Colorado voters will weigh in on three measures tied to the state’s natural resources this November, two of which would add rights to the state constitution and one that would redirect money toward conservation.
Amendment 82
Amendment 82 would revise the Colorado Constitution to add the right to buy and sell natural gas. Amendment 82 was brought by Advance Colorado, a right-wing nonprofit organization. It needs 55% of the vote to pass.
Supporters say the measure is a safeguard, not a change. Kit Pfeiffer, president of the Energy Freedom Alliance of the Rockies — a committee in support of the amendment — said the amendment would not have immediate impacts.
“It doesn’t force anybody to take natural gas,” Pfeiffer said. “It doesn’t force anybody to take it if they don’t want it. All it does is prevent the state from forcibly removing it out of people’s homes and businesses.”
Pfeiffer pointed to the Clean Heat Plan presented by Colorado’s Public Utilities Commission, which he said requires natural gas emissions from home heating and cooking to be cut by 100% by 2050. He argued the only proven way to meet that goal is electrification, which he estimated would add about $1,100 a year to the average household’s utility bills. He said it would also strain the grid during winter cold snaps.
Stephanie Malin, a Colorado State University sociology professor who co-directs the Center for Environmental Justice, said the ballot language is “manipulative.” She argued the amendment could be used by oil and gas companies to challenge state or local limits on drilling, though she acknowledged the outcome is uncertain.
Malin also criticized the measure’s funding. Amendment 82 is one of several measures backed by Advance Colorado, which she described as being funded by “dark money.” Pfeiffer said the campaign’s donors are consumers and opponents are outspending supporters with out-of-state money.
Amendment 83
Amendment 83 asks Colorado voters to amend the state constitution to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish and officials would be directed to treat these as the preferred means with which to manage the fish and wildlife populations. The amendment would cover “traditional” methods only and would not extend to endangered or nongame species. There would also be exceptions to the regulations when scientific, public safety or preservation concerns arise. The measure requires 55% of the vote to pass.
Supporters call the amendment a safeguard. Kassiopeia Smith, co-chair of the Colorado chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said the amendment would make hunting and fishing the preferred tool when scientifically supported, but it would not be the only tool. Smith and Brittany Parker, the chapter’s field operations coordinator, pointed to 24 states with similar protections and to recent citizen-led efforts, like 2024’s Proposition 127, which would have banned hunting mountain lions and bobcats.
Opponents focus on the wording. Gary Skiba, a retired state wildlife conservation biologist who is the wildlife manager for San Juan Citizens Alliance, said “traditional methods” are undefined and could invite lawsuits that challenge existing rules. He also said hunting “is a privilege and not a right.”
Mark Surls, Colorado and Northern Rockies coordinator at Project Coyote, said no one could predict the outcome of these potential lawsuits. He argued giving hunting “preferred” status could tilt decisions toward one user group.
Both Smith and Parker said bans on leghold traps, spring bear hunting and baiting would stay in place. Skiba and Surls said those bans could be challenged.
Proposition 137
Proposition 137 would allocate a portion of the state sales tax collected on sporting goods toward conservation, wildfire mitigation and outdoor recreation. It covers most sporting goods and wouldn’t change how much shoppers pay or the tax amount Colorado would collect. Instead, it exempts that revenue from the state’s constitutional revenue limit, known as the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which would let the state keep an estimated $175 million in the budget year 2027-28 that would otherwise be refunded. Because it is a statute, it needs a simple majority to pass.
Supporters say the proposition would serve programs that are typically underfunded. Brendan Witt, a wildfire policy adviser at Western Resource Advocates, said existing wildfire grant programs can only fund about half of the requests they receive. Curtis Hubbard, a spokesperson for the Yes on 137 campaign, said state foresters estimate Colorado needs about $200 million a year for forest health alone. Witt and Hubbard both said critics misunderstand the measure’s flexibility because it is a statute, meaning lawmakers can redirect the money in years when the state is under the TABOR cap.
Opponents say the trade-offs are real. The League of Women Voters of Colorado opposes the measure, saying it would permanently transfer money from a “perpetually short” general fund. The Blue Book’s argument against Prop 137 calls it a “tax increase in disguise” because it reduces TABOR refunds.
Hubbard called that concern a misconception. The state estimates it would eliminate six-tier sales tax refunds for a single filer between $26-83 and for joint filers by $52-166.
Reach Maci Lesh at news@collegian.com or on social media @macileshmedia.
