Colorado Amendment 74, Compensation to Owners for Decreased Property Value Due to State Regulation 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 74
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Property
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	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 74, the Compensation to Owners for Decreased Property Value Due to State Regulation Initiative was on the ballot in Colorado as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. It was defeated.

A yes vote supported the initiative to require that property owners be compensated for any reduction in property value caused by state laws or regulations.

A no vote opposed the initiative to require that property owners be compensated for any reduction in property value caused by state laws or regulations.

Supermajority requirement: A 55 percent supermajority vote was required for the approval of Amendment 74.

Election results

Colorado Amendment 74
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,139,205	46.42%
No		1,315,182	53.58%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Measure design

The initiative was designed to amend the state constitution to require that property owners be compensated for any reduction in property value caused by state laws or regulations.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Amendment 74?

Three committees supporting the measure raised $11.23 million and had spent $11.22 million.

Four committees opposing the measure had raised $8.4 million and had spent $8.5 million.

Click here for more details on campaign finance for Amendment 74.

What was the relationship between Proposition 112 and Amendment 74?

Proposition 112 would have mandated that new oil and gas development, including fracking, be a minimum distance of 2,500 feet from occupied buildings such as homes, schools, hospitals, and other areas designated as vulnerable. Amendment 74 would have required that property owners be compensated for any reduction in property value caused by state laws or regulations.

Amendment 74 sponsor and executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, Chad Vorthmann, said Amendment 74 was "about protecting Colorado's farmers and ranchers from extremist attempts to enforce random setback requirements for oil and natural gas development. While these setbacks may on their face sound reasonable, they would essentially eliminate oil and natural gas development in Colorado and strip away Colorado landowners' right to use their land the way they wish." Protect Colorado, the committee opposed to Proposition 112, provided contributions to the Committee for Colorado's Shared Heritage, a committee that supported Amendment 74.

In its article opposing Amendment 74, the Daily Camera editorial board wrote, "If both the setback measure [Proposition 112] and Amendment 74 pass, oil and gas companies could make legal claims that the new setbacks decreased the value of the minerals they own."

Colorado Rising Board Member Micah Parkin said that, before the deadline in September to withdraw citizen initiatives, she was approached about abandoning Proposition 112 in exchange for the withdrawal of Amendment 74. Parkin said, “[The Colorado Farm Bureau] ballot initiative [Amendment 74] would have way further reaching effects than just dealing with oil and gas. We are not going to betray [those] whose health and lives are on the line by dropping our safer setbacks proposition [Proposition 112].”

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Amendment 74 is below:

“

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution requiring the government to award just compensation to owners of private property when a government law or regulation reduces the fair market value of the property?

”

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:

Background. Both the Colorado Constitution and state law specify that a government may not take or damage private property without providing compensation to the owner. Procedures in law exist to evaluate and challenge government decisions that lead to takings or cause damages, including asking for public and property owner input and establishing the amount of compensation owed. Takings and damages. There are three primary ways that the state or a local government can take or damage private property. Governments in Colorado are generally required to compensate a property owner in these cases. The first type of taking is called "eminent domain." A government may take land from a private property owner for a public use or benefit. For example, a government may take land from a property owner to expand a highway. The second type of taking occurs if a government causes damage to private property, whether intentional or accidental. For example, a government may build a road that effectively limits access to an individual’s property. The third type of taking is a "regulatory taking," which occurs when a government enacts a law or regulation that deprives a property owner of the use or value of his or her property, even though he or she usually maintains ownership of the property. For example, a government may prohibit a property owner from constructing buildings on his or her property, leaving the property with almost no value. Changes under Amendment 74. Amendment 74 expands the circumstances under which the state or a local government is required to provide compensation to a property owner for a regulatory taking. Under this measure, a law or regulation that results in any decrease in the fair market value of a property, as opposed to the current standard of an almost total loss in value or use, becomes a regulatory taking. For example, if a government limits natural gas development, an owner of the mineral rights could file a claim for the reduced value of his or her property.

Constitutional changes

See also: Article II, Colorado Constitution

The measure would have amended section 15 of Article II of the state constitution. The following underlined text would have been added, and struck-through text would have been deleted:

Section 15. Taking property for public use—compensation, how ascertained. Private property shall not be taken or damaged, or reduced in fair market value by government law or regulation for public or private use, without just compensation. Such compensation shall be ascertained by a board of commissioners, of not less than three freeholders, or by a jury, when required by the owner of the property, in such manner as may be prescribed by law, and until the same shall be paid to the owner, or into court for the owner, the property shall not be needlessly disturbed, or the proprietary rights of the owner therein divested; and whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public.

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 20, and the FRE is 12. The word count for the ballot title is 35, and the estimated reading time is 9 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

The Committee for Colorado's Shared Heritage led the campaign in support of the measure.

Sponsors

The amendment was filed by Chad Vorthmann, executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, and Michelle Smith, an Elbert, Colorado farmer.

Supporters

• Colorado Farm Bureau

Arguments

• The Committee for Colorado's Shared Heritage argued, "When a government action takes or devalues property, it is only fair to make sure private property owners are compensated for their losses. The measure will improve government's accountability to citizens and make elected officials more responsive to voters. Policy makers will be forced to think twice about the potential consequences of their actions and the negative impacts of government action will be harder to ignore. This will create stronger protections for communities across the state.

• Chad Vorthmann, executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, said, "These measures are about protecting Colorado's farmers and ranchers from extremist attempts to enforce random setback requirements for oil and natural gas development. While these setbacks may on their face sound reasonable, they would essentially eliminate oil and natural gas development in Colorado and strip away Colorado landowners' right to use their land the way they wish. This is about protecting the Colorado way of life. Because taking private property is not the Colorado way." Speaking of royalties from mineral rights, Vorthmann said, "These are checks that make a real impact. This is money that helps them through their lean years. It helps them put their kids through college. It guarantees they can make ends meet." Vorthmann also said, "If you have really shown that you’re trying to develop a property and as you’re investing in that they try to change the rules to prevent you from doing that, we think that’s clearly a case of regulatory taking."

• Michelle Smith said, "Mineral rights make all the difference to our small organic-based farm. Like many Colorado farm-to-table businesses, if we can't offset operating costs with our minerals, then we're out of business."

Official arguments

The supporting argument provided for this measure in the Colorado 2018 Blue Book was as follows:

“

Amendment 74 ensures that when a property’s value is harmed by government action, the owner of that property is fairly compensated for the loss. For many Coloradans, property is the most significant asset they own. If a law or regulation causes any loss of value, the property owner should be fairly compensated by the state or a local government. However, current law does not require a government to compensate an owner unless the loss in value to the property is near total.

”

Opposition

Save Our Colorado and Save Our Neighborhoods led the campaign in opposition to the measure.

Opponents

• U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
• Colorado Municipal League
• Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce
• Conservation Colorado
• Glenwood Springs City Council
• Alamosa City Council
• Western Resource Advocates
• Club 20
• Action 22
• Dale Hall, Greeley City Council

Arguments

• Save Our Colorado argued, "Amendment 74 could destroy the Colorado we all love. Strip clubs, liquor stores, and gun shops could be built near schools. Public health standards that keep restaurants, tattoo parlors, and hospitals safe -- they could be gone. Colorado courts could be flooded with frivolous lawsuits all at the taxpayer's expense. This measure is about giving corporate interests free rein to sue governments. If Coloradans want to have reasonable rules requiring clean water or clean air, properly zoning industrial activity, or any other regulation they think is good for their neighborhood or communities, taxpayers would have to pay the large corporations and special interests."

• The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce argued, "While we believe that Colorado’s current takings law isn’t sufficiently protecting property owners, we oppose this measure. This proposal locks new policy in our constitution that is vague, broad and full of unintended consequences. Clarification and interpretation of this constitutional amendment would have to be settled through costly litigation in our courts rather than through the legislature and, as seen in other states, passage could result in hundreds of lawsuits filed against local and state government."
• Denver City Councilmember Debbie Ortega said, "If passed, Initiative 108 will bring the work of local government to a screeching halt because we will be entangled in lawsuits filed against the city for any number of programs, projects, rules, policies, or zonings that anyone could challenge by indicating that it has harmed their property. This is not a way to govern — by tying the hands of your elected leaders who work on these matters on behalf of our communities."
• Aurora City Councilmember Nicole Johnston said, "This measure is dangerously broad and would have sweeping consequences for all Coloradans. As a City Councillor, I always try to make decisions and pass policy that’s in the best interests of our citizens. This measure would take that ability away since virtually any law could be challenged in court — throwing open the door to frivolous lawsuits at taxpayers’ expense. In the end, it would cost all of us, and it simply goes too far."
• Robert Widner, an attorney who represents counties, special districts, cities, and towns, said the measure could bring lawsuits. Widner said, "Every time government acts, it is going to ask, ‘Are we putting ourselves at risk?’ It is totally burning the forest down on a very large scale."
• Sam Mamet, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League, said, “My advice to counties and municipalities is if this passes, don’t do anything … no zoning, no ordinances.”

Official arguments

The opposing argument provided for this measure in the Colorado 2018 Blue Book was as follows:

“

Amendment 74 has potentially far-reaching and costly consequences for taxpayers and governments. Under the measure, taxpayers will be responsible for payments to property owners for any loss in property value resulting from a change in law or regulation, regardless of whether the property retains a profitable use. The potential liability for large payouts to private property owners may discourage governments from making decisions that benefit communities and protect vital public resources, such as water, air, and infrastructure.

”

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorials supporting Amendment 74. If you are aware of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

• The Daily Camera said: "Any time a city or county tries to regulate any land use, it could expose itself to a lawsuit. Any time a government seeks to enforce zoning laws or pursue affordable housing initiatives or get behind an urban renewal project, a private property owner could seek damages in court. [Amendment 74] would in practice cause untold disruptions to essential government responsibilities. If Colorado voters do nothing else in November's election, they should unequivocally say no to Amendment 74."

• The Gazette said: "Amendment 74 sounds like a good idea and originally had us fooled. Don’t fall for it. This proposal inadvertently threatens property rights, while paving the way for expensive, frivolous and opportunistic litigation that will waste hard-earned taxpayer dollars."

The Gazette editorial board initially supported Amendment 74 before urging a "no" vote in a second editorial.

• The Estes Park Trail Gazette said: Amendment 74 seems reasonable at first glance, with property owners allowed to pursue compensation for a decrease in "fair market value" if it is caused by government regulation or limitation. Yet if Amendment 74 is passed, it could have far reaching implications that could ruin towns and bankrupt governments."

• The Aurora Sentinel said: "Amendment 74 is a misleading and dangerous takings bill that would wreak havoc on land use and development across the state and cost taxpayers millions, or even billions. Amendment 74 is a big lie. All landowners already have a takings remedy with the courts to keep local governments in check. Amendment 74 is nothing more than a sneaky end run around the tried-and-true Colorado land-use system. It only allows some landowners to hedge their bets against a loss at the expense of taxpayers."

• The Aspen Times wrote: "It sounds good on the surface, but there are deeper issues here. It likely would bring a flurry of lawsuits and court battles, essentially crippling local governments."

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 74 if they had to choose "yes" or "no." Overall, it showed 63 percent in support, and 37 percent opposed. Among Democrats, there was 60 percent and 40 percent opposition. Among Republicans, there was 68 percent support and 32 percent opposition. Among independents, there was 65 percent support and 35 percent opposition.

Colorado Amendment 74 (2018)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
University of Colorado’s American Politics Research Lab 10/12/2018 - 10/17/2018	63%	37%	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:	$11,234,317.72
Opposition:	$8,025,521.11

Three committees were registered to support Amendment 74:

• Committee for Colorado's Shared Heritage (which received 96.42 percent of its funds from Protect Colorado, a committee opposing Proposition 112, though Protect Colorado is not officially registered to oppose Amendment 74)
• State Ballot Issue Committee
• Logic Action 2018

Four committees were registered to oppose Amendment 74:

• Save Our Neighborhoods
• Colorado Rising for Health and Safety
• Win the Fourth Colorado Issue Committee
• Earthworks Action Fund Issue Committee

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.

The committees' campaign finance activity is detailed below:

Support

Committees in support of Amendment 74 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures The Committee for Colorado's Shared Heritage $7,771,500.25 $3,462,817.47 $7,758,316.97 State Ballot Issue Committee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Logic Action 2018 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total $7,771,500.25 $3,462,817.47 $7,758,316.97

Totals in support Total raised: $11,234,317.72 Total spent: $11,220,474.55

Top donors

Donor	Amount
Protect Colorado	$10,831,814.07
Colorado Farm Bureau	$10,000.00

Opposition

The top five donors in opposition to the initiative provided 80 percent of the total contributions to the opposition campaign.

Committees in opposition to Amendment 74 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Save Our Neighborhoods 6,640,846.00 $70,637.06 $6,600,921.33 Colorado Rising for Health and Safety $1,266,959.42 $368,289.21 $1,449,768.06 Win the Fourth Colorado Issue Committee $2,632.00 $0.00 $2,538.82 Earthworks Action Fund Issue Committee $50,126.00 $0.00 $50,109.85 Total $7,960,563.42 $438,926.27 $8,103,338.06

Totals in opposition Total raised: $8,399,489.69 Total spent: $8,542,264.33

Top donors

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Sixteen Thirty Fund	$3,500,000.00	$0.00	$3,500,000.00
League of Conservation Voters	$1,100,000.00	$0.00	$1,100,000.00
Conservation Colorado	$1,028,680.73	$6,068.38	$1,034,749.11
Food and Water Watch Action Fund	$211,500.00	$67,481.60	$278,981.60
Conservation Colorado Education Fund	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00

Methodology

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

Background

Eminent domain

See also: Eminent domain

Eminent domain is the prerogative of a government to take private property, such as land, without the owners consent for public use with payment of reasonable compensation. Reasonable compensation is defined in terms of fair market value of the property. The government may exercise its right to eminent domain if the owner of the private property does not wish to sell the property to the government. Common uses of eminent domain are generally for the building of infrastructure, such as railroads, highways or other public works or development projects.

Regulatory taking

Regulatory taking is an extension of eminent domain. Merriam-Webster defines regulatory taking as the taking or reduction of private property rights by a governmental regulation that goes beyond the government's legitimate police power (the power to enact safety regulations).

Oregon Measure 37 of 2004

Oregon Ballot Measure 37 was on the November 4, 2004, ballot in Oregon as an initiated state statute. It was approved by a vote of 60.62 percent to 39.38 percent. Measure 37 allowed property owners whose property value had been reduced by environmental or other land use regulations to claim compensation from state or local government. If the government failed to compensate a claimant within two years of the claim, the law allowed the claimant to use the property under only the regulations in place at the time he/she purchased the property.

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.

Details about this initiative

• Michelle Smith, a farmer, and Chad Vorthmann, executive vice president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, submitted all versions of this initiative on January 26, 2018.
• Ballot titles were set by the title setting board for all of the versions of this initiative on February 7, 2018.
• On March 16, 2018, the petition forms for all versions of this initiative were approved and the initiative was cleared for circulation.
• The signature submission deadline was set to be August 6, 2018.
• Protect Colorado financially backed the signature gathering effort.
• On August 4, 2018, proponents reported submitting 209,000 signatures to the secretary of state's office.
• On August 28, 2018, the Colorado Secretary of State's office announced that the measure had qualified for the ballot. Proponents of the measure submitted around 137,029 valid signatures based on a random sample method of signature verification. A total of 98,492 valid signatures were required.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired unknown entities to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $0 - $4.4 million 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 $0 - $44.99.

Related measures

• Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative (2018)

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. One state, Ohio, requires proof of citizenship only when registering to vote at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles facility. 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 October 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
• Property on the ballot
• Fracking on the ballot
• 2018 petition deadlines

Colorado

• Colorado ballot measures
• Colorado initiative laws
• Fracking in Colorado

News and analysis

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

External links

• Amendment 74 full text

Support

• Colorado's Shared Heritage campaign website
• Colorado's Shared Heritage Facebook page
• Colorado's Shared HeritageTwitter page

Opposition

• Save Our Colorado campaign website
• Save Our Colorado Facebook page
• Save Our Colorado Twitter page