The CEO of the Broadmoor Hotel in Co Springs sent an email to employees urging the. to reference the Gazette’s voter guide for this year’s election. The guide recommends voting “yes” on all eight of the initiatives backed by Advance Colorado, the conservative dark money group backed by Anschutz, who owns both the Broadmoot and the Gazette.

https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2026/10/anschutz-owned-business-pushed-gazette-voter-guide-on-employees/82548/

Sorry of this isn’t allowed in here, please delete if so.

I’m having a hard time understand the benefit and appeal of the Colorado Connect. I understand what it is supposed to do but don’t think it will benefit as many people as it’s a single line that goes north to south. It will require people to have a way to get to the train stations and other indices to build ridership. Plus, bustang runs from the fort to the springs, which has been successful at increasing ridership.

Looking at RTD, who has 1% sales tax to build light rail service, but never completed the intended plan. Now, I have trust issues. RTD is not very effective at rail transit, with manual ridership.

I would rather see any additional funding going to make bustang better.

If you are for it, please help me understand why it’s worth my tax dollars and not a couple of fancy coffees?

These judicial retention questions really shouldn't be on the ballot IMHO, because 99.9% of voters have never even heard of any of these judges. I usually just leave them blank, so people with more knowledge on the matter will have more say in their votes.

Anybody got a good source on why any of these judges should lose their seats or remain?

As presented in blue book order:

81 NO - Makes police work with ICE

82 NO - Impacts citizens ability to affect climate change legislation

83 NO - No group currently opposes hunting or fishing, but a constitutional amendment will prevent climate change legislation in the future.

84 NO - Forces the use of SSN on ballots, CO is currently the gold standard for voting security already

85 NO - Allows PACs and lawmakers to omit crucial information on ballot measures

86 NO - Tries to limit redistricting while republican states redistricting is rampant and racist

87 YES - People making less than 500k will take a tax cut, above will take a tax increase

NN YES - Public K-12 funding with 10 year plan including public audits

132 NO - Increases incarceration (slavery) rate of fentanyl drug offenders

133 NO - Aims to imprison mother's traveling to CO for abortions (very clever disguise proposition because it talks about child abuse)

134 NO - Forces schools to police kids bodies

135 NO - Puts politicians between kids/citizens, parents, and medical doctors

136 NO - A flat tax would have you pay the same taxes as TARGET or WALMART etc.

137 50/50 - Takes sporting goods tax (think ski resorts) and applies the funds to wildlife/sporting conservation. 83.1M to wildfire prevention (including logging in the alpine, an ecosystem that won't recover due to climate change), 83.1M to Great outdoors CO

Of course, do what you believe is best. I believe Advance Colorado intentionally engages in obfuscation of pertinent issues. Do with this information what you will.

Hi all,

I wanted to share why I'm voting No on Amendment 83.

Out-of-state funding:

 •    Nearly $2 million has been raised by out-of-state groups

 •    Approx $1.56 million from the T. Roosevelt Conservation Alliance (Marshfield, Wisconsin)

 •    Approx $80,000 from Safari Club International

 •    Decisions about our state constitution should be driven by Coloradans 

My concerns with the amendment:

 •    It's unnecessary. Hunting and fishing are already legal and protected under Colorado law.

 •    It's hard to undo. Once a policy is in the constitution, future Colorado voters lose the flexibility to change it.

 •    The wording is vague. "Traditional methods" isn't defined, which could lead to costly lawsuits and unintended consequences.

 •    It limits future Coloradan’s ability to adapt wildlife management in Colorado as science and conditions change.

 •    It gives special constitutional status to particular priorities over other public interests.

A lesson from TABOR (taxpayers Bill of Rights)

 •    Passed in 1992, it has limited Colorado's ability to fund schools, roads, and health care for more than 30 years

This is a policy choice. There is no reason why a policy choice needs to be in the state constitution. The legislative process and regulation process are perfectly adequate for making policy choices of this kind.

We should think carefully before locking another policy into the constitution

Please consider voting No on Amendment 83

Lefty here. I hear Hickenlooper isn't great, but if he's the only non-Republican with a chance to win, then I'll just go with him.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Mark "Marky Jr" Elworth Calls for Legalizing and Regulating Prostitution and Cocaine

Libertarian argues personal freedom, public safety, and Colorado's tourism economy deserve a new approach

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO.

Libertarian candidate for Colorado's 5th Congressional District Mark "Marky Jr" Elworth is calling for the legalization and regulation of prostitution and cocaine, arguing that prohibition has failed to eliminate demand while creating black markets and wasting taxpayer resources.

"Colorado loves freedom, but we still spend enormous amounts of money trying to control what adults do with their own bodies," said Elworth. "It's time to ask whether prohibition is actually working, or whether it's creating more problems than it solves."

Elworth argues that a regulated system could establish safety standards, reduce the role of criminal markets, and allow law enforcement to focus on violent crime rather than consensual adult behavior.

He also sees a broader economic question for Colorado, where tourism and mountain communities depend on attracting visitors and supporting local businesses.

"Colorado's ski towns need thriving businesses, visitors, and new ideas," Elworth said. "We should be willing to debate whether a more open, regulated adult economy could create additional economic activity while respecting individual liberty."

Elworth acknowledges that legalization alone would not solve the challenges facing Colorado's ski industry. He argues, however, that policymakers should examine the economic and public-safety consequences of prohibition rather than treating the current approach as beyond debate.

A Libertarian Approach

Elworth's position reflects his broader commitment to limited government, personal freedom, and individual responsibility. He argues that adults should generally be free to make their own decisions, while government focuses on protecting people from force, fraud, exploitation, and violence.

"Government should protect our rights, not try to run our lives," Elworth said. "We can have an honest debate about regulation, public health, and safety without assuming that criminalization is always the answer."

About Mark "Marky Jr" Elworth

Marky Jr is a Libertarian candidate for Colorado's 5th Congressional District. His campaign emphasizes limited government, personal freedom, fiscal responsibility, and offering voters an alternative to the two major parties.

Media Contact:

Mark "Marky Jr" Elworth

Email- markelworthjr@aol.com 

Amendment 87’s graduated income tax could cause big employers to leave (Editorial)

We fear that raising $2.7 billion in taxes in a single year on the backs of Colorado’s largest businesses will do more harm than good for this state. We urge voters to say no to Amendment 87.

Yes, we know that the flat income tax in Colorado leaves the state’s middle class holding a heavier tax burden than their wealthiest counterparts, for whom 4.4% is no burden at all. Yes, we know that this state does need to fund education for thousands of kids and to provide health care for people with disabilities and lower-income residents.

But both J.J. Ament from the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and Gov. Jared Polis told us that major employers are threatening to leave if Amendment 87 passes. Just as concerning is that other Colorado businesses, the ones making at least $3 million in taxable profit, will see their tax bill almost double overnight.

We do not believe opponents’ dubious claims that removing the language in the Constitution prohibiting a graduated income tax in Colorado will automatically end all tax deductions, increasing taxes on seniors, veterans and anyone else who uses deductions and credits. Nor do we believe that this will hit Colorado’s smallest businesses, who will see a tax decrease as long as they are not making quite a bit more than $500,000 a year in taxable profit.

However, we do believe that many of Colorado’s businesses are struggling amid rising costs, as is Colorado’s middle class. Now is not the time to raise taxes in this state, especially not an enormous $2.7 billion tax that would be pulled out into a special fund where lawmakers couldn’t use it during a recession to backfill the existing budget obligations. We both like that this money will be reserved for education and healthcare spending, and worry that lawmakers might use a good chunk of the new money to set up an expensive new program like universal childcare or healthcare.

No one will name any names, but it’s not hard to imagine some of this state’s seven Fortune 500 companies leaving Colorado in pursuit of lower taxes: Arrow Electronics, Newmont, EchoStar, DaVita, Ball Corp., VF Corp., and Ovintiv.
These companies pay good salaries, often pay property taxes and pay sales taxes on goods and services they buy from other Colorado businesses. The net impact of a single Fortune 500 company is huge, which is why states play the frustrating and never-ending game of “pass the business” with such intensity.

Colorado had 10 Fortune 500 companies headquartered here in 2023. Two — Liberty Media and Dish Network — didn’t leave but dropped off the list, facing their own financial difficulties. QVC moved to Pennsylvania, with a 7.49% corporate income tax, amid a restructuring and threat of bankruptcy. The drop to seven is not good news for tax receipts or employment.

Together, those seven companies reported $1.13 trillion in profits in 2025. Not all that profit is taxable in Colorado, but some of it is.
Forty states, including Colorado, use an apportionment system to charge companies taxes on the profit from sales and business conducted in their state. Because Colorado charges income taxes on out-of-state companies using apportionment, a good chunk – 94%, according to a forecast conducted for the proponents of this measure — of the new revenue generated by a 4% surcharge on profits over $1 million will come from out-of-state businesses.

But some businesses, like defense contractors, don’t have sales in this state if they are not operating here.

Lockheed Martin, whose corporate headquarters is in Maryland with a corporate income tax rate of 8.25%, could move its substantial Colorado operations to a state with a lower tax rate like Texas. They would take thousands of jobs with them and much of their Colorado tax liability.

In 2017, Colorado was the beneficiary of just such a shuffle. Lockheed moved its operations out of San Diego, avoiding California’s 8.84% corporate tax. Colorado also gave the company $12.6 million in tax credits over 15 years to bring the 550 jobs to Littleton. Those tax credits expire sometime around 2032. Lockheed just announced it will bring more new jobs here this year.

Colorado currently ranks 33rd overall in the nation for tax competitiveness according to the Tax Foundation. New York is ranked 50th, and Wyoming is first. Our relatively low income tax rate helps us stay in the middle of the pack. An increase to that rate could drop us further down the list.

How are you progressives out there feeling about the tax increases on your ballot this year? I’m wondering if inflation fatigue/anger is going to tank all the good ideas

I don't know that I am prepared to "throw away my vote" in this particular election, but if anyone who isn't a D or an R has an actual shot, I would like to know so I can research them.

Thanks for any heads up.

“Protect Kids Colorado” mouthpiece Erin Lee went on Steve Bannon’s YT in a desperate bid to get Colorado ballot propositions 133, 134, and 135 passed.

Yes, THIS Steve Bannon: Despite Epstein’s Toxicity, Steve Bannon Stood by Him, Texts Indicate

These people DO NOT care about “protecting kids.”

My sister had to leave Colorado suddenly because our mom had a stroke. She’s not sure how long she will be here so she would like to receive an absentee ballot in California. Is this possible if her ballot has already been sent to her residence in Colorado? Thank you! She really would like to vote in this important election.

Basically, the embedded story is about how all judges on the Colorado Supreme Court except for Justice Richard Gabriel found that it was okay for a Judge's wife to be on the jury, with the judge joking about it multiple times.

I fish and hunt in Colorado. I started out leaning yes on Amendment 83 for three reasons. Outside groups keep bringing petitions to restrict hunting and fishing methods, and each one has to be voted down. The CPW Commission has twice overridden its own staff’s recommendations on furbearers this year. And hunting groups say its appointees have shifted toward animal rights advocacy. What I can’t tell is whether this amendment fixes any of that. Below is what I’ve found from the text, the official analysis and the news record. If you have a source that corrects or adds to it, please share it. I’m after the text and the record, not party-line arguments.

What I know

• The text. It creates a right of the people of Colorado to hunt, fish and take fish and wildlife by “traditional methods.” It names hunting and fishing the preferred means of managing wildlife populations and lets the state regulate when necessary for sound scientific conservation, public safety or the future of hunting and fishing. It excludes nongame, endangered and federally protected species, doesn’t authorize trespass, and needs 55 percent to pass. (Blue Book) The Blue Book says it may affect legislature and CPW decisions and could raise the state’s legal costs. (Sun explainer)
• Negative or positive right. A negative right means the state can’t interfere. A positive right means the state has a duty to provide or protect something. The core sentence reads like a negative right. The “preferred means” line reads more like a directive to CPW, and the Blue Book’s argument against says it promotes one method of managing wildlife above others. Courts elsewhere have gone both ways. North Carolina’s appeals court held its version isn’t a fundamental right and the legislature kept its power (Carolina Journal), yet anglers there also used it to argue the state failed to protect fisheries. Nebraska’s governor cited the “preferred means” wording in 2014 to veto a mountain lion hunting ban, and the veto was sustained. (Nebraska Legislature) No Colorado court has ruled.
• What’s undefined. The supportive Backcountry Hunters and Anglers FAQ says “traditional methods” isn’t defined, litigation is possible, and no Colorado court has ruled on it. (BHA) The campaign says it means methods legal today. (campaign page) Opponents say it could be used against existing limits (Project Coyote) and could make future wildlife ballot measures harder (Humane World for Animals). A 1996 ballot measure already narrowed trapping methods in Colorado, and I haven’t seen anyone address how the two would interact.
• Who is behind it, and the money. The Secretary of State’s ballot contact list shows the filing law firm, West Group, with designated representatives Suzanne Taheri and Steven Ward. (Secretary of State) West Group’s listed address matches the address listed for Advance Colorado’s leadership and for the Vote Yes on 83 committee’s registered agent. I haven’t found any filing showing Advance Colorado money in the campaign, so that is a shared address, not a documented funding link. The campaign chairman is Luke Hilgemann, CEO of the International Order of T. Roosevelt, who said in an interview that his group is working on right to hunt amendments in 15 other states and helped develop Colorado’s language after a private citizen started the process. (report) The top disclosed donor through September 8 was Roosevelt Conservation Alliance at $1,562,000, followed by Farrell-Roeh Capital at $150,000 and Safari Club International at $30,000. (TRACER) I haven’t confirmed how Roosevelt Conservation Alliance relates to the International Order of T. Roosevelt. The Yes side had raised about $1.8 million as of September 21 (Colorado Politics), and the main opposition committee had reported $6,171.
• Professional consensus on trapping. The Wildlife Society and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies both back regulated trapping as a management tool. Both are made up of agency managers, so it’s the view of the people who run the system, not a neutral survey of all biologists.
• The commission, furbearers. In March it voted 6 to 4 to advance a fur sale ban petition after the director and staff recommended denial. In July staff proposed a daily limit of 15, with fallbacks of four to eight depending on species. The commission passed a limit of two, 6 to 5. (Complete Colorado) Staff’s own memo says the original proposal responded partly to value-based public sentiment for limits, so it was part science and part values.
• Petitions to restrict methods. In 2025 the commission took up a petition to ban live baitfish imports, which the American Sportfishing Association describes as coming from an animal rights group. Staff recommended denial, and the commission denied it 7 to 1 while directing staff to tighten testing. It also followed staff on wolves and the mountain lion cap.
• Who sits on it. The 11 seats are set by statute: three agriculture, three parks and recreation, three hunting and fishing including one outfitter, and two at-large. A coalition of 15 sportsperson organizations and former CPW staff says the board has tilted toward “extreme animal rights and anti-hunting agendas.” (Aspen Times) The chair says it is now more representative of a state where most residents don’t hunt. (Colorado Sun) The Senate committee rejected two of the governor’s three picks this spring.
• Other states. A Wisconsin judge ordered a wolf hunt, mostly on statute. (Wisconsin Examiner) A Florida judge declined to halt a bear hunt. (WUSF) I haven’t found a case testing “traditional methods” against an existing trap or bear ban.

What would convince me

1. A case, here or elsewhere, where similar wording was used to challenge an existing limit, or to defend one.
2. A reason the commission issue needs a constitutional fix instead of appointments or statute, and whether a right would stop repeated petitions or only change how they’re argued.
3. Whether the “when necessary” wording sets a stricter test than North Carolina’s, where the court deferred to the legislature, and what “sound scientific conservation” means in practice.
4. Whether “preferred means” binds CPW or just states policy, and whether this is a right to be left alone or a duty on the state.
5. How “traditional methods” interacts with the 1996 trapping measure.
6. Whether it limits citizen initiatives on wildlife, as opponents say, or only gives courts a standard to apply.
7. An estimate of what the litigation could cost.

If I got a fact wrong, tell me with a source and I’ll correct the post.

Hello! We are a nonprofit called ColoradoWild. We are a group of scientists and advocates; Our purpose is to connect ethics and science to restore Colorado's wildlife and wildlands.

We STRONGLY oppose 83 because we care about wildlife. Hunting and fishing are not under threat in Colorado, and in fact are protected by state statute (C.R.S. 1-101-33). We want science-based wildlife management. We want the public to have a say in what happens on our public land and to our wildlife. We do NOT want inhumane traps like steel-leg hold traps brought back to our state. We do NOT want wildlife decisions to go to judges and lawyers. VOTE NO on 83!

Learn more at KeepColoradosVoice.com !!!

Looking for thoughtful takes and feedback on this point in Prop 134: What if a female student (assigned gender at birth is female, and all that) is exceptionally skilled in her sport and WANTS to play on a male team or compete against males because her skills are at that level, and the female team/competition is insufficient? I have no problem with that - allowing the girl to compete at the very highest level - but under Proposition 134, the girl is prohibited from competing with males or on male teams.

Was this intended because there is simply opposition to a female competing on a men’s team (simply deemed as improper or something?) Or is this an unintended consequence of the language?

Her attorney, Ticktin, says he's not afraid to die. Kyle Clark reporting.

https://newrepublic.com/post/216383/election-denier-lawyer-reveals-trump-secret-plan-ahead-midterms