpayers. The measure does not impact the assessment rates for mines and lands producing oil and gas. Taxpayer impacts. As explained above, the measure is expected to decrease school district property taxes for most nonresidential property taxpayers, and increase school district property taxes for residential property taxpayers above what would be paid in 2019 without the measure. The impact on property owners will vary significantly based on several factors, including the school finance formula mill levy rate for the local school district, the actual value of the property, the 2019 residential assessment rate without the measure, and whether and what type of mill levy overrides have been approved by the voters in the school district. For information about the projected impacts on taxpayers in a particular school district, please visit [1]. School finance impacts. In 2019, the measure is projected to decrease school district property tax revenue by $62.4 million, reflecting a decrease in nonresidential property tax revenue of $317.8 million, partially off-set by an increase in residential property tax revenue of $255.3 million. This decrease in school district revenue in 2019 could be replaced by state funding, which could come from the additional income tax revenue generated by the measure, depending on decisions made by the state legislature. In future years, local property tax revenue for school districts will only be impacted by changes in property values and mill levy rates, not by a changing residential assessment rate. Reporting Requirements Amendment 73 requires the Colorado Department of Education, within five years of the measure’s implementation, to review how the additional revenue is spent and identify best practices for promoting continuous student achievement. In addition, the state legislature, within ten years of the implementation of the new school finance formula, is required to review the formula and make any necessary adjustments.

Constitutional changes

See also: Article IX, Colorado Constitution

The measure would have added a new subsection to section 17 of Article IX of the Colorado Constitution and would have amended sections 3 and 20 of article X of the constitution. The following underlined text would have been added:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

In the constitution of the state of Colorado, section 17 of article IX, add (4.5) as follows:

Section 17. Education — Funding. (4.5) Quality Public Education Fund Created.

This subsection shall be known and cited as the “Quality Public Education Fund Amendment of 2018”. The purpose of this section is to create a more sustainable, fair, and adequate system for financing public schools that is designed to meet the needs of every student in the state of Colorado to prepare them for success in career, college, and life.

(b) There is hereby created in the department of the treasury the quality public education fund. The quality public education fund shall receive all revenues collected through an income tax increment for public school funding approved by the voters at the 2018 general election. All interest earned on moneys in the quality public education fund shall be deposited in the quality public education fund and shall be used before any principal is depleted. Moneys remaining in the quality public education fund at the end of any fiscal year shall remain in the fund and not revert to the general fund, the state education fund, or to any other cash fund.

(c) In state fiscal year 2019-2020, and each fiscal year thereafter, the general assembly shall annually appropriate, and school districts may annually expend, moneys from the quality public education fund for such purposes as shall be specified by law to improve, support and enhance the quality of pre-primary, primary, and secondary public school educational programs, resources, and opportunities on an equitable basis for the benefit of students throughout the state.

(d) Moneys appropriated from the quality public education fund shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, the level of fiscal year general fund appropriations for public education funding existing on the effective date of this subsection.

In the constitution of the state of Colorado, section 3 of article X, amend (1)(b) as follows:

(1)(b)(I) Residential real property, which shall include all residential dwelling units and the land, as defined by law, on which such units are located, and mobile home parks, but shall not include hotels and motels, shall be valued for assessment at twenty-one percent of its actual value. For the property tax year commencing January 1, 1985, the general assembly shall determine the percentage of the aggregate statewide valuation for assessment which is attributable to residential real property. For each subsequent year, the general assembly shall again determine the percentage of the aggregate statewide valuation for assessment which is attributable to each class of taxable property, after adding in the increased valuation for assessment attributable to new construction and to increased volume of mineral and oil and gas production. For each year in which there is a change in the level of value used in determining actual value, the general assembly shall adjust the ratio of valuation for assessment for residential real property which is set forth in this paragraph (b) as is necessary to insure that the percentage of the aggregate statewide valuation for assessment which is attributable to residential real property shall remain the same as it was in the year immediately preceding the year in which such change occurs. Such adjusted ratio shall be the ratio of valuation for assessment for residential real property for those years for which such new level of value is used. In determining the adjustment to be made in the ratio of valuation for assessment for residential real property, the aggregate statewide valuation for assessment that is attributable to residential real property shall be calculated as if the full actual value of all owner-occupied primary residences that are partially exempt from taxation pursuant to section 3.5 of this article was subject to taxation. All other taxable property shall be valued for assessment at twenty-nine percent of its actual value. However, the valuation for assessment for producing mines, as defined by law, and lands or leaseholds producing oil or gas, as defined by law, shall be a portion of the actual annual or actual average annual production therefrom, based upon the value of the unprocessed material, according to procedures prescribed by law for different types of minerals. Non-producing unpatented mining claims, which are possessory interests in real property by virtue of leases from the United States of America, shall be exempt from property taxation.

(b)(ll) Notwithstanding the requirements of subsection (1)(b)(I) of this section, for all school district property tax levies in any property tax year commencing on or after January 1, 2019, residential real property shall be valued for assessment at seven percent of its actual value, and all other taxable property shall be valued for assessment at twenty-four percent of its actual value except as otherwise set forth in subsection (1)(b)(I) of this section with regard to producing mines and lands or leaseholds producing oil or gas.

In the constitution of the state of Colorado, section 20 of article X, amend (8)(a) as follows:

(8) Revenue limits. (a) New or increased transfer tax rates on real property are prohibited. No new state real property tax or local district income tax shall be imposed. Neither an income tax rate increase nor a new state definition of taxable income shall apply before the next tax year. Any income tax law change after July 1, 1992 shall also require all taxable net income to be taxed at one rate, excluding refund tax credits or voter-approved tax credits, with no added tax or surcharge; except that multiple rates may apply to taxable net income of individuals, trusts, estates, and corporations if specific rate increases in excess of the tax rate in effect on the day of an election are approved by voters for the purpose of providing an income tax increment dedicated to the funding of pre-primary through secondary public schools.

This measure was a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute. Along with constitutional changes, the measure would have amended state statute. To read the full text of the initiative including statutory changes, click here.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Colorado Title Board wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 61, and the FRE is -93. The word count for the ballot title is 280, and the estimated reading time is 1 minute and 14 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Great Schools Thriving Communities, also known as Yes on Amendment 73, led the campaign in support of Amendment 73.

Supporters

• U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
• The RE-1 Valley School Board
• Colorado AFL-CIO
• League of Women Voters
• Colorado Council of Churches
• Colorado Rural Schools Alliance
• March for Science
• NAACP
• Project Voyce
• Teach Plus
• The Bell Policy Center
• AFSCME
• AFT Colorado
• Advocacy Denver
• Taxpayers for Public Education
• Together Colorado
• Poudre School District
• Colorado Council of Churches
• Colorado School Finance Project
• Colorado Education Association
• Colorado Association of School Executives
• Colorado PTA
• Pro 15
• Moffat County School Board

Arguments

Great Schools Thriving Communities featured the following arguments on its website:

“

Creating a graduated income tax structure that begins at $150,000 in federal taxable income (income after exemptions and deductions) helps to address inequities in Colorado's current tax system. [The measure would make] the tax code more fair for hard-working Coloradans. To provide sustainable support for schools for years to come, [the measure] stabilizes the volatile local share of education funding by first lowering property tax rates and then freezing the rates, which are third lowest in the nation. Colorado has 900,000 students. It takes over $830 million to just return our per-pupil spending to levels that existed in 2010. The $1.6 billion amount does not even return us to the national average.

”

• Rob Sanders, Buffalo School District Superintendent, who helped come up with the ballot measure and its proposed funding formula, said, "We know that if this thing passes, from Pawnee, to Wiggins, to Wray, to Julesburg, there will be $44 million infused into northeastern Colorado." He explained that "the less you make, the more percentage of your income goes to taxes in Colorado. If this passes, 92 percent of Colorado will not pay a dime and 95 percent of Logan County citizens will not pay a dime on the income tax piece. The bottom line here is we have an opportunity to fund education at the tune of $1.6 billion and it means about an additional $4.5 million for Sterling, it means $1.3 million for Merino, for us that's significant money."

• Susan Meek, communications director for Great Education Colorado, said: “This initiative is the one thing that can actually raise revenue substantially, sustainable revenue for our teachers. It actually takes someone to have about $182,000 in income before they’re going to have any kind of impact. Ninety-two percent of Coloradans would see no impact on their income taxes.”
  • Meek also said: "The group of organizations that worked together to develop this policy thought it important that we not only raise revenue for schools, but that revenue also needed to be sustainable. We also wanted to make sure there is taxpayer equity, meaning those farmers and ranchers and landowners who have been footing a large portion of the property taxes with their non-residential assessment rates, would see some tax relief as well. It's not going to just help education but also rural communities that could really benefit from some of these tax policy changes."
  • After proponents turned in signatures on July 11, 2018, Meek said, "We have education supporters having conversations around the state about what additional revenue could mean for them. The money will be spent locally. Every school district can go out and say what it would mean for them. Perhaps it is vocational-technical education. Perhaps it’s having school five days a week. Perhaps it is having a counselor in every school.”

• Trent Kerr, superintendent of Wiggins School District said, "The superintendents spent the better part of two years creating a formula that is equitable to all school districts no matter the size. It takes into account the number of poverty-stricken students, English language learners, gifted and talented students, and special education students, giving a certain amount of money to each. The formula also takes into account cost of living, and the size of the school, giving more money to schools with low populations."

Official arguments

The supporting arguments provided for this measure in the Colorado 2018 Blue Book were as follows:

1) The state needs a sustainable source of revenue to adequately and equitably fund public education. Colorado cut P-12 public education funding as a result of the Great Recession, and funding levels have not recovered relative to what the formula would otherwise require, even though Colorado has one of the healthiest economies in the nation. Since the 2010-11 budget year, the budget stabilization factor has cut education funding by a total of $7.2 billion. As a result, school districts have had to make difficult choices, such as limiting teacher salaries, increasing class sizes, limiting mental health and counseling services for students, and narrowing course offerings. Further, approximately half of Colorado school districts are currently operating on four-day weeks. The measure alleviates the impact of these historical cuts by providing a dedicated income tax increase to fund public education. 2) The measure provides property tax relief for business property owners, farmers, and ranchers who have paid an increasingly higher proportion of property taxes compared to residential property owners. Since 1983, the nonresidential assessment rate has been set at 29 percent, while the residential assessment rate has fallen from 21 percent to the current 7.2 percent. The measure lessens these inequities between residential and nonresidential property owners by both stabilizing the residential assessment rate and lowering the nonresidential assessment rate for school district property taxes. 3) One of the government’s most important functions is to provide children with a high-quality public education. Local school districts will prioritize how to spend the new revenue in ways that best fit their community, such as recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers, improving access to early childhood education programs, strengthening science and math, vocational, and literacy programs, and providing a safe learning environment for all students. These are key investments in a successful public education system, which could help ensure a strong Colorado economy that is capable of competing in today’s global market. 4) Constitutional constraints have suppressed local property tax revenue in many areas and led to greater pressure on the state general operating budget to meet required education funding levels. Stabilizing the local share of required school formula funding and creating a dedicated source of state revenue for education provide additional flexibility for the state to use more of its general operating budget on other core programs, such as transportation, public safety, and health care.

Opposition

No on 73, also called Blank Check, Blatant Deception, Vote No on 73, led the campaign in opposition to Amendment 73.

Opponents

• The Independence Institute
• The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) Foundation
• Colorado Rising Action
• Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
• Colorado Bankers Association
• Colorado Restaurant Association
• Associated General Contractors
• Colorado Association of Mechanical and Plumbing Contractors
• Colorado Association of Realtors
• Denver Metro Commercial Association of Realtors
• Colorado Competitive Council
• Ready Colorado
• Colorado Farm Bureau
• Americans for Prosperity
• Building Jobs4Colorado
• South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce
• 13 Issues, also known as the State Ballot Issue Committee
• State Sen. Jack Tate (R-Arapahoe)

Arguments

• No on 73 argued, "73 is a massive tax hike on many Colorado families and most Colorado employers designed to give education bureaucrats a blank check. Amendment 73 guarantees no results. It is a blank check. Amendment 73 proponents are employing a campaign of deceit to try and seduce Colorado voters into backing their plan. Don’t be deceived!"

• State Sen. Jack Tate (R-Arapahoe) argued, "According to an economic impact study by the Common Sense Policy roundtable, 'with no performance impacts, over the next 20 years, the average annual loss of private sector jobs is over 11,400.' That’s why so many local chambers of commerce and business organizations have joined forces to defeat this harmful measure. Perhaps the most damning statistic is what Amendment 73 would do to small business. It would force many small and independent businesses to pay an income tax rate as much as 37 percent higher than the rate applied to multi-billion-dollar corporations. Amendment 73 is one of the worst things on our ballot this year. Please join me and vote no."

• Penn Pfiffner, board chairman of the TABOR Foundation, said, "Even people who support increased taxes for education should vote against this concept. I have learned that a graduated income tax is the worst possible scheme to raise taxes. No longer would Colorado have a fair provision in which your taxes go up proportionally with higher incomes, but the burden gets greater and greater under this proposal. Corporate income taxes are jacked up too. If successful, proponents should just post a sign that says, ‘we don’t want success in our state.’ Haven’t proponents read the fable against killing the goose that laid the golden eggs?"

• The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce argued, "As a Chamber, we strongly support a well-funded and effective PreK-12 system; however, this proposal raises multiple concerns for our members because it places the burden of funding education on the backs of our smallest businesses, threatening their ability to succeed, and locks that burden into our state’s constitution. This measure also doesn’t propose to deliver better results or outcomes in terms of educational achievement for Colorado. We believe it’s fair for taxpayers to expect improvements like higher graduation rates or lower remediation rates in college with significantly increased funding. With almost three out of four jobs in Colorado now requiring a postsecondary credential, we think education funding should include funding for both PreK-12 and higher education to ensure families and students can work in Colorado."

• 13 Issues, also known as the State Ballot Issue Committee, wrote, "The text of #73 creates more specific problems. Our one equal income tax rate is replaced by six brackets, never adjusted for inflation. Individual tax rate increases are up to 78%. The corporate tax rate rises 29%; that costs jobs. #73 complicates all income tax and property tax forms. In 2019, residential tax value is set to decline to offset skyrocketing prices. It will go from 7.2% of market value to 6.1%--a 15% offset in your tax bill, thanks to TABOR. #73 CANCELS THAT REDUCTION and fixes the rate at 7% for schools. You lose that tax savings every year, forever."

• The Independence Institute said, "[If the measure passes,] Colorado will no longer have equal state income tax rates for all. Instead, it will have a progressive state income tax with a top marginal rate of 8.25 percent, the ninth highest in the country."

• Executive Director for Colorado Rising Action, Michael Fields, wrote, "This is not a one-time tax or something that will go away. As a ballot initiative, Amendment 73 will change Colorado’s Constitution and forever alter our tax structure. Amendment 73 and its massive tax hike is not the right answer to Colorado’s education funding question. We should do a better job of prioritizing education in our state budget and ensure that more of our tax dollars are going to our teachers and our children, not the education bureaucracy in Colorado."

• Colorado state Rep. James Wilson (R–Salida) said, "Amendment 73 sounds good on the surface, but it’s a bait-and-switch. If we pass Amendment 73 and establish the ‘Quality Public Education Fund,’ preschool spending, for example, will increase by $10 million. We already spend $250 million on kindergarten alone. So that $10 million provided by the Quality Education Fund is a drop in the bucket. With an overall education budget of $7 billion, we have to ask, ‘Where is this money really going?’ Our schools are already some of the best of the best. They’re succeeding on our current budget. Of course, some of Colorado’s school districts are more successful than others. How can some districts succeed on the current budget and others cannot? Instead of asking what the best school districts are doing right, the less successful districts just say, ‘We don’t have enough money.’"

Official arguments

The opposing arguments provided for this measure in the Colorado 2018 Blue Book were as follows:

1) The measure imposes a tax increase without any guarantee of increased academic achievement. A focus on educational reform and opportunity rather than new revenue is more likely to improve student outcomes. Policymakers should find efficiencies within the current system and reprioritize existing revenue in order to meet current education funding requirements. Since the 2012-13 budget year, total formula funding has increased by between 1.3 percent and 7.4 percent annually, and just this year, the state share of school formula funding increased by $425.6 million without a tax increase. 2) Increasing the state income tax rate could negatively impact the state’s economy. Individuals will have less money to spend, save, and invest, and businesses will have less money to invest in their workers. Many businesses report their earnings through individual income tax returns and would pay the higher income tax rates under the measure. Colorado may also have a harder time attracting or retaining workers and businesses, as the top income tax rate under the measure would be 8.25 percent, the ninth highest state income tax rate in the country. This puts Colorado at a competitive disadvantage compared to other states. 3) The measure increases the property tax burden on homeowners, providing a tax cut for businesses at the expense of homeowners. In addition, it complicates an already complicated property tax system. By creating one assessed value for school districts and another assessed value for all other local taxing entities, the measure will lead to confusion among taxpayers and further complicate tax administration for state and local governments. 4) The measure does not allow the state legislature to adjust the income tax thresholds to account for inflation. As a result, over time, more taxpayers will end up in the higher tax brackets as their incomes are adjusted for inflation, resulting in additional revenue that must be spent only on education. To the extent that more revenue is raised than is needed to sufficiently fund education, the state will not be able to use this money to address other critical needs such as transportation and health care. Finally, the additional revenue generated by the measure is exempt from the state’s constitutional spending limit, thereby removing an important protection for taxpayers.

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• The Coloradoan said: "We support Amendment 73 in the hopes that it will provide a workable framework for meeting the needs of students and communities. But we do so guardedly. The board is not unanimous in supporting the amendment. We all like kids and we all like teachers, but some members believe this measure is not likely to make a difference in terms of academic achievement. We hope Amendment 73 is an investment is quality education. If voters pass this measure, the public should be prepared to carefully watch their local school boards and the state for years to ensure that investment is used appropriately."

• Craig Press said: "So, while it is prudent to relentlessly question and vet any new tax proposal, it is equally prudent to enact taxes that work to elevate us all. Amendment 73, in our opinion, is such a measure."

• The Aurora Sentinel said: "Colorado’s tax system is complicated, but this measure isn’t. It ends the state’s flat income tax and modestly raises taxes for those who make $150,000 or more. If the measure is approved, that person would pay an additional $6.75 a month in income tax. For those who make less, there would be no increase. As income rises past $200,000, the tax rate does, too, just like it does at the federal level. Colorado is one of only eight states with a flat tax. Amendment 73 seeks to modify it to be more like that in 34 other states, because it’s more equitable. What the measure does is raise $1.6 billion a year in desperately needed cash, and it allows local school boards to decide how best to serve their own students. Vote yes on this critical measure that offers a realistic and equitable way to raise the expectations and the results from Colorado’s public schools."

Opposition

• The Colorado Springs Gazette said: "In the unlikely event voters approve these big new taxes, they won’t hold up in court. Plaintiffs will easily prove they voted under false and deceptive pretenses. The ballot measure’s two most egregious misstatements pose material harm, because they make large tax increases seem small. This ill-conceived tax increase also tries to deceive voters by proposing the mirage of a reduction in residential property taxes. It neglects to explain that freezing property taxes at 7 percent negates a greater tax reduction anticipated under reappraisal in 2019. Secretary of State Wayne Williams should initiate legal action to correct blatant misstatements in the proposal. Even better, voters should quash this bad idea by voting “no” on deception."

• The Denver Post said: "It’s with a heavy heart that we urge Coloradans to vote no on Amendment 73. Colorado schools are underfunded and there was a time, not-so-long ago, that we supported a similar income tax increase to help rescue our lagging K-12 education system. But times have changed. Colorado’s economy is booming. And the Trump tax cuts will actually mean an increase in Colorado income tax revenue. Between 2017 and 2020, general fund revenue is expected to grow by more than $1.7 billion (even accounting for the money that will be given back to taxpayers under TABOR revenue caps). We’re not so naïve as to expect that all of that money will go to better fund our schools, but we would hope that Colorado lawmakers would do the right thing and dedicate the lion’s share to increasing K-12 education funding."

• The Pueblo Chieftain said: "And Amendment 73 wouldn’t do anything to adjust an inequitable school funding formula that should be fixed by the Legislature. Passing the amendment might give legislators political cover to continue to avoid that critical issue. For all of those reasons and more, The Pueblo Chieftain recommends ‘no’ votes on both Ballot Issue 4A and Amendment 73."

• The Aspen Times said: "It is always hard to vote against any kind of education funding, and we usually promote helping out the schools at all levels. But we don't see that this will solve the problem. We know the local votes are traditionally in favor of helping education, and we feel there should be more local control of the spending. This question won't help in that endeavor."

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls

• An online poll from the University of Colorado’s American Politics Research Lab and conducted by YouGov from October 12 to October 17 asked registered voters how they would vote on Amendment 73 if they had to choose "yes" or "no." Overall, it showed 58 percent in support, and 42 percent opposed. Among Democrats, there was 86 percent and 14 percent opposition. Among Republicans, there was 25 percent support and 75 percent opposition. Among independents, there was 55 percent support and 45 percent opposition.

Colorado Amendment 73 (2018)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
University of Colorado’s American Politics Research Lab 10/12/2018 - 10/17/2018	58%	42%	0%	+/-3.5	800
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$1,386,701.60
Opposition:	$2,595,173.74

The following four committees were registered to support Amendment 73:

• Great Education Colorado Issue Committee
• Great Schools Thriving Communities
• Yes on Amendment 73
• Win the Fourth Colorado Issue Committee

Together, they had raised $1.386 million and had spent $1.383 million.

Note: The Great Education Colorado Issue Committee and Great Schools Thriving Communities each contributed funds to each other. Those funds have been subtracted from the contributing committee's contributions and expenditures and is only represented in the receiving committee's contributions, so as not to double count the same funds.

The following five committees were registered to oppose Amendment 73:

• Don't Turn Colorado into California
• Blank Check, Blatant Deception
• Fix Our Damn Roads
• State Ballot Issue Committee
• Americans for Prosperity Colorado Issue Committee

Together, they had raised $2.6 million and had spent $2.53 million.

Many committees were simultaneously registered to support and oppose multiple measures, therefore it is impossible to distinguish between funds spent on a particular measure. A full list of the committees and their various positions on the 13 statewide measures in Colorado can be found here.

Displayed below are campaign finance details for the supporting and opposing committees:

Support

Committees in support of Amendment 73 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Great Schools Thriving Communities $1,002,699.72 $263,671.90 $1,000,266.37 Win the Fourth Colorado Issue Committee $2,632.00 $0.00 $2,538.82 Yes on Amendment 73 Summit/Vote Yes on Amendment 73 Campaign $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Great Education Colorado Issue Committee $116,319.27 $1,378.71 $209,404.20 Total $1,100,821.55 $222,115.22 $909,455.60

Totals in support Total raised: $1,322,936.77 Total spent: $1,131,570.82

Donors

According to the most current reports available, the top donors in support of this measure were as follows:

Donor	Amount
National Education Association	$220,000.00
Colorado Fund for Children and Pblic Education	$180,920.00
Stand for Children, Inc.	$130,133.16
Great Education Colorado Action Fund	$125,000.00
Merle C. Chambers	$100,000.00
Judi Wagner	$100,000.00

Opposition

Committees in opposition to Amendment 73 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Fix Our Damn Roads $499,876.60 $248,718.70 $451,699.69 Don't Turn Colorado into California $150,000.00 $0.00 $150,000.00 State Ballot Issue Committee (13 Issues) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Blank Check, Blatant Deception $1,636,273.00 $50,062.67 $1,618,396.19 Americans for Prosperity - Colorado Issue Committee (AFP-CO IC) $0.00 $10,242.77 $0.00 Total $2,286,149.60 $298,781.37 $2,220,095.88

Totals in opposition Total raised: $2,595,173.74 Total spent: $2,529,120.02

Donors

According to the most current reports available, the top donors opposing this measure were as follows:

Donor	Amount
Colorado Economic Leadership Fund	$793,500.00
Independence Institute	$436,536.73
Ready Colorado	$468,000.00
Independence Institute	$459,118.70
Western Citizens Protecting Our Constitution	$150,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Background

Taxes in Colorado

See also: Tax policy in Colorado

Personal income tax

As of 2018, Colorado utilized a flat personal income tax rate of 4.63 percent.

Corporate income tax

As of 2018, Colorado levied a corporate income tax at a rate of 4.63 percent.

Income in Colorado

The median household income in Colorado for years 2012 through 2016 was $62,520 (in 2016 dollars).

Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR)

The TABOR Amendment requires statewide voter approval of tax increases. The Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights was passed in 1992 as Initiative 1 by a vote of 53.68 percent to 46.32 percent. The measure was spearheaded by Colorado activist Douglas Bruce (R).

TABOR limits the amount of money the State of Colorado can take in and spend. It limits the annual increase for some state revenue to inflation plus the percentage change in state population. Any money collected above this limit is refunded to taxpayers unless the voters allow the state to spend it. Referendum C of 2005 asked voters if the state may spend money it collects above the limit on health care, public education, transportation projects, and local fire and police pensions. It was approved.

When state voters approve a tax increase or other revenue change, the resulting revenues are exempt from the TABOR limit on fiscal year spending. Below is a chart by the Colorado Legislative Council Staff detailing revenue limits under TABOR:

Education spending in Colorado

As of June 2018, according to Education Week, the national average of per-pupil spending was $12,526. Vermont and Alaska had the highest rate, spending $20,795 and $20,640, respectively. Colorado spent $9,733. A neighboring state, Utah, spent the least at $7,207 per pupil.

Related measures

State Education Fund amendment of 2000

The Colorado Funding for Public Schools Initiative, also known as Initiative 23, was on the November 7, 2000 ballot in Colorado as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved. The measure required the statewide base per pupil funding for public education and funding for specifically defined categorical programs to grow annually by at least the rate of inflation plus one percentage point for fiscal years 2001-02 through 2010-11 and, after that, annually by at least the rate of inflation for fiscal years. The measure went into effect January 1, 2001. The measure added Section 17 to Article IX of the Colorado Constitution which created the State Education Fund. Revenue from a tax of one-third of one percent on taxable income of individuals, corporations, estates, and trusts was diverted from the General Fund to the State Education Fund.

Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 of 2013

Colorado Amendment 66, the Tax Increase for Education Initiative, was on the November 5, 2013 ballot in Colorado as an initiated constitutional amendment. It was defeated. Had it been approved, Amendment 66 would have increased the state's income tax to raise the amount of state tax revenue spent on public school districts by about 16.6%, from $5.5 billion under the current law, to a little over $6.4 billion. Going into the election, Colorado's income tax rate was a flat rate of 4.63 percent. Under Amendment 66, the rate would have risen to 5 percent for taxable income up to $75,000 and 5.9 percent for income above $75,000. The Independence Institute released a report which analyzed the funding formula that would be put in place by the approval of Amendment 66 and argued it was "unfair and overpriced." The Independence Institute is also opposing the 2018 measure.

Reports and analyses

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here.

On July 30, 2018, WalletHub released a report titled States with the Best & Worst School Systems. The report sought to rank the safety and quality of the public education systems in each U.S. state using 25 metrics including dropout rates, test scores, the rate of bullying, and the ratio of teachers to pupils. The full methodology of the report can be read here.

According to the report, Colorado ranked #10 overall, #14 in quality, and #8 in safety. Colorado ranked #27 in spending, designated in the report as having "low spending and a strong school system." Jill Gonzalez, an analyst at WalletHub, said Colorado "did well not only in standard metrics like test scores and pupil-teacher ratio, but also showed top ten marks when it comes to safety, including bullying incidents both on school property and online. Colorado spends less than the average state on per-pupil expenditures, but still manages to deliver a high level of education." Amie Baca-Oehlert, president of the Colorado Education Association, said, “the designation of ‘Low Spending & Strong School System’ is bittersweet. Too many communities in Colorado don’t have the school resources they need for every child to succeed. The state is stretching its devoted school employees too thin, as evidenced by a teacher shortage crisis totaling more than 3,000 vacant positions. Sustaining our great performance will require more state investments in our public school system.”

The full report can be read here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

The state process

In Colorado, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Colorado secretary of state in the preceding general election. For initiated constitutional amendments, signature gathering must be distributed to include signatures equal to 2 percent of the registered voters who live in each of the state's 35 senate districts.

State law provides that petitioners have six months to collect signatures after the ballot language and title are finalized. State statutes require a completed signature petition to be filed three months and three weeks before the election at which the measure would appear on the ballot. The Constitution, however, states that the petition must be filed three months before the election at which the measure would appear. The secretary of state generally lists a date that is three months before the election as the filing deadline.

Constitutional amendments in Colorado require a 55% supermajority vote to be ratified and added to the state constitution. This requirement was added by Amendment 71 of 2016.

The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2018 ballot:

• Signatures: 98,492 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was August 6, 2018.

The secretary of state is responsible for signature verification. Verification is conducted through a review of petitions regarding correct form and then a 5 percent random sampling verification. If the sampling projects between 90 percent and 110 percent of required valid signatures, a full check of all signatures is required. If the sampling projects more than 110 percent of the required signatures, the initiative is certified. If less than 90 percent, the initiative fails.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired various individuals to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $146,352.15 was spent to collect the 98,492 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $1.49.

Details about this initiative

• Martha Olson and Donald J. Anderson filed all of the versions of this initiative with the office of the secretary of state, with the first filed on December 22 and the most recent version filed on January 5, 2018.
• The ballot title setting board approved each version of the initiative regarding the state's single-subject rule and issued a ballot title for each of them.
• On February 2, 2018, the petition format for version #93 of this initiative was approved for circulation, giving proponents until July 11, 2018, to collect signatures for it.
• Versions #98-107 were withdrawn.
• On July 11, 2018, proponents of the measure announced gathering and submitting around 170,000 signatures to the Colorado secretary of state's office. A total of 98,492 valid signatures were required to secure a place on the November ballot.
• Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams announced on August 9, 2018, that the measure had qualified for the ballot. Proponents submitted 130,022 valid signatures. A total of 98,492 valid signatures were required to secure a place on the November ballot.

Initiative 93 full text

This measure is a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute which means that, along with constitutional changes, the measure also amends state statute. Shown below is the full text of the initiative including both constitutional and statutory changes. Material to be added is shown in block (capitalized) letters.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Colorado

Poll times

In Colorado, polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time for those who choose to vote in person rather than by mail. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

In Colorado, an individual can pre-register to vote if they are at least 15 years old. Voters must be at least 18 years old to vote in any election. A voter must be a citizen of the United States and have established residence in Colorado to vote.

Colorado voters can register to vote through Election Day. However, in order to automatically receive a absentee/mail-in ballot, a voter must register online, through the mail, at a voter registration agency, or driver's license examination facility at least eight days prior to Election Day. A voter that registers through a voter registration drive must submit their application no later than 22 days before the election to automatically receive an absentee/mail-in ballot. A voter can register online or submit a form in person or by fax, email, or mail.

Automatic registration

See also: Automatic voter registration

Colorado automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles and certain other state agencies.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Colorado has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

See also: Same-day voter registration

Colorado allows same-day voter registration for individuals who vote in person.

Residency requirements

Colorado law requires 22 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Colorado does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The site Go Vote Colorado, run by the Colorado Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Colorado requires voters to present non-photo identification when voting in person. If voting by mail for the first, a voter may also need to return a photocopy of his or her identification with their mail-in ballot. Click here for more information.

The following list of accepted forms of identification was current as of August 2025. Click here for the most current information, sourced directly from the Office of the Colorado Secretary of State.

“

The following documents are acceptable forms of identification: A valid Colorado driver’s license or valid identification card issued by the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Note: documents issued to not lawfully present and temporarily lawfully present individuals under Part 5 of Article 2 of Title 42, C.R.S. are not acceptable forms of identification.) A valid U.S. passport. A valid employee identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. government or of Colorado, or by any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political subdivision of Colorado. A valid pilot’s license issued by the federal aviation administration or other authorized agency of the U.S. A valid U.S. military identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector. A copy of a current (within the last 60 days) utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector. A Certificate of Degree of Indian or Alaskan Native Blood. A valid Medicare or Medicaid card issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate for the elector. Certified documentation of naturalization. A valid student identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by an institute of higher education in Colorado, as defined in section 23-3.1-102(5), C.R.S.. A valid veteran identification card issued by the U.S. department of veterans affairs veterans health administration with a photograph of the eligible elector. A valid identification card issued by a federally recognized tribal government certifying tribal membership. Any form of identification listed above that shows your address must show a Colorado address to qualify as an acceptable form of identification. The following documents are also considered acceptable forms of identification for voting: Verification that a voter is a resident of a group residential facility, as defined in section 1-1-104(18.5), C.R.S. Verification that a voter is a person committed to the department of human services and confined and eligible to register and vote shall be considered sufficient identification of such person for the purposes of section 1-2-210.5, C.R.S. Written correspondence from the county sheriff or his or her designee to the county clerk indicating that a voter is confined in a county jail or detention facility.

”

• Note: SB 1, signed into law on May 12, 2025, specified that tribal IDs issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or another federal agency were also valid identification.

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Taxes on the ballot
• Education on the ballot
• 2018 petition deadlines

Colorado

• Colorado ballot measures
• Colorado initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Initiative 93 full text

Support

• Great Schools Thriving Communities campaign website
• Great Schools Thriving Communities Facebook page
• Great Schools Thriving Communities Twitter page

Opposition

• No on 73 campaign website
• No on 73 Facebook page
• No on 73 Twitter page