A ballot should test your judgment—not your ability to untangle a paragraph that sounds like it was written by three lawyers arguing over a semicolon. That is the appeal of Amendment 85.
On November 3, 2026, Colorado voters will decide whether to put a plain-language requirement and an eighth-grade reading-level ceiling for state and local ballot questions into the Colorado Constitution. Because the proposal adds constitutional language, it needs 55 percent approval to pass. (coloradosos.gov)
But there is more here than “make ballots easier to read.”
The amendment would also prevent statutes from requiring wording before, after, or within a citizen-initiative ballot title when that wording interferes with the new standard. That provision raises a separate question: Would the amendment remove unnecessary clutter—or make it harder to require useful information about a proposal’s consequences? (leg.colorado.gov)
Let’s look at both sides.
Be it enacted by the People of the state of Colorado: SECTION 1. In Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 1, add (5.6) as follows:
(5.6) BALLOT QUESTIONS SHALL BE IN PLAIN LANGUAGE AT NO MORE THAN AN EIGHTH-GRADE READING LEVEL. NO STATUTE MAY INTERFERE WITH THIS PROVISION BY MANDATING LANGUAGE PRECEDING, FOLLOWING, OR IN A BALLOT TITLE OF AN INITIATIVE. ( 2025-2026 #234 - Final Text)
A YES vote would establish a constitutional requirement for plain-language ballot questions written at no more than an eighth-grade reading level. It would also restrict statutory wording requirements that conflict with that standard in citizen-initiative titles. (coloradosos.gov)
A NO vote would leave the Constitution unchanged and keep the existing statutory approach. Colorado already requires accessible language for statewide citizen-initiative titles, but that law does not set an eighth-grade ceiling. (leg.colorado.gov)
A NO vote is not a vote to require confusing ballots. The disagreement is over whether this particular constitutional amendment is the right way to improve them.
Sponsors and Designated Representatives
Amendment 85 originated as Initiative 234. The legislative review memorandum identifies Suzanne Taheri and Michael Fields as its designated representatives. (leg.colorado.gov)
Reporting identifies Advance Colorado as the organization behind the proposal. Support also extends beyond that group: African Leadership Group founder Papa Dia and former Denver elections chief Amber McReynolds have advocated for it. (cpr.org)
Opponents include the League of Women Voters of Colorado, the Bell Policy Center, and the Colorado Democratic Party. Their objections focus on constitutional rigidity, implementation uncertainty, and the potential loss of useful ballot information—not simply opposition to clearer writing. (cpr.org)
Who supports a measure is worth knowing. But party labels and endorsements do not answer the central question: What would this language actually do?
Supporters’ starting point is straightforward: voters should understand the choice before them.
Writing that requires repeated rereading can turn a policy decision into a decoding exercise. Supporters interviewed by The Denver Gazette described voters seeking help interpreting questions, including people with advanced education and people learning English. They argue that clearer wording would make the ballot itself a more useful source of information. (denvergazette.com)
The practical case is not that everyone must become a policy expert. It is that a voter should be able to identify the main change without first translating legal phrasing into ordinary speech.
I would argue that people learning English are not citizens. Passing an English proficiency test is a requirement to become a naturalized citizen. So the point that we should be changing the Constitution for non-English speakers who should not be voting is moot.
Easier reading is not the same as fuller understanding. Opponents argue that voters also need information about costs, tradeoffs, and consequences. A smooth, readable description could still leave out the detail that would change someone’s vote. The Colorado Democratic Party’s stated objection is that voters should receive more information about a measure’s impact, not less. (kkco11news.com)
I take an exception to the counterargument on one point: a smooth, readable description could leave out the detail that would change someone’s vote. It is a false choice – easy to read versus complete information. It can be both, so the counterargument is fallacious.
Colorado’s existing law tells the Title Board to use accessible language and avoid unnecessary technical terms, double negatives, and overly complex phrasing. It does not set a numerical reading-level ceiling. (leg.colorado.gov)
Supporters argue that Amendment 85 would give drafters something more concrete to work toward. Instead of asking only whether a question seems reasonably clear, officials would also have to address a stated reading-level limit.
Their reasoning is that a defined target can encourage more deliberate editing: shorter constructions, more familiar words, and a clearer explanation of the decision.
The amendment sets a grade level but does not specify how to measure it. Legislative reviewers specifically asked what standard would be used and who would determine compliance. A numerical ceiling may sound precise while leaving the most important implementation choices unresolved. (leg.colorado.gov)
Papa Dia has emphasized how complicated ballot language creates barriers for members of immigrant communities. His support rests partly on the idea that eligible voters should not need unusually advanced English to understand an election question. (kkco11news.com)
Supporters can reasonably distinguish between understanding a political issue and understanding the specialized language used to describe it. Someone may know what they think about taxes, schools, or government authority while struggling with a sentence full of qualifications.
From that perspective, simpler language is not “dumbing down” the ballot. It is removing an avoidable obstacle between a voter and the decision.
An eighth-grade standard is not a complete accessibility plan. Supporters themselves describe it as one step, not a guarantee that every question will become clear. Opponents can agree with the goal while preferring improvements through ordinary law, voter education, and accessible explanations rather than this constitutional requirement. (denvergazette.com)
The supporting campaign argues that a future legislature can change an ordinary statute. Putting the requirement in the Constitution would make it more durable. (voteyeson85.org)
Supporters see durability as important because ballot wording governs how citizens exercise direct lawmaking power. They do not want clear presentation to depend entirely on whichever lawmakers happen to be in office.
The argument is about lasting protection: establish a rule that remains in place even when political priorities change.
That permanence could make a flawed standard harder to fix. The League of Women Voters argues that ballot-language policy should remain flexible enough to improve through legislation. A constitutional provision may preserve a good goal while also preserving an imperfect way to achieve it. (cpr.org)
The same debate comes up with Amendments 81 through 84: should this idea go into the Colorado Constitution, or should lawmakers handle it? It depends on whether you want the change to be harder to reverse or easier to adjust over time. But the argument that something shouldn’t go into the Constitution simply because it might turn out to be imperfect isn’t very convincing. After all, is the original Constitution perfect? If perfection is the standard, should we have a Constitution at all?
Supporters worry that lawmakers can require added language that makes citizen initiatives harder to explain or less appealing to voters. The Denver Gazette’s endorsement argues that such requirements can influence how the legislature presents proposals it dislikes. That is an editorial position, not an established finding about every disclosure law. (denvergazette.com)
The strongest version of this argument is about fairness: a ballot question should describe the proposal, not become a vehicle for either side’s campaign.
Supporters therefore view the second sentence as a safeguard for the initiative process, not merely a writing preference.
Opponents argue that requiring disclosures can inform voters rather than manipulate them. The Bell Policy Center objects that the amendment could undermine efforts to explain fiscal consequences. A statement about reduced revenue or affected services may be politically inconvenient precisely because it is important. (bellpolicy.org)
The official ballot question expressly covers state and local ballot questions. Supporters argue that readability shouldn't stop at statewide initiatives: voters also deserve clear questions from cities, counties, school districts, and other local governments. (coloradosos.gov)
Their broader point is consistency. A voter should not need one level of reading skill for a statewide question and a much more demanding level for a local one.
Under this reasoning, Amendment 85's scope is a strength. It treats readable election questions as a general expectation rather than a narrow rule for one process.
A broader requirement also creates more implementation questions. Legislative reviewers asked how the proposal would interact with existing constitutional ballot-language requirements. Applying a single ceiling across different kinds of questions may require reconciling rules rather than simply shortening sentences. (leg.colorado.gov)
House Bill 26-1320 became law in 2026. It directs the Title Board to use accessible language and offers specific drafting guidance. It also gives officials more flexibility in how certain statutory tax disclosures are phrased and positioned. (leg.colorado.gov)
Opponents argue that this provides a less rigid way to address the problem. Their position is not “the ballot is fine.” It is that Colorado should improve and evaluate the statutory approach before putting a new ceiling into the Constitution.
That distinction matters. Rejecting Amendment 85 would not erase the reform already enacted.
Supporters say the new law still lacks an explicit eighth-grade ceiling and constitutional permanence. Their campaign argues that the amendment goes further, rather than merely repeating the statute. Whether that additional step is worthwhile is the actual disagreement. (voteyeson85.org)
Who decides whether a title meets the standard? What method is used? At what stage is it checked?
Those were questions raised in the official review process. The amendment’s text does not answer them. (leg.colorado.gov)
Opponents argue that uncertainty matters more when the rule is constitutional. A disputed reading-level assessment would not just be editor feedback; it could become a claim that a ballot title violates the Constitution.
The concern is not that implementation is impossible. Voters are being asked to approve the rule before knowing exactly how compliance will be judged.
Supporters argue that the Constitution need not contain a complete drafting manual. The official fiscal analysis anticipates the Title Board developing and applying the relevant standards. That suggests an administrative path for implementation, although it does not resolve every question about local or referred measures. (leg.colorado.gov)
The Blue Book explains that existing laws require certain information in initiative titles about tax changes and their consequences. It warns that Amendment 85 could lead to challenges involving information that helps voters understand effects on programs and funding. (content.leg.colorado.gov)
Opponents worry about a particular kind of simplification: a ballot that becomes easier to read because it no longer requires inconvenient consequences.
Their policy argument is that voters should see both the appealing headline and the practical tradeoff. If a proposal affects public revenue, the consequences deserve consideration alongside the tax change.
The supporting campaign says the amendment does not automatically repeal tax-information laws. It argues that information complying with the new standard could remain. The dispute is therefore about which requirements would conflict with the amendment—not a certainty that all fiscal disclosures would disappear. (voteyeson85.org)
Opponents can distinguish between unnecessary complexity and necessary detail.
A ballot title may need to describe an exception, a threshold, or a condition that changes how the proposal works. Removing that detail might improve flow but make the question less informative. The Blue Book’s opposition analysis emphasizes the need to convey important information about complex policies. (content.leg.colorado.gov)
The strongest NO argument here is not a defense of jargon. It is a request to judge titles by whether they explain the decision accurately, not only by whether they satisfy a grade-level rule.
Supporters would answer that precision does not automatically require difficult prose. The existing statute already pairs accessibility with identifying the principal policy change and presenting necessary information logically. They see clearer writing and accurate explanation as compatible goals, not an unavoidable either-or choice. (leg.colorado.gov)
The League of Women Voters argues that ordinary legislation is a better place for ballot-readability policy because lawmakers can adjust it over time. (cpr.org)
The reasoning is practical. If experience shows that a particular approach works poorly for certain questions, officials should be able to improve the rules without another constitutional campaign.
Opponents can support a durable commitment to understandable ballots while questioning whether this specific ceiling needs constitutional status. They see flexibility as a way to keep improving, not necessarily a license to backslide.
Supporters regard that ability to change the law as the weakness they are trying to address. Their campaign argues that future lawmakers should not be able to retreat from the standard easily. The same feature—permanence—is protection to one side and rigidity to the other. (voteyeson85.org)
The Blue Book warns that the amendment could produce more challenges to initiative titles. (content.leg.colorado.gov)
Opponents worry that disagreements over how a measure reads could become another battleground in an already contested process. Instead of arguing only about whether a question represents the proposal, parties could also argue about compliance with the new constitutional ceiling.
That is a possibility, not a prediction that every title will end up in court. But it is worth considering whether the amendment would simplify the voter’s experience while complicating the process that produces the ballot.
Supporters would say that the possibility of a challenge is not, by itself, a reason to reject a standard. The fiscal analysis projects minimal additional Title Board workload and does not identify a large implementation expense. That estimate supports modest administrative expectations—not a guarantee that future disputes would be costless. (leg.colorado.gov)
The official fiscal analysis projects minimal additional state workload to establish and apply the new standards. Its tables show no projected change in state revenue, expenditures, staffing, or TABOR refunds for the years analyzed. (leg.colorado.gov)
That makes this different from a proposal creating a major new spending program. It does not settle the policy debate, however: a measure can have a small estimated budget impact and still raise significant questions about how election information is presented.
The strongest case for voting YES is that voters deserve understandable questions, and supporters see an explicit, durable standard as a way to deliver them. They also want to protect citizen initiatives from wording requirements that could obscure or politically color the choice. (denvergazette.com)
The strongest case for voting NO is that Colorado already has a statutory plain-language reform, while this amendment could restrict useful disclosures and reduce flexibility. Opponents question whether an undefined constitutional reading-level rule is the best tool for the job. (cpr.org)
The choice is not really between easy-to-understand ballots or well-described ballots. It can, and should be both.
A useful question is: should the readability issue be addressed through legislation or a constitutional amendment? If legislation is the better route, the natural follow-up is: why hasn’t the legislature taken care of it already?
If you find this post useful, sign up for notifications of the following blog posts.
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Bell Policy Center — 2026 Ballot Guide. Opposition recommendation and fiscal-information concerns. (bellpolicy.org)