Views from the Editor
Rick Langenberg
Ballot insanity is the name of the game for Election 2026, with voters facing another “War and Peace” version of constitutional amendments, state propositions, and a bombardment of every imaginable political issue and subject under the Sun for the Nov. 3 showdown.
Altogether, 14 statewide measures are in the mix, the most ever proposed since the1920s. Talk about a worthwhile record to shatter.
In addition, many local cities and districts are getting into the game, with their own proposals for tax hikes, spending pursuits and additional plans.
Yes, the ongoing ballot hysteria does add a level of confusion to Election 2026.
Here are a few suggested endorsements regarding the local and state issues. Have fun on Nov. 3 and BE SURE TO VOTE, YOUR VOICE DEFINITELY MATTERS.
Local Propositions
Woodland Park, 2B: This plan calls for a .25 percent sales tax hike to pay off existing building and facility debt for the Woodland Park RE-2 School District. The plan, proposed by the Woodland Park City Council, represents a smaller version of a previous tax approved by local voters and then rescinded by elected leaders, following a dispute with the previous RE-2 School Board. Yes.
But with this strong endorsement comes one mighty and absolute condition and outright demand: We do not want to vote on this issue, ever again. 2B represents a good compromise, not quite matching the wishes of a citizens group seeking the full .50 sales tax hike level they sought in their initiative effort but helping the school district to partially escape from its financial woes. It seems that this issue has been voted on already several times, with a positive outcome each time, so hopefully, the same will occur this time and end this saga. The old feud between the city council and school board almost reminded me of the popular Fleetwood Mac album Rumours, with the soap opera-level relationship between the two entities. It’s time to move forward. If this thing gets voted on again, even singer Stevie Nicks won’t be able to reason with our elected leaders by playing another song.
Green Mountain Falls, 3A. This plan calls for .50 sales tax increase to fund improvements to the old Marshal’s Office building and possibly for other additional capital enhancements. It also could set the stage for the town to lease the facility out to a future business operator, as part of an economic development plan. Yes.
While recent opposition has mounted, with critics raising some good points, the benefits of this proposition outweigh the determents. We especially like the idea of a renovated Marshal’s building paving the way for future economic development projects, such as a small convenience outlet. Critics, though, have made it clear that the town does need to loosen its wallet more for fire mitigation dollars and those concerns need to be addressed immediately. Maybe these concerns should be part of a follow-up ballot proposition?
Manitou Springs, 2A. This complex plan calls for a 1.128 million tax hike for one year, and then a 4.03 percent increase to the city’s excise tax rate, targeting local ticket sales and admission fees. No
This idea has encountered stern opposition by local business operators, and we believe this tax idea is way too complicated. The city’s dire fiscal situation is understandable with the explosion of recreational marijuana stores in Colorado Springs, snagging a hefty portion of the town’s one-time marijuana tax gold mine, but we believe other avenues are available than just taxing tourists. City leaders need a more equitable way to generate more revenue than just focusing on its tourism-based revenue.
El Paso County, 1A. Without raising taxes, should the existing .23 percent public safety sales and use tax be extended to January 1, 2037, with these funds mostly benefitting the sheriff’s office. Yes.
With the challenges facing law enforcement, especially with hiring and training of future deputies, this plan is a no-brainer. We have heard little negative feedback from the original pro-law enforcement plan since it was first approved.
Cripple Creek, 2A. Should the citizens of Cripple Creek adopt the town’s proposed home rule charter? Yes.
This issue has involved a slew of local meetings and forums during which the pros and cons of the home rule process have been discussed in detail in the last year and a half. The big selling point for a home rule government in Cripple Creek is the bid for more local control and a way to obtain freedom from the constant shackles of the statutory system now negatively impacting the gaming community. The time is right for home rule in Cripple Creek, and the city faces the bombardment of even more regulatory changes due to a state government that loves to adopt more laws. A Yes vote is a smart bet, mainly due to the restraint exhibited by a charter review committee in adopting a proposed mini constitution. The group could have proposed significant changes, including big adjustments in how gaming revenue is tabulated. But it took the middle path and set the stage for more changes to occur in future charter adjustments. The only significant big change is that more defined roles are established for the city’s bigger positions, such as that of a future city administrator slot, which would be elevated to the position of city manager. In conclusion, the pros of home rule heavily trump any future concerns.
State Propositions
Amendment 82. Shall there be an amendment to the constitution creating a new law granting the right for consumers to purchase natural gas for cooking or heating in homes or businesses and for distributors and utilities to sell natural gas to consumers? Yes
The fear and mongering campaign by environmental groups is somewhat ridiculous. This proposal stems from the state’s self-declared war against natural gas for cooking. The alternative plans proposed by lawmakers would up the cost of housing substantially, even though they tout the need for housing affordability in their political statements. If anything, this is a symbolic vote. The state, in the last year, has made it clear that it despises the use of natural gas, even by rural property owners, who use this fuel for economic reasons. Economics and partisan politics aren’t a good mix these days in the state Capitol.
Amendment 83. Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish? Yes. Again, we aren’t sure that state policies are in the works to limit these traditional activities, but it’s time to reassert the reality that Colorado is a state that fully embraces hunting and fishing. With some of the state’s past proposed restrictions regarding mountain lion hunting and dealing with problem wolves, many Colorado hunters don’t want to take any chances. We support this view.
Amendment 84. Mail Ballot Identification? Absolutely No. Even with supporting a No tally on a stupid and paranoid proposal, we understand the reality that this plan will probably get approved due to the massive amount of money thrown into the campaign coffers in support of this amendment. That said, we believe this plan is completely unnecessary, and the current mail-in voting system has worked well in Colorado. Under the proposed language of this amendment, the door could open widely to security breaches and all kinds of potential problems with individuals’ social security numbers now in the hands of questionable characters. This is one of the dumbest plans proposed on the November ballot. Convicted former County Clerk Tina Peters would love this plan that embraces an ultra-paranoid view of our highly successful statewide voting system.
Proposition NN. Keeping and Spending Money for Education and Other Purposes? Yes.
This is one change to the TABOR restrictions that is needed, and that would really help schools across the state. Sorry, Doug Bruce, as we mostly love your idea of forcing a local vote on plans for tax increases. Current statistics indicate that Colorado has dropped to the cellar position when it comes to school funding, a reality that puts too much pressure on local school district to make up the difference.
Proposition 132 Increasing Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes? Absolutely. Why are we even voting on something that makes complete common sense, and why has this issue generated so much strife between the two main parties. If anything, the penalties should be increased way beyond the eight-year minimum period for criminals convicted of fentanyl distribution.
*The deadline for returning your ballot is 7 p.m. on Nov. 3. There are plenty of 24/7 ballot box outlets available, and you have the option of in-person voting.
