Colorado Amendment 78, Custodial Fund Appropriations Initiative (2021)

Colorado Amendment 78
Election date November 2, 2021
Topic State and local government budgets, spending and finance
Status d Defeated
Type Amendment & Statute	Origin Citizens

2021 measures
November 2
Colorado Amendment 78
Colorado Proposition 119
Colorado Proposition 120
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

Colorado Amendment 78, the Custodial Fund Appropriations Initiative, was on the ballot in Colorado as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute on November 2, 2021. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution and state law to transfer the power to appropriate custodial funds (certain state revenue not generated through taxes) from the state treasurer to the state legislature and requiring opportunities for public comment during public hearings for appropriations of such funds.

A "no" vote opposed transferring the power to appropriate custodial funds from the state treasurer to the state legislature.

Election results

Colorado Amendment 78
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		646,983	43.03%
No		856,704	56.97%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Amendment 78 have done?

See also: Text measure

The initiative would have transferred the power to appropriate custodial funds from the state treasurer to the state legislature. Examples of such funds include pension funds and court-approved settlement funds. The measure would have defined custodial money as money received by the state that (1) originated from a source other than the State of Colorado, (b) was awarded or provided to the state for a particular purpose, and (c) that the state is acting as a custodian or trustee to carry out the purpose for which the funds were provided.

The initiative would have created the Custodial Fund Transparency Account within the Department of the Treasury. The account would have received all custodial funds and the general assembly would have been responsible for appropriating the funds for purposes as specified by law "on an equitable basis for the benefit of the state." Funds appropriated from the account would have been appropriated in a public hearing with opportunities for public comment.

Custodial funds, including interest revenue on the funds, would have been retained and spent as a voter-approved revenue change and would have been exempt from revenue and spending limitations under TABOR.

The measure would have taken effect on July 1, 2022.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Amendment 78?

See also: Support, Opposition, and Campaign finance

The Committee for Spending Transparency led the campaign in support of the initiative. Michael Fields, Executive Director of Colorado Rising Action, sponsored the initiative. The committee reported $1.275 million in contributions from Unite for Colorado. The committee reported expenditures totaling $1.275 million. The committee paid $1.23 million to Blitz Canvassing for signature gathering. Michael Fields said, "I think [Initiative 19 was] relevant this year because of all the COVID money the governor spent, the money he’s getting from companies to hire staff and the settlements coming into the AG’s office. The legislature should be deciding how to spend that. There is always extra money in there, and it sits in the bank for a very long time, gathering interest. Millions get spent how they want."

Scott Wasserman, President of the Bell Policy Center, opposes the measure. Wasserman said, "If it passes, Amendment 78 will open our state up to unending shenanigans and showdowns. At a minimum, it will slow down federal relief in times of crisis. At worst, it could bring Washington-style stalemate politics to Colorado. Right now, there are hundreds of types of dollars that pass through the state treasurer’s office and to their intended purposes. This is how our government operates throughout the year. Under existing law, state agencies and governmental entities (like our public universities) are already authorized to spend these dollars according to terms dictated by their source. ... But if Amendment 78 passes, this efficiency and speed will end. We’ll need a special session every time a natural disaster occurs. Beyond simply doubling the work our part-time legislature must do, it will create numerous opportunities for legislators to object to the role federal dollars play in our state. Health care dollars, transportation and transit funding, conservation funding, funding for scientific research -- this is what we are talking about when we talk about the funds affected by Amendment 78." Ballotpedia did not identify ballot measure committees registered to oppose the measure.

How did Amendment 78 get on the ballot?

See also: Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) and Path to the ballot

Measures that can go on the ballot during odd years are limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR, the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (Section 20 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution). This requirement was added to state statute in 1994.

Proponents submitted 195,911 signatures. On August 31, 2021, the Colorado Secretary of State announced that 135,601 were projected to be valid. To qualify, 124,632 valid signatures were required. Since the measure proposes to amend the state constitution as well as state law, signatures from two percent of the registered voters who live in each of the state's 35 senate districts were also required. The sponsoring committee paid $1.13 million to Blitz Canvassing for signature gathering.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution and a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning money that the state receives, and, in connection therewith, requiring all money received by the state, including money provided to the state for a particular purpose, known as custodial money, to be subject to appropriation by the general assembly after a public hearing; repealing the authority to disburse money from the state treasury by any other means; requiring all custodial money to be deposited into the newly created custodial funds transparency fund and the earnings on those deposits to be transferred to the general fund; and allowing the state to retain and spend all custodial money and earnings and revenue on that custodial money as a voter-approved revenue change?

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement provided in the Colorado Blue Book was as follows:

“ Amendment 78 increases state spending on the budgeting process, may change how custodial money is spent, and may affect state revenue, as discussed below. State spending. The measure increases spending by at least $1.0 million annually to add new staff in state agency budget offices and the legislative budget committee. The additional staff are needed because the measure requires state agencies to submit proposed spending of custodial money for allocation by the state legislature. Other state spending could be affected if the state legislature makes different spending decisions than would be made by state agencies. While the purpose of the spending is not altered, the state legislature could fund different programs to implement that purpose. State revenue. The overall impact of the measure on state revenue is unknown and depends on how the measure is implemented. Because custodial funds must be placed in the new fund before being spent, the measure could move interest earnings to the General Fund rather than funds controlled by state agencies. However, whether interest earnings increase or decrease depends on many factors, including the different rates of return of the two funds and the amount of time the money remains in the new fund. ”

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2021

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 22, and the FRE is 10. The word count for the ballot title is 128, and the estimated reading time is 34 seconds.

Support

The Committee for Spending Transparency led the campaign in support of the initiative.

Supporters

Political Parties

• Republican Party of Colorado

Organizations

• Colorado Rising State Action
• Unite for Colorado

Arguments

• Michael Fields, Executive Director of Colorado Rising State Action: "I think [Initiative 19 was] relevant this year because of all the COVID money the governor spent, the money he’s getting from companies to hire staff and the settlements coming into the AG’s office. The legislature should be deciding how to spend that. There is always extra money in there, and it sits in the bank for a very long time, gathering interest. Millions get spent how they want."
• State Senator Bob Rankin (R): "We are one of only four states that don’t have legislative control over federal custodial spending or some partnership."
• State Senator Patrick Neville (R): "There’s lots of moments when I was sitting there going, maybe 10% of what we spent should have been spent. And then we could’ve saved that other 90% to help out people that are being left behind. Republican governors and Democratic governors have used, basically, the federal dollars as a slush fund for political reasons."
• George Brauchler, former district attorney for the 18th Judicial District and fellow with the Common Sense Institute: "Amendment 78 will end these slush funds and return oversight and accountability to a process increasingly abused by runaway elected officials. Colorado deserves a government that treats us with respect. Since we can no longer count on certain elected officials to treat Colorado taxpayers and voters with respect, we must pass Proposition 120 and Amendment 78 to at least discourage them from treating us with contempt."

Official arguments

The official arguments provided in the Colorado Blue Book were as follows:

• Official Blue Book argument: "The measure increases transparency and accountability in state government. The Governor, the Attorney General, and unelected administrators in state agencies currently spend large amounts of custodial money, often without public input or accessible public records. By requiring that all state spending be directly allocated by the state legislature, the measure allows for public participation and provides transparency in how funds are spent."

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

• State Senator Chris Hansen (D)

Political Parties

• Democratic Party of Colorado

Individuals

• Scott Wasserman - President of the Bell Policy Center

Arguments

• State Sen. Chris Hansen (D): "If it passes, I think it’s going to be a serious disruption to the way the state currently operates.The Joint Budget Committee and the legislature would have to come in and be passing appropriations bills, pretty much all year round if this goes forward. So I think there’s a lot of unintended consequences. It’s going to really slow down the process of getting your emergency funds out the door, and that could have dire consequences."
• Scott Wasserman, President of the Bell Policy Center: "This essentially allows one legislative chamber to veto federal dollars that have already come here from the federal government. This isn’t something that came up from the grassroots. This is something that has been financed and put on the ballot for the express purpose of disrupting government and creating more uncertainty."
• Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue: Pogue said the measure could delay emergency funding for events such as wildfires. Pogue said, "It’s important that we receive those funds quickly, and that they not get tied up in, for lack of a better term partisan bickering, that they come directly to the counties as quickly as possible, and I am concerned that Amendment 78 doesn’t anticipate that situation and can really have a very negative effect on my community should we encounter such events."
• Scott Wasserman, President of the Bell Policy Center: "If it passes, Amendment 78 will open our state up to unending shenanigans and showdowns. At a minimum, it will slow down federal relief in times of crisis. At worst, it could bring Washington-style stalemate politics to Colorado. Right now, there are hundreds of types of dollars that pass through the state treasurer’s office and to their intended purposes. This is how our government operates throughout the year. Under existing law, state agencies and governmental entities (like our public universities) are already authorized to spend these dollars according to terms dictated by their source. ... But if Amendment 78 passes, this efficiency and speed will end. We’ll need a special session every time a natural disaster occurs. Beyond simply doubling the work our part-time legislature must do, it will create numerous opportunities for legislators to object to the role federal dollars play in our state. Health care dollars, transportation and transit funding, conservation funding, funding for scientific research -- this is what we are talking about when we talk about the funds affected by Amendment 78."
• Tamra Ward, board chair of History Colorado: "All of [the work done by History Colorado operating] eleven museums and historic sites, a free public research center, the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the History Colorado State Historical Fund (SHF), which is the nation’s largest state preservation program ... fundamentally relies on the so-called custodial funds that Amendment 78 seeks to impact. Diminishing it is one of the many precarious outcomes that Coloradans stand to face if they vote to adopt this amendment, not least because the amendment will hamper the nimble adaptation to Coloradans’ changing needs that is crucial to our services."

Official arguments

The official arguments provided in the Colorado Blue Book were as follows:

• Official Blue Book argument: "The measure adds unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy and risks significant unintended consequences. A longer allocation process could delay or interrupt state services, including emergency responses to public health or wildfire disasters. Further, making grant funding subject to additional steps could jeopardize Colorado’s competitiveness for grant awards, resulting in the state receiving less money. Finally, the measure shifts decision-making from program experts and independent commissions to a political process in the state legislature."

Media editorials

See also: 2021 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• Denver Gazette Editorial Board: "This should be the easiest question on the ballot. Voters who want their money used for its intended purpose, with accountability and budgeting, should approve Amendment 78. Vote “yes” to end big sleazy slush funds."
• Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board: "Amendment 78 would put a stop to the misuse of “free” money to the state from the Federal Reserve. The law would subject federal money to checks and balances that involves the scrutiny of 100 members of the Colorado General Assembly. This means the money would more likely benefit the public, rather than going for one man’s “personal services,” ethics violations, or other expenses incurred unilaterally by the governor, attorney general, and other ranking state officials. They would have to justify expenditures to people of all backgrounds representing every square inch of Colorado. This should be the easiest question on the ballot. Voters who want their money used for its intended purpose, with accountability and budgeting, should approve Amendment 78. Vote “yes” to end big sleazy slush funds."

Opposition

• Boulder Daily Camera Editorial Board: "...Future emergency funding — for public health, severe flooding, wildfires — should be handled quickly and efficiently at the hands of our governor, not the General Assembly, which would be a terrible consequence we’d prefer to avoid."
• Journal Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "Amendment 78 is known by the title Legislative Authority for Spending State Money. While it seems to be motivated by the federal relief funds given in response to the pandemic, this one has three strikes against it. Strike one: It’s an amendment to an already-over-amended state constitution. Because of the ease with which Colorado’s constitution could be amended in the past, the document is no longer a simple road map to good governance, but a complex maze of detailed, often contradictory instructions on how to account for every last dime of tax revenue. The last thing the constitution needs is one more fiscal amendment. Strike two: It ties up money that is received by state agencies for a specific and directed purpose. ... Strike three: The measure would add another level of bureaucracy to state government. The accounting requirements of this constitutional amendment could result in additional man-hours for state staff, which results in bigger government and more cost to taxpayers."
• Sentinel Editorial Board: "Colorado’s state government is already choked with noxious and unwieldy laws and constitutional amendments, chief among them the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights, adding Amendment 78 to the mix would only further slow the grinding wheels of government and needlessly chew up more public time and attention. Vote no on Amendment 78."
• Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Proponents say the measure would bring more accountability and transparency in how funds from federal relief and legal settlements are spent. But the problem lies in the custodial account. These funds are often needed to address emergent issues and creating a new layer of government would slow that process. The unintended consequences of passing this amendment aren’t entirely clear. We feel more time is needed to determine the impacts of a change such as this."
• Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board: "There are several downsides to changing how custodial funds are spent. It would cost at least $1 million annually for the bureaucratic oversight of bringing custodial funds under the purview of the Legislature and it could delay disbursement of certain funds when the Legislature isn’t in session. But as a practical matter, lawmakers could simply undo the amendment with a simple bill in the Legislature to revert back to the old way of dealing with custodial funds, rendering Amendment 78 moot. We say skip the headache and reject Amendment 78."
• Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board: "...We think the amendment would create unintended consequences, disrupt state government and make budgeting more difficult overall."
• Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Better yet, think of how federal transportation money might be distributed if that were decided by lawmakers — most of whom are from the Front Range. Colorado’s highway spending involves an elaborate system designed, in large part, to ensure that every part of the state gets its fair share. Amendment 78 could be seen as an attempt to scuttle that."
• Denver Post Editorial Board: "Colorado voters are being given an unenviable option – lock down federal funds to prevent potential abuse and risk tying Colorado’s hands in an emergency slowing critical spending with the legislative process. We urge Colorado voters to keep custodial funds how they are for now and vote 'no' on Amendment 78."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through November 30, 2021.

The Committee for Spending Transparency registered as an issue committee to support the initiative. The committee reported $1.275 million in contributions from Unite for Colorado. The committee reported expenditures totaling $1.275 million. The committee paid $1.23 million to Blitz Canvassing for signature gathering.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$1,275,000.00	$0.00	$1,275,000.00	$1,275,000.00	$1,275,000.00
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$1,275,000.00	$0.00	$1,275,000.00	$1,275,000.00	$1,275,000.00

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.

Committees in support of Amendment 78
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
The Committee for Spending Transparency	$1,275,000.00	$0.00	$1,275,000.00	$1,275,000.00	$1,275,000.00
Total	$1,275,000.00	$0.00	$1,275,000.00	$1,275,000.00	$1,275,000.00

Donors

Unite for Colorado gave 100% of the contributions to the support committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Unite for Colorado	$1,275,000.00	$0.00	$1,275,000.00

Opposition

If you are aware of a committee registered to oppose this measure, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Methodology

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

Background

Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR)

See also: Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR)

Measures that can go on the ballot during odd years are limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR, the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (Section 20 of Article X of the Colorado Constitution).

The Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) requires voter approval for all new taxes, tax rate increases, extensions of expiring taxes, mill levy increases, valuation for property assessment increases, or tax policy changes resulting in increased tax revenue. The Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights was passed by voters in 1992 as Initiative 1. The measure was approved by a vote of 53.68% to 46.32%. The measure was sponsored 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

Referendum C, approved by voters in 2005, authorized the state to retain and spend all of the money it collected above the TABOR limit on healthcare, public education, transportation projects, and local fire and police pensions for five years beginning with fiscal year (FY) 2005-06. During these five years, Colorado residents did not receive the refunds they would have otherwise received under TABOR. After the five-year period, referred to as "the timeout period," Referendum C authorized the state to permanently retain and spend revenue up to a cap, referred to as "the Referendum C cap" (equaling FY 2007-08 revenues adjusted by inflation plus population growth), beginning in FY 2010-11.

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:

TABOR ballot measures

Since 1992, when TABOR was adopted, through 2020, Colorado voters have decided on 22 statewide ballot measures that would have increased revenue for the state, which required voter approval under TABOR.

• Five measures asked voters if the state could retain revenue that would have otherwise been refunded to taxpayers under TABOR;
• Five measures asked voters to adopt a new tax;
• Two measures asked voters to eliminate a tax exemption (thereby raising state revenue);
• Eight measures asked voters to adopt a tax increase;
• One measure asked voters to adopt a tax increase and new tax; and
• One measure asked voters to adopt a tax increase and eliminate a tax exemption.

Six (27%) of the 22 measures were approved while 16 (73%) were defeated.

The six measures that were approved are as follows:

• Colorado Tobacco Tax Increase for Health-Related Purposes, Initiative 35 (2004);
• Colorado State Business Income Tax Deduction Limit, Referendum H (2006);
• Colorado Proposition AA, Taxes on the Sale of Marijuana (2013);
• Colorado Marijuana TABOR Refund Measure, Proposition BB (2015);
• Colorado Proposition DD, Legalize Sports Betting with Tax Revenue for Water Projects Measure (2019); and
• Colorado Proposition EE, Tobacco and E-Cigarette Tax Increase for Health and Education Programs Measure (2020).

In addition to the above measures, Referendum C, approved by voters in 2005, authorized the state to retain and spend all of the money it collected above the TABOR limit on healthcare, public education, transportation projects, and local fire and police pensions for five years beginning with fiscal year (FY) 2005-06.

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in Colorado and 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 2021 ballot:

• Signatures: 124,632 valid signatures
• Deadline: August 2, 2021

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

• Michael Fields, Executive Director of Colorado Rising Action, and Suzanne Taheri filed the initiative, known as Initiative #19, on March 25, 2021. Ballot language was provided for the measure on April 7, 2021.
• On August 31, 2021, the Colorado Secretary of State announced that the initiative qualified for the ballot. The Secretary of State found that, of the 195,911 signatures submitted, 135,601 were projected to be valid. To qualify, 124,632 signatures needed to be valid. Since the measure proposes to amend the state constitution as well as state law, signatures from two percent of the registered voters who live in each of the state's 35 senate districts were also required.

Signature gathering cost

See also: Ballot measures cost per required signatures analysis

Sponsors of the measure hired Blitz Canvassing to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,230,369.55 was spent to collect the 124,632 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $9.87.

Lawsuit

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether the amendment is substantially related to Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in order to appear on the 2021 ballot, which is limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR
Court: Denver District Court
Plaintiff(s): Scott Wasserman of the Bell Policy Center and Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue	Defendant(s): Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, measure sponsor Michael Fields

  Source: KOAA.com

Scott Wasserman of the Bell Policy Center and Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue filed a lawsuit in Denver District Court arguing that the Colorado Secretary of State's office improperly certified the measure for the ballot and seeking for it to be either removed from the ballot or have votes not counted for the measure. Plaintiffs alleged that the amendment is not substantially related to Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) and therefore should not appear on the 2021 ballot. Measures that can go on the ballot during odd years are limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR. Pogue said, "One of the reasons you can have a ballot initiative on an odd number year is if it is TABOR related. The framers of 78 have tried to make the claim that it is TABOR related, but I don't think that claim has any merit. ... They are mistaken, a lot of the funds that I'm concerned about are very separate and already exempt from TABOR." Measure sponsor Michael Fields said, "Most of the time general fund money is inside of Tabor so what we're doing is taking this, putting it into a new fund and allowing the interest to go into the general fund."

A Denver District Court judge dismissed the lawsuit on October 21, 2021. Plaintiffs said they would likely appeal.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Colorado

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Colorado.

How to cast a vote 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

2021 measures

• 2021 ballot measures
• Budgets on the ballot
• 2021 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 #19 full text
• Colorado 2021 State Ballot Information Booklet (Blue Book)
• Colorado Secretary of State: Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results
• Initiatives filed with the Legislative Council Staff
• Statement of Sufficiency

Support

• Colorado Rising State Action website
• Colorado Rising State Action Facebook page
• Colorado Rising State Action Twitter page
• The Committee for Spending Transparency on TRACER campaign finance database

Opposition

Submit links to editor@ballotpedia.org.