A voter guide to funding health care, childcare and public schools

Coloradans need affordable health care, reliable childcare, and strong public schools to build economic security. Colorado Center on Law and Policy supports Amendment 87 and Proposition NN because these measures give Colorado practical ways to strengthen those services. We oppose Proposition 136 because it restricts a key funding option without providing an answer to the needs Coloradans face.

Our recommendation is YES on Amendment 87, YES on Proposition NN,
and NO on Proposition 136.

Amendment 87

Amendment 87 makes funding fairer

Amendment 87 would lower income taxes for most taxpayers while asking those with the highest taxable incomes to contribute more. The campaign estimates that 97% of taxpayers would receive a tax cut, while rates would gradually increase on the top 3% of taxpayers. Additional funding from the higher brackets would support K–12 education, health care, and early childhood care and education.

The higher rates apply only to income within the higher tax brackets. Earning more does not put every dollar of income into a higher bracket. The thresholds use taxable income, which differs from salary or total household income. [1] The brackets are not adjusted for inflation, so more income may enter higher brackets over time. [1]

Illustrative annual income taxes from the official Blue Book; figures do not represent every filer’s final bill. [1]

The Blue Book estimates approximately $2 billion in additional revenue in the first full year. The ballot question uses an earlier $2.7 billion estimate. Actual collections will depend on economic conditions. [1, 2]

Federal changes make a state response more urgent

H.R. 1, the federal law signed July 4, 2025, made sweeping changes to Medicaid financing and eligibility rules. Colorado’s health care agency warns that changes to provider-fee financing could cost Colorado up to $2 billion in federal funding when fully implemented. Those financing changes begin in federal fiscal year 2028, which starts in October 2027. This is a projected future loss, not a claim that Colorado has already lost that amount. [3]

The law also adds work-reporting requirements and requires eligibility renewals every six months for certain members. More frequent paperwork means more work for eligibility staff and more opportunities for people to lose coverage during the process. Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing (HCPF)’s implementation proposal identifies additional needs for systems, outreach, and county administration. [3]

Meanwhile, Colorado has already enacted significant Medicaid reductions. HCPF reports that the 2026–27 budget includes $1.1 billion in total-fund reductions, including $529 million from the state General Fund, largely through provider-rate changes and service limits. These enacted reductions are separate from the projected future federal financing losses. [4]

Cuts to provider payments can make it harder to maintain access to care. Limits on services can leave families arranging care themselves or going without. The costs do not disappear because a public budget pays less; they can move to patients, caregivers, and the providers serving them.

Amendment 87 gives Colorado additional resources to respond. It cannot repeal federal requirements or guarantee that every threatened service will be protected. It can help the state make fewer harmful tradeoffs as federal support becomes less reliable.

Childcare funding is part of a working economy

The Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, often called CCAP or CCCAP, helps eligible families afford care. Yet eligibility does not always mean access. As of this review, 13 counties report an enrollment freeze. Families who cannot obtain affordable care may have to reduce work hours, turn down a job, or leave employment. [5]

The funding problem predates H.R. 1. Colorado’s Department of Early Childhood explains that the former reimbursement approach, based on market prices, often paid providers less than the actual cost of care, especially for infants and toddlers. The department developed a cost-based alternative to address that mismatch. [6] In addition to these funding challenges, federal funding for CCCAP is under threat, and was frozen earlier this year. The funds were unfrozen after state attorneys general, including in Colorado, sued the Trump administration over this funding freeze. [7]

Keeping a childcare program inexpensive on paper does not help if providers cannot afford to offer a slot. Amendment 87’s funding could support more reliable access; specific program allocations would remain legislative decisions. [1]

School funding has improved but needs remain

Colorado made meaningful progress by eliminating the budget stabilization factor in 2024–25 and adopting a new school finance formula. CCLP welcomes those improvements, but ending a recurring reduction does not repay years of lost opportunities or establish that every school now has adequate resources. [8, 9]

The Colorado School Finance Project calculates that the budget stabilization factor diverted nearly $10 billion from schools over 15 years. Those were years when schools had fewer resources for staffing, student support, and instruction than the funding formula otherwise called for. [9]

Even after recent improvements, Colorado remains below the national average. According to National Education Association’s August 2026 updated report, Colorado spent $17,130 per student in fall enrollment in 2024–25, compared with a national average of $17,873. Colorado ranked 24th. That leaves a gap of $743 per student. [10]

Colorado’s average teacher salary was $72,781 in 2024–25, compared with $74,495 nationally. Colorado ranked 19th, following a 6% increase. These statewide averages do not describe every district or account for differences in living costs. Progress is real; so is the remaining gap. [11]

Amendment 87 could help strengthen the funding behind those gains. Proposition NN places particular emphasis on school investments, including teacher retention and pay, smaller classes, and career and technical education. Colorado’s Children’s Campaign supports those priorities as building blocks of stronger schools. [12]

The same tax rate does not mean the same burden

A flat income tax sounds fair: everyone pays the same percentage. But equal percentages do not mean equal sacrifice. A household struggling to cover rent, food, and childcare has less room to absorb a tax bill than a household with substantial income left after its basic needs are met.

It is also essential to look at all taxes together. Sales and excise taxes take a larger share of income from families who must spend most of what they earn. A graduated income tax can help balance that burden.

An analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) of Colorado’s 2024 tax law, using 2023 income levels, estimated that middle-income households ($52,400 – $95,200) paid 9.9% of their income in total taxes, while the top 1% ($851,101 and up) paid 7.0%. 80% of Coloradans making up to $150,200 pay a higher percentage of total taxes to those making $150,200 and more. According to ITEP’s Tax Inequality Index, Colorado has the 39th most regressive state and local tax system in the country. In fact, in Colorado the differences in income between high-income taxpayers and everyone else are larger after state and local taxes are collected than before. [13]

A flat rate is proportional to taxable income, and credits and deductions already provide important relief. But those protections have not eliminated the unequal burden of Colorado’s overall tax system. Amendment 87 would better align contributions with ability to pay.

A revenue limit is not a measure of what services cost

Under TABOR, Colorado’s revenue limit grows using inflation and population change. That formula does not directly measure the cost of delivering health care, teaching students, or providing childcare. Nor does having revenue above the limit prove that every public need has already been funded and funded adequately. [14, 15, 16]

The Consumer Price Index measures changes in prices paid by consumers for a representative basket of goods and services. It is not an index of the state government’s actual purchases. The mix of expenses matters: a school’s budget is heavily affected by staffing, while Medicaid costs depend on medical prices, the people enrolled, and the care they need. [15]

The Colorado Fiscal Institute’s 2025 TABOR primer illustrates the mismatch. From 1992 to 2024, it reports that the Denver-area consumer price index rose 151.4%, while the national medical-care index rose 196.7%. For educational supplies and books, it rose 273.6%. The geographic measures differ, and medical prices are not the whole Medicaid budget, nor are supplies the entire educational budget, but the comparison shows why general inflation can miss important cost pressures. [16]

A longstanding analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains the broader problem: population growth and general consumer inflation do not necessarily track growth in the populations needing particular services or the costs of those services. This is a structural concern, not proof that every proposed expenditure is necessary. [17]

Consider a simple illustration: if a program’s budget rises 3% while its cost of serving the same people with the same services rises 6%, the budget has grown but its purchasing power has fallen. That arithmetic explains how a larger dollar budget can still mean fewer services.

Accountability and adequate funding belong together

CCLP supports identifying waste, recovering fraudulent payments, and improving administration of public programs. Voters should demand those protections. They should also ask opponents to identify how much money can actually be recovered, when it will be available, and whether it is recurring funding that can legally support these services.

Amendment 87 requires an audited annual report and requires additional revenue to supplement, rather than replace, funding for its designated services. Those requirements give voters a basis to monitor the investment. [1]

Proposition NN strengthens the investment in children

Proposition NN complements Amendment 87 through a different mechanism. It raises the amount of revenue Colorado may retain rather than changing tax rates. Retained money comes from revenue that would otherwise be returned through TABOR refunds. [14]

Voters are choosing between unguaranteed TABOR refunds and investment in public services. Under current projections, NN would eliminate TABOR refunds in the next several years, though TABOR refunds are never guaranteed. It does not affect ordinary refunds owed because taxpayers overpaid their taxes. The higher limit continues indefinitely; spending priorities broaden after the first ten years. [14]

The Blue Book estimates about $500 million would be retained in the first year, although the new limit would permit more if collections were higher. During the first ten years, retained funding supports K–12 education and programs serving children. Afterward, it supports K–12 education and other legislatively determined purposes, alongside existing property-tax-exemption reimbursement requirements. The measure includes reporting requirements for school districts and the state auditor. [14]

CCLP supports NN because investing in schools and children is a practical way to strengthen families’ economic security. A refund (even if not guaranteed) is valuable to a household; so are reliable schools and services that families would struggle to replace on their own. These are choices voters should be able to weigh honestly.

Proposition 136 offers a restriction without a funding solution

Proposition 136 would cap individual and corporate income tax rates at 4.4% beginning January 1, 2027. That is the current rate. Standing alone, it would not reduce today’s standard rate or add funding for schools, health care, or childcare. It would create a statutory ceiling on future rates. [18]

Its central practical effect in this election is to challenge Amendment 87’s higher rates on top taxable incomes. The measures conflict. The official Blue Book says that although the measure receiving more votes generally controls conflicting provisions, the exact outcome if both pass is uncertain and may require legislative or judicial resolution. [1]

Voters already have a say over tax increases. Rejecting Proposition 136 does not give lawmakers unrestricted authority to raise income taxes without voter approval. Its added restriction should therefore be judged on what it accomplishes for Coloradans, which is nothing good. [18]

CCLP sees no benefit in making it harder to fund essential services while offering no replacement revenue. Protecting the current rate for the highest earners does not make childcare more available, support vital healthcare services, or strengthen a school’s ability to retain teachers. We recommend no on 136.

Our choice as Coloradans

The question is whether Colorado will have the resources to meet needs that are already visible and pressures that are still growing. The answer should be YES. We can insist on effective oversight while choosing a fairer way to fund services, and Amendment 87, and Proposition NN do just that.

CCLP urges Coloradans to vote yes on Amendment 87, yes on Proposition NN,
and no on Proposition 136.

Sources and references

Bracketed numbers identify supporting sources throughout the draft. Official analyses describe the measures; agency publications report program and budget conditions; research and advocacy sources are identified by publisher. Estimates may change.

[1] Colorado Legislative Council Staff. Amendment 87 Blue Book analysis, 2026, pp. 1–5. Tax examples, revenue estimate, use of funds, reporting and competing measures. Read source

[2] Protect Colorado’s Future. Yes on 87 campaign website. Campaign estimate of tax-cut recipients and reproduced ballot question. Accessed September 30, 2026. Read source

[3] Colorado HCPF. Overview S-08/BA-08 Resources for H.R.1 Federal Policy Compliance, February 2026, pp. 1–3. Future financing losses and administrative requirements. Read source

[4] Colorado HCPF. At a Glance, June 2026. Enacted Medicaid budget reductions and legislative changes. Read source

[5] CCCAP Waitlists or Freezes. Accessed September 30, 2026. Read source

[6] Colorado Department of Early Childhood. CCCAP Alternate Methodology Rate Setting. Historical reimbursement mismatch and transition to cost-based rates. Read source

[7] “Overwhelmed” Colorado families fear loss of child care aid amid federal funding freeze. CBS Colorado. Read source

[8] Colorado Department of Education. June 2024 CDE Update. School finance formula and elimination of the budget stabilization factor. Read source

[9] Colorado School Finance Project. Budget Stabilization Factor Negative Factor. Historical funding reductions and elimination in 2024–25. Read source

[10] National Education Association. Rankings of the States 2025 and Estimates of School Statistics 2026, August 2026 update, Table D-1, p. 26. Fall-enrollment spending comparison. Read source

[11] National Education Association. Teacher Pay and Per Student Spending, 2026. Average salary and state rankings for 2024–25. Read source

[12] Colorado Children’s Campaign. Proposition NN Say Yes to Colorado Kids, August 4, 2026. School investment priorities and endorsement. Read source

[13] Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Colorado Who Pays 7th Edition, 2024. Tax incidence under 2024 law at 2023 income levels; excludes senior taxpayers. Read source

[14] Colorado Legislative Council Staff. Proposition NN Blue Book analysis, 2026. Read source

[15] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index Frequently Asked Questions. Read source

[16] Colorado Fiscal Institute. TABOR Primer 2025. Read source

[17] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Flawed Population Plus Inflation Formula Why TABOR’s Growth Formula Doesn’t Work, January 13, 2005. Read source

[18] Colorado Public Radio. Proposition 136 Income Tax Rate Cap, September 25, 2026. Ballot wording, effective date, existing voter approval and rate-cap effects. Read source