Whose Ballot Is It, Anyway?

It’s that time of the year again. The leaves are changing, fresh snow is visible on our higher elevation mountains, football is back, and Blue Books have been delivered to registered voters across the state, which can only mean one thing: an election is coming.

This November, Colorado voters will be asked to decide on fourteen (!!) statewide ballot measures ranging from establishing a graduated income tax that would increase taxes on corporations and individuals making more than $500K to harsher penalties for people found with or selling fentanyl. At the local level, many voters will also be asked important questions about raising local taxes to pay for more affordable childcare and improved schools. Fourteen ballot measures may seem like a lot (it is), but the good news is that Colorado voters are practiced at deciding important issues for the state’s fiscal and societal future at the ballot box.

According to Ballotpedia, in even-year elections, the elections where statewide or federal candidates are usually on the ballot and thus see higher turnout, going back to 2012, Colorado has averaged around 10 ballot measures per election, and since 2018 the state has averaged 12.5. The next closest state is California with 11. Colorado has a long history with the initiative process and the ballot measures it places on the ballot, and many voters are very protective of this right. But is the initiative process, and the direct decision-making power it gives voters over the state’s future, fulfilling the promises and goals of its intent? And if not, should Colorado voters consistently have to decide so much?

Let me be the first to say that I do not have the answer to the second question, which has been debated many times, especially since Colorado voters passed the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) in 1992. That being said, I think I have an idea on the first question, so allow me to shed a little light on the origins of the ballot initiative in Colorado and how it plays out today.

Colorado voters adopted the initiative process in 1910, at the height of the Progressive Movement, which focused on reducing corruption in government and giving more power directly to the people rather than special interests. The idea of the initiative process was to allow citizens to directly mobilize to put important measures on the ballot, measures that were not being considered by elected officials due to the influence of special interests. I think most people today would agree with this sentiment and with the Progressive Movement’s goal of reducing the hold that special interests have on our elected officials and elections. All of this sounds great, but does the initiative process actually reduce the influence of special interests and give power to the voters?

First, let’s quickly examine how the initiative process works. An initiative can reach the ballot in two ways:

1) Legislative referral, such as Prop NN this year

2) Citizen petition, which has different requirements depending on the type of change:

– Statutory changes must receive 5% of the total votes cast for all candidates for the Office of Secretary of State in the previous election, or in simpler terms over 124,236 signatures based on 2022 turnout

– Constitutional changes must be signed by 2% of registered electors in each of Colorado’s 35 state senate districts.

The requirement that constitutional petitions be signed by 2% of registered electors in each of Colorado’s 35 senate districts is a recent change that was meant to make constitutional initiatives harder to place on the ballot (clearly it did not since there are seven such measures posed to voters this year). What it did do was make the process to change the state constitution much more expensive. After all, Colorado is a fairly difficult state to cover; in order to reach, collect, and verify signatures in all 35 senate districts, one would need a significant operation. An operation that requires a lot of money and resources, which the average citizen does not have.

According to Ballotpedia, the average cost per signature for an initiative petition in 2012 and 2014 was $1.83 and $1.37, respectively. However, after Colorado voters decided to set a higher bar for constitutional changes the average cost per signature rose significantly each election. In 2020, the average cost per signature was $6.75; in 2022 it was $9.84; in 2024 it was $12.02. In total, the cost to collect signatures in Colorado in 2024 was $10,452,244.44 compared to $314,789.21 in 2012. Now, we know everything is more expensive, but a 557% cost increase per signature seems just a bit much. I think it’s safe to assume that with such important ballot measures in 2026, costs will continue to rise.

To illustrate this point just a bit further, a recent article in the Colorado Sun points out how much money special interests are pouring into collecting signatures for this year’s ballot measures. This year, Colorado Dawn, a conservative nonprofit, spent $750,000 to collect signatures for Amendment 82. The measure would give consumers the right to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in their homes, and would allow distributors and utilities to sell natural gas to customers. Another group, Common Sense America, poured in an additional $625,000 for this measure. The money behind collecting signatures cuts across the political spectrum, with a little over $620,000 being spent by progressive groups to collect signatures for Amendment 87, the graduated income tax measure.

Large contributions are being poured into the initiative process, and the costs to collect signatures have risen dramatically over the past six years. These trends raise the question of whether our initiative process is achieving the original goal of giving power to the people rather than special interests. Personally, I would argue it is not.

So as you read through your Blue Book this year, I encourage you to think about the original intent of the initiative process and perhaps ask whether, by making it harder to change the constitution, we only made it harder for the average citizens the process was meant to empower.