Fourteen statewide ballot measures await Colorado voters this November, offering a mix of criminal justice crackdowns, tax overhauls, and constitutional tweaks that ensure no one will accuse the ballot of being boring this year.

Colorado’s 14 statewide ballot measures match the 2024 election for the most in recent state history. The all‑time record still belongs to 1912, when voters faced 32 measures.

Here is a brief rundown of what each measure would do and what proponents and opponents are saying.

Initiative No. 85: Penalties for fentanyl crimes

Backed by the special interest group Advance Colorado, Initiative No. 85 would make the sale of any amount of fentanyl a Class 1 felony, punishable by up to 32 years in prison. It would also mandate court-ordered substance use treatment for individuals convicted of possession of up to 1 gram of fentanyl.

Proponents of the initiative, including law enforcement agencies and some district attorneys, argue the measure is necessary to reduce opioid overdoses, which are the leading cause of death for 18-to-44-year-olds, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Opponents of Initiative No. 85, including criminal justice reform advocates, say the measure will actually increase overdoses. According to the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, the measure would not increase penalties for the highest-level drug traffickers and instead require harsh sentences for minor offenses.

The organization also notes a nonpartisan legislative council cost estimate that found Initiative 85 could increase the state’s prison population by 900 people per year, costing the state about $433 million over the next five years.

Initiative No. 95: Law enforcement reporting requirements to federal authorities

Also backed by Advance Colorado, Initiative No. 95 would amend the state constitution to require law enforcement to notify federal immigration officials when they charge a person who is in the country illegally and the alleged offense is a violent crime, or when the individual has previously been charged with a felony. This also applies when the person’s legal status could not be determined.

That practice has been prohibited under state law since 2019, when state lawmakers passed House Bill 19-1124, which bars Colorado law enforcement from arresting someone solely on the basis of a civil “immigration detainer” request.

A number of groups have come out in opposition to the measure, including Rocky Mountain Equality and the Bell Policy Center.

“This initiative is not about public safety; it’s about fear and targeting,” said Bruce Parker, executive director of Rocky Mountain Equality.

Initiative No. 108: Penalties for human trafficking of a minor

Backed by the special interest group Protect Kids Colorado, Initiative No. 108 would establish mandatory life sentences for individuals convicted of sexual trafficking of a minor.

The current penalty for human trafficking of a minor for sexual or involuntary servitude is a Class 2 felony, carrying a mandatory minimum of eight years in prison and a maximum of 24 years, with eligibility for parole and fines that can reach $1 million. Six states now impose mandatory life sentences without parole for sexual trafficking of minors.

Proponents of the measure argue that individuals who engage in sex trafficking of minors should spend life in prison and note that the harsh sentence could deter those considering engaging in human trafficking.

Opponents argue sentencing decisions should remain with judges and warn the measure could also affect trafficking victims who were forced to participate in trafficking others.

Initiative No. 109: Male and female participation in sports

Also supported by Protect Kids Colorado, Initiative No. 109 would require students to participate on sports teams that align with their biological sex, with an exception allowing a female athlete to participate on a boys’ team if no girls’ team is available.

The initiative also prohibits government entities and athletic associations from investigating a school for maintaining separate sports for females.

Protect Kids Colorado argues the biological differences between males and females make it unfair for biological males to participate on female sports teams and can increase risk of injury.

The LGBTQ rights group Rocky Mountain Equality argues the measure is unnecessary and will prevent transgender kids from participating in sports with their friends.

Mardi Moore, the organization’s CEO, called the initiative “an attack on Colorado families modeled after national extremist efforts.”

Initiative No. 110: Prohibit certain surgeries on minors

Protect Kids Colorado’s third and final ballot measure, Initiative No. 110, would prohibit gender reassignment surgeries on minors and ban government funding and insurance coverage from being used to pay for such treatments.

Children lack the maturity to make permanent, life-altering medical decisions, the initiative’s legislative declaration states, adding that several European countries, including Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom, require individuals to be at least 18 to receive gender reassignment treatments.

Rocky Mountain Equality called the measure an attempt by outside interests to tell Colorado parents how to raise their children.

Initiative 177: Right to natural gas

Another Advance Colorado measure, Initiative No. 177 would establish a right to sell and purchase natural gas in the Colorado Constitution.

Proponents argue the initiative is necessary to protect consumer choice and ensure the state doesn’t entirely phase out fossil fuels.

Opponents, including some Democratic lawmakers and the environmental organization Conservation Colorado, argue the measure is too broad and could block future clean energy projects.

Initiative No. 195: Graduated income tax

Backed by the special interest group Protect Colorado’s Future, Initiative No. 195 would replace Colorado’s flat income tax rate with a graduated tax rate in which individuals are taxed different amounts based on their income.

According to Protect Colorado’s Future, Initiative No. 195 would cut taxes for 97% of taxpayers, raise $2 billion annually for K-12 education, healthcare and childcare and increase taxes only on the wealthiest 3% of individuals and largest 5% of corporations that make more than $500,000 annually.

Proponents of the measure, including the nonprofit organization Bell Policy Center, argue Colorado’s current tax system is unfair.

Opponents of Initiative No. 195 argue it will drive Colorado’s wealthiest residents and businesses out of the state and make it less competitive to states with flat tax rates.

Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute told Colorado Politics that if the measure passes, it would be a “death knell” for Colorado’s economy, adding that it would come at a time when states across the country are fighting to be either low-tax or no-tax at all.

Initiative No. 232: Income tax rate cap

Introduced by Advance Colorado in response to the graduated tax proposal, Initiative No. 232 would cap the state’s income tax at its current rate of 4.4%.

If both initiatives pass, the one with the higher vote total would take effect. That means a victory for Initiative No. 195 would move Colorado to a graduated income tax system, while a win for Initiative No. 232 would allow income tax cuts but prohibit increases.

Initiative No. 234: Plain language ballot questions

Initiative No. 234 would require all ballot measures to be written at no higher than an eighth-grade reading level.

The measure, backed by Advance Colorado, would also prohibit any state law from interfering with the provision by mandating that certain language appear in ballot initiatives.

Initiative No. 256: Congressional redistricting

Backed by former Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Taheri, Initiative 256 would prohibit congressional redistricting for the 2028 election and beyond unless approved by the Congressional Redistricting Commission and the Supreme Court.

The measure was originally introduced in response to proposed ballot measures that would have redrawn the state’s congressional districts for the 2028 election, which were ultimately blocked by the Colorado Supreme Court for violating the constitutional single-subject requirement.

Initiative No. 302: Constitutional right to hunt and fish

Backed by the out-of-state group International Order of T. Roosevelt, Initiative No. 302 would amend the Colorado Constitution to include language establishing the people’s right to “hunt, fish, and take fish and wildlife” by the use of “traditional methods,” except when prohibited by state or federal law.

The amendment also states that hunting and fishing are the “preferred means of responsibly managing fish and wildlife populations” and underscores that it does not limit the authority of any state agency responsible for regulating fishing, hunting, or wildlife management.

Proponents of the measure say it’s necessary to prevent activist groups from banning hunting and fishing in Colorado, something they attempted in Oregon, albeit unsuccessfully.

“Hunting and fishing is part of Colorado’s heritage,” said Luke Hilgemann, executive director of International Order of T. Roosevelt.

Opponents of the measure, including a group called Protect Colorado’s Constitution, are concerned that its use of the term “traditional methods” could repeal previously banned hunting and trapping methods deemed cruel or unfair to animals.

“Good wildlife management requires a full toolbox,” said Gary Skiba, a former state wildlife agency bighorn sheep biologist from Durango. “Hunting and fishing can be important and effective tools. But so are habitat conservation and restoration, preventing disease transmission, limiting hunting in some cases to recover wildlife populations, relocation, nonlethal coexistence measures and other management tools. The Constitution should not declare one wildlife management tool preferred above all the others.”

Read more about Initiative No. 302 here.

Initiative No. 308: Designate sporting goods sales tax revenue for conservation

Backed by Brendan Witt, a policy advisor at the environmental nonprofit Western Resource Advocates, and Aaron Citron, a policy director at the Nature Conservancy, Initiative 308 would allow the state to retain sales tax revenue from the sale of sporting goods like bicycles, athletic equipment, and fishing supplies, and use it to fund land conservation, wildfire prevention, water conservation and outdoor recreation.

A fiscal analysis estimates that the measure would generate about $175 million in tax revenue starting in Fiscal Year 2027-28.

Vote Yes on Prop 137, a group that includes several environmental and outdoor recreation organizations, argues that additional funding is necessary to protect the Colorado outdoors. According to the group’s website, the state needs an estimated $100 to $200 million more every year for land and water conservation.

Opponents argue the measure would interfere with the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR), reduce taxpayer refunds, and allow the state to spend more money than it should.

Initiative No. 362: Mail ballot voter identification

Backed by El Paso County Treasurer Chuck Broerman and former Deputy Secretary of State Suzanne Taheri, Initiative No. 362 would require voters to include either the last four digits of their Social Security number, driver’s license number, or REAL ID number on mail-in ballots.

Currently, Colorado law requires voters to sign mail ballots, which are verified through a state database. In-person Colorado voters are also required to present identification, such as a driver’s license, passport or birth certificate, while those who vote by mail for the first time must provide a photocopy of their identification documents.

Supporters of the measure argue additional verification is necessary to avoid fraudulent ballots from being cast. Opponents, meanwhile, have argued that Colorado’s elections are already secure and the initiative could lead to voter disenfranchisement.

Read more about Initiative No. 362 here.

Reporter Marianne Goodland contributed to this story.

Editor’s note: A previous version of this story included a quote from David Kane, which has been removed as he is no longer involved in the campaign against Initiative No. 302.