Skip to content

Proposition 136: Income Tax Rate Limit | The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures – Part 13 of 14

Should Colorado establish its current income tax rate as a legal ceiling—or keep existing law without adding another restriction?

That is the central question behind Proposition 136, which Colorado voters will decide on November 3, 2026. The citizen initiative would change state statutes rather than the Constitution, so it requires a simple majority to pass. (coloradosos.gov)

Supporters describe the proposal as protecting a predictable, competitive tax structure. Opponents argue that it could interfere with a separate proposal to create graduated income tax rates. Understanding Proposition 136 requires distinguishing its immediate effect from its interaction with Amendment 87. (cochamber.com)

What Your Vote Means

A YES vote

A YES vote would establish a statutory maximum income tax rate of 4.4% for individuals and corporations, beginning with tax year 2027. It would not, by itself, reduce the current rate. (leg.colorado.gov)

A NO vote

A NO vote would reject the new ceiling. Rejecting Proposition 136 would not itself increase taxes; the existing 4.4% rate would remain unless changed through another applicable measure or legal process. (cpr.org)

Official Ballot Language

The ballot question asks whether Colorado should change its statutes to cap individual and corporate income tax rates at 4.4% of federal taxable income.

That is a summary—not the complete ballot wording. The Secretary of State publishes the official question and final initiative text.

Official Proposition Language: What the Measure Actually Changes

Originally filed as Initiative 232, the proposal would add Section 39-22-102.5, “Maximum Tax Rate,” to the Colorado Revised Statutes. It would become effective upon the governor’s proclamation and apply to tax years beginning January 1, 2027, and afterward. (coloradosos.gov)

1. The ceiling would apply to individuals and corporations

The operative text names both the individual income tax rate and the corporate income tax rate. Neither could exceed 4.4% of a taxpayer’s federal taxable income under the new provision. (leg.colorado.gov)

2. It would establish a maximum—not a minimum

The proposal does not require the rate to remain exactly 4.4%. Lower rates would remain possible. The Blue Book explains that the legislature or a citizen initiative could still reduce the income tax rate. (leg.colorado.gov)

3. It would not create a broader tax or spending limit

The text addresses income tax rates. It does not establish new limits on property taxes, sales taxes, fees, or total government spending. Calling it a limit on all Colorado taxes would overstate its scope. (leg.colorado.gov)

Three additional details deserve attention.

Would your tax bill immediately decrease?

Not because of Proposition 136 alone. It would cap the rate at its current level rather than reduce it. CPR’s voter guide explains that passage would leave the income tax bill unchanged on that basis. (cpr.org)

Does Colorado already require voter approval for income tax increases?

Yes. The Colorado Constitution already requires voter approval for tax rate increases. Proposition 136 would not create that requirement or permanently prevent future voters from approving a different rate. (leg.colorado.gov)

What happens if Proposition 136 and Amendment 87 both pass?

Amendment 87 proposes graduated income tax rates, including rates above 4.4% on taxable income exceeding $500,000. Those higher rates would conflict with Proposition 136’s ceiling.

The Blue Book says conflicting provisions generally are resolved according to which measure receives more votes. However, the exact outcome is uncertain; lawmakers or a court would determine how to resolve the conflict. It would be misleading to promise that either proposal would automatically take full effect, but one would think that the Constitution should prevail. (content.leg.colorado.gov)

Sponsors and Designated Representatives

The Secretary of State lists Suzanne Taheri and Michael Fields, both affiliated with Advance Colorado, as Initiative 232’s designated representatives. Registered supporting committees include Brighter Colorado and No on 87, Yes on 136. (coloradosos.gov)

The Colorado Chamber of Commerce also supports Proposition 136. Organized opposition includes Protect Colorado’s Future Coalition, which advocates for Amendment 87 and against the income tax cap. (cochamber.com)

Campaign affiliations provide context; they do not settle the policy question.

The Case for Voting YES on Proposition 136

The arguments below describe competing policy positions, not guaranteed economic outcomes.

Providing predictability for households and businesses

The Colorado Chamber argues that a stable tax structure helps individuals and businesses plan and makes Colorado more attractive for investment. (cochamber.com)

Counterargument: Opponents favor changing the existing structure through Amendment 87, arguing that graduated rates would distribute taxes more fairly. (protectcoloradosfuture.com)

The question to weigh: How much value should voters place on maintaining the current structure versus changing who pays and how much?

Reinforcing voters’ preference for the current rate

The Blue Book’s supporting argument describes Proposition 136 as reaffirming the rate voters approved in 2022. Supporters view that rate as fair and competitive. (leg.colorado.gov)

Counterargument: The opposing argument notes that future increases already require voter approval, making the additional ceiling unnecessary. (content.leg.colorado.gov)

The question to weigh: Does reaffirming the current rate provide meaningful protection beyond existing law?

Resisting higher income tax rates

Advance Colorado’s Michael Fields describes the proposal as a way to block efforts to raise income tax rates. (coloradopolitics.com)

Counterargument: Amendment 87’s supporters argue that higher rates on higher incomes would help fund education, health care, and child care while allowing lower rates for other taxpayers. (protectcoloradosfuture.com)

The question to weigh: Is preserving the current ceiling more important than the alternative tax and funding structure?

The Case for Voting NO on Proposition 136

The arguments below describe competing policy positions, not guaranteed economic outcomes.

Existing law already gives voters control

The Blue Book’s opposing argument says Proposition 136 adds little lasting protection because voters already must approve rate increases and could approve a future change overriding this measure. (leg.colorado.gov)

Counterargument: Supporters consider an explicit ceiling a worthwhile affirmation of the current rate. (content.leg.colorado.gov)

The question to weigh: Is another statutory restriction useful—or largely redundant?

Competing measures could create legal uncertainty

Opponents warn that approving both Proposition 136 and Amendment 87 could produce confusion and a potentially costly legal dispute. (leg.colorado.gov)

Counterargument: Fields argues that the cap could block higher rates while allowing Amendment 87’s lower rates to take effect. Amendment 87’s proponents dispute that interpretation. Neither campaign’s preferred outcome should be treated as settled law. (coloradopolitics.com)

The question to weigh: How much uncertainty are voters willing to accept about the combined result?

A cap could obstruct a preferred funding alternative

Protect Colorado’s Future urges voters to reject Proposition 136 and approve Amendment 87 as a package addressing tax fairness and public-service funding. (protectcoloradosfuture.com)

Counterargument: The Colorado Chamber opposes the graduated-tax alternative, arguing that significant tax changes could weaken Colorado’s business competitiveness. (cochamber.com)

The question to weigh: Which approach better balances household affordability, business conditions, and public services?

Fiscal Impact

The September 10, 2026, official fiscal impact statement finds no fiscal impact on state or local government from Proposition 136 itself. Because the ceiling matches the existing rate, the measure does not independently change revenue or spending. (content.leg.colorado.gov)

Fiscal effect FY 2026–27 FY 2027–28
State revenue $0 $0
State expenditures $0 $0
Transferred funds $0 $0
Change in TABOR refunds $0 $0
Additional state staffing None None

These are the official estimates for Proposition 136—not a guarantee about the fiscal outcome if conflicting measures both pass. (content.leg.colorado.gov)

Conclusion

The strongest case for YES is maintaining a predictable income tax structure and resisting higher rates. The strongest case for NO is that existing voter-approval protections already apply, while this proposal could complicate implementation of Amendment 87. (cochamber.com)

My takeaway is that voters should separate three questions:

  1. Does an additional statutory ceiling offer meaningful protection?
  2. How should your vote on Proposition 136 relate to your preference on Amendment 87?

A voter can favor low taxes while questioning whether this measure is necessary. Another can support public services while disagreeing with the graduated-tax alternative.

The important distinction: Proposition 136 is a proposed rate ceiling, not an immediate tax cut. (cpr.org)

Share & Engage

 

 

If you find this post useful, sign up for notifications of the following blog posts. 

Share your thoughts in the comments below.

The Scoop on Colorado’s November 2026 Proposed Measures Series

Links to blog posts on all Colorado Amendments and Measures

  1. Amendment 81: Law Enforcement Communication with Federal Immigration Authorities
  2. Amendment 82: Constitutional Right to Purchase and Sell Natural Gas
  3. Amendment 83: Constitutional Right to Hunt and Fish
  4. Amendment 84: Mail Ballot Voter Identification
  5. Amendment 85: Plain Language Ballot Titles
  6. Amendment 86: Requirements for Off-Cycle Congressional Redistricting
  7. Amendment 87: Graduated Income Tax
  8. Proposition NN: Keep and Spend Money for Education and Other Purposes
  9. Proposition 132: Increase Penalties for Fentanyl Crimes
  10. Proposition 133: Penalties for Human Trafficking of a Minor
  11. Proposition 134: Male and Female Participation in School and Collegiate Sports
  12. Proposition 135: Prohibit Surgery on Minors in Response to Perception of Sex or Gender
  13. Proposition 136: Income Tax Limit
  14. Proposition 137: Direct Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation

Learn More

Official wording and analysis

Opinion and advocacy