Colorado Ballot Puts ‘Tax The Rich’ And ‘Trans The Kids’ To The Test

Colorado voters are deciding on three ballot measures that would overhaul the state’s income tax system, set sex-based rules for school and college sports, and restrict certain surgeries for minors.

Amendment 87 would replace Colorado’s flat 4.4 percent income tax with a graduated system. Supporters, including the Bell Policy Center and Protect Colorado’s Future, claim it would lower rates for most households, raise them sharply above roughly $500,000, and dedicate the new revenue to education, health care, and early childhood programs. 

The measure’s brackets, however, would not adjust for inflation. As Nash Herman of the Independence Institute has noted, rising incomes driven largely by inflation would push more taxpayers into higher brackets over time, producing a long-term tax increase for all Coloradans, including those who do not currently fall into the top income tier.

Amendment 87 would also remove language in the state constitution, part of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), that requires all taxable income to be taxed at a single rate. New revenue generated by the higher rates would be treated as a voter-approved change and would not count toward TABOR’s spending limits or be subject to refunds.

Business groups and some large employers have warned that companies with $3 million or more in taxable profit could see their taxes nearly double. A 2025 Colorado Chamber of Commerce report found that nearly 100 companies have left or chosen not to locate in the state since 2019, many citing regulatory costs, with an estimated 13,607 jobs affected. Amendment 87 is so extreme that even the notoriously left-wing Denver Post recommends a no vote, noting Amendment 87 “will do more harm than good.”

Two other ballot measures were initiated by citizens and address issues related to the sexes.

The Democrat-led legislature and Gov. Jared Polis have spent years expanding mandatory coverage for transgender-related medical interventions such as wrong-sex hormones and surgeries, requiring schools to affirm chosen names, and shielding such policies from external challenge. For instance, last year Polis signed into law HB25-1309, the so-called Protect Access to Gender-Affirming Health Care Act, which codifies wrongly termed “gender-affirming health care” (defined broadly to include medical, surgical, behavioral, and mental health; therapeutics; and related services for so-called gender dysphoria) as a mandatory coverage provision in individual and group plans. Insurers cannot deny or limit care that a provider determines is “medically necessary,” regardless of the patient’s age or sex. It also exempts testosterone prescriptions from certain Prescription Drug Monitoring Program tracking requirements.

Propositions 134 and 135 reflect efforts by a substantial number of Coloradans who are now trying to reassert sex distinctions in sports and set an age floor for irreversible surgeries. 

Prop 134 would require student athletes to compete on teams designated for their sex, defined by reproductive systems, or on coed teams. A female could participate on a male-designated team if no corresponding female team is available. The measure would also prohibit government entities, licensing organizations, and athletic associations from penalizing schools that maintain separate female teams.

Opponents of the measure contend that the proposal would limit opportunities for girls who have historically played on boys’ teams in sports such as baseball and football, and they warn it could lead to intrusive verification procedures for female athletes. The Denver Post’s editorial board called the measure “bad legislation” and “mean-spirited.”

But supporters argue males retain physical advantages in strength, speed, and bone density even after so-called transition, producing unfair competition, lost scholarships and playing time, and safety and privacy concerns in locker rooms. They note that 27 other states have adopted comparable policies. 

Prop 135 would prohibit health care professionals from performing surgery on anyone under 18 for the purpose of altering sex characteristics “in response to a minor’s perception of sex or gender.” It would also “prohibit the use of state or federal funds, Medicaid reimbursements, or insurance coverage to pay for such procedures.” The measure includes exceptions for male circumcision and for treatment of certain sexual development disorders or acquired abnormalities.

Opponents, including major Colorado medical organizations, argue the ban interferes with decisions that should remain between patients, parents, and doctors and could have broader effects on care. Proponents point to guidance from groups such as the American Society of Plastic Surgeons recommending that “gender-related chest, facial, and genital surgeries” wait until at least age 19, and they cite cases of detransitioners who say they were “too young to consent” to irreversible operations. 

Colorado’s Democrat supermajority has treated the state as an open-ended experiment in leftist governance. The results are visible: Employers have left, jobs have gone with them, and the cost of living has risen. Amendment 87 shows the party has no intention of adjusting course. It would lock in a permanent tax increase that ignores inflation, guts a core TABOR protection, and demands still more from the businesses that remain.

Propositions 134 and 135 represent citizens’ pushback against the Democrats’ war on biology.

These measures will not reverse every recent law. They will, however, test whether voters can still impose any limit on how far the state’s leftist direction will go.

The outcome of the midterms will show whether Colorado’s leftward shift continues by default, or whether enough residents have decided it’s gone far and long enough.

---