> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Amendment 85 - Plain Language Ballot Questions
- URL: https://www.thecoloradoconservative.com/amendment-85-plain-language-ballot-questions/
- Published: 2026-09-20T23:51:50.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-20T23:51:50.000Z
- Author: Eric Phelan

# OFFICIAL BALLOT QUESTION

*"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning ballot question language, and, in connection therewith, requiring all state and local ballot questions to be written in plain language and at no more than an 8th grade reading level and prohibiting a state statute from requiring language that conflicts with these requirements in ballot questions for citizen-initiated measures?"*

**Source Colorado Secretary of State certified 2026 ballot list**

# NEUTRAL OVERVIEW

Amendment 85 would add two rules to the Colorado Constitution. First, every state and local ballot question would have to use plain language and stay at or below an eighth-grade reading level. Second, a state statute could not require wording before, after, or inside the ballot title of a citizen initiative if that wording conflicts with those rules.

The measure does not define plain language. It also does not name a reading formula, explain who will calculate the grade level, or say how officials should treat legal names, dollar figures, tax terms, and other words that may be hard to shorten. Those details would have to be settled during implementation or in court.

A YES vote adds the new plain-language and reading-level rules. A NO vote keeps the current title-setting system without a constitutional eighth-grade limit.

# THE PROPONENT CASE

Supporters argue that voters should be able to understand a ballot question without legal training. Shorter sentences and familiar words can help voters identify what a measure changes, who it affects, and what a YES or NO vote means. Clear wording may also reduce the need to rely on campaign mailers or partisan summaries.

Supporters also argue that current laws sometimes force technical wording into initiative titles. They believe the Constitution should put voter understanding ahead of statutory phrases that make a question harder to read. An eighth-grade ceiling would give officials a clear target and allow the public to check the result.

# THE OPPONENT CASE

Opponents agree that ballot questions should be clear but warn that a reading score does not prove that a title is accurate or neutral. Different formulas can give the same sentence different grade levels. Writers can also lower a score by using shorter words while leaving out an important cost, exception, or legal effect.

They also point to the clause that blocks conflicting statutory wording in citizen-initiative titles. That clause could lead to lawsuits over disclosures that current law requires. Opponents argue that voters may lose useful detail if the eighth-grade limit is treated as more important than a full explanation of taxes, debt, spending, enforcement, or other consequences.

# OFFICIAL MEASURE INFORMATION

| **Item**                   | **Official listing**                                                 |
| -------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Approval required          | 55 percent because the measure would amend the Colorado Constitution |
| Designated representatives | Suzanne Taheri and Michael Fields of Advance Colorado                |
| Registered in support      | A Brighter Colorado                                                  |
| Registered in opposition   | None listed on the Secretary of State page                           |

*Committee listings can change. Current listing and full contact information: coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballot/contacts/2026.html.*

**THE COLORADO CONSERVATIVE RECOMMENDS YES**

# WHY WE RECOMMEND YES

We recommend YES because a ballot question is the government asking for the voter's consent. The voter should not have to untangle a paragraph written for lawyers before casting a vote. Clear words and shorter sentences make that decision easier to understand and easier to check.

Our support has one firm condition: simpler wording must remain complete. A title should still state the measure's main legal change, direct cost, tax or debt effect, enforcement power, and major exception when those facts are material. Passing a reading test is not enough if the wording hides what the measure would do.

The state should also use a public and repeatable scoring method. Officials should name the formula, publish the text that was scored, and explain how they handle proper names, numbers, and legal terms. If more than one formula is used, the same set should apply to every measure. This will let voters, local governments, and courts reproduce the result.

The clause limiting statutory wording deserves close review. It may prevent the legislature from forcing dense language into citizen initiatives, which is a benefit. It must not become an excuse to remove an important fiscal or legal disclosure. On balance, the amendment gives voters a useful right to understand the question in front of them. The Colorado Conservative recommends YES.

# HOW WE REACHED THE SCORES

Each category uses five tests worth 0 to 10 points. The fixed anchors are: 0 for clear harm or failure; 2 for a material weakness; 5 for mixed or neutral evidence; 8 for a clear benefit with workable safeguards; and 10 for an exceptional benefit with strong controls. Intermediate whole numbers are used only when the evidence falls between anchors.

| **Category**              | **Points** | **Stars** |
| ------------------------- | ---------- | --------- |
| Fiscal Responsibility     | 35/50      | ★★★★☆     |
| Limited Government        | 36/50      | ★★★★☆     |
| Individual Liberty        | 43/50      | ★★★★☆     |
| Institutional Integrity   | 36/50      | ★★★★☆     |
| Long-Term Colorado Impact | 40/50      | ★★★★☆     |

**FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY 35 OF 50 ★★★★☆**

*The measure creates no program or tax, but title review, local compliance, and lawsuits could create costs.*

| **Test**                     | **Pts** | **Evidence and reason**                                                                                      |
| ---------------------------- | ------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Direct state cost            | 8       | The amendment creates no benefit program, agency, tax, or required appropriation.                            |
| Local administrative cost    | 5       | Local governments may need new review steps, training, software, or legal advice for their ballot questions. |
| Litigation exposure          | 5       | Undefined terms and competing reading formulas may produce challenges over compliance.                       |
| Avoided confusion and rework | 8       | Clearer titles may reduce corrections, voter questions, and disputes caused by needlessly dense wording.     |
| Cost measurability           | 9       | Review time, legal expense, software cost, and the number of revised titles can be recorded and compared.    |
| Metric total                 | 35      | ★★★★☆                                                                                                        |

**LIMITED GOVERNMENT 36 OF 50 ★★★★☆**

*The measure limits how government speaks to voters, but it also creates a statewide constitutional rule for local ballots.*

| **Test**                     | **Pts** | **Evidence and reason**                                                                                                 |
| ---------------------------- | ------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Narrow purpose               | 9       | The amendment governs ballot-question wording rather than creating a broader regulatory program.                        |
| New constitutional mandate   | 5       | State and local officials would have to meet a new constitutional writing standard.                                     |
| Local control                | 5       | The rule applies to local questions even when a local government prefers a different drafting method.                   |
| Protection of disclosures    | 7       | The rule can block needlessly dense statutory text, but courts may have to decide which required disclosures still fit. |
| Restraint on official jargon | 10      | Government would have a direct duty to explain ballot choices in words ordinary voters can understand.                  |
| Metric total                 | 36      | ★★★★☆                                                                                                                   |

**INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 43 OF 50 ★★★★☆**

*Clear ballot questions strengthen informed voting, provided that simplicity does not replace accuracy.*

| **Test**                    | **Pts** | **Evidence and reason**                                                                                          |
| --------------------------- | ------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Informed consent            | 10      | Voters are better able to consent or object when the question states the choice clearly.                         |
| Equal practical access      | 9       | An eighth-grade ceiling can help voters with different education levels and reading abilities.                   |
| Accuracy and completeness   | 7       | Plain language can preserve meaning, but the text does not state how officials must protect material detail.     |
| Freedom from loaded framing | 8       | Clear wording can expose slogans and vague claims, although plain language alone does not guarantee neutrality.  |
| Right to challenge          | 9       | A constitutional limit gives voters and affected parties a standard they can ask officials or courts to enforce. |
| Metric total                | 43      | ★★★★☆                                                                                                            |

**INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY 36 OF 50 ★★★★☆**

*The goal is easy to audit, but the amendment leaves the scoring method and definition of plain language unsettled.*

| **Test**                 | **Pts** | **Evidence and reason**                                                                                   |
| ------------------------ | ------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Measurable reading level | 6       | Reading level can be calculated, but different formulas may return different results.                     |
| Definition clarity       | 4       | The amendment does not define plain language or identify who makes the final compliance decision.         |
| Neutral title setting    | 8       | A public readability rule can restrain technical or strategic wording if accuracy is reviewed separately. |
| Legal enforceability     | 8       | The constitutional standard is binding, although early disputes may be needed to define its limits.       |
| Public auditability      | 10      | Anyone can review the exact title and reproduce a published reading-level calculation.                    |
| Metric total             | 36      | ★★★★☆                                                                                                     |

**LONG-TERM COLORADO IMPACT 40 OF 50 ★★★★☆**

*A durable readability rule may improve ballot access, but the method must adapt without changing the constitutional limit.*

| **Test**                    | **Pts** | **Evidence and reason**                                                                                                 |
| --------------------------- | ------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Durable clarity             | 9       | The constitutional rule would apply to future state and local ballot questions.                                         |
| Adaptability                | 6       | Officials can update drafting guidance, but the fixed grade-level ceiling may not fit every legal subject equally well. |
| State and local consistency | 8       | One standard can reduce large differences in readability across jurisdictions.                                          |
| Public trust                | 8       | Clearer titles may improve trust if officials also preserve neutral and complete descriptions.                          |
| Better public communication | 9       | The amendment may encourage clearer explanations beyond the minimum text printed on the ballot.                         |
| Metric total                | 40      | ★★★★☆                                                                                                                   |

# OVERALL RESULT

| **Five-category total** | **Normalized score** | **Overall stars** | **Recommendation** |
| ----------------------- | -------------------- | ----------------- | ------------------ |
| 190/250                 | 38/50                | ★★★★☆             | YES                |

**The result supports a YES recommendation** because voters should receive a question they can understand without losing the facts needed to make a decision. The recommendation depends on a public scoring method, a separate accuracy review, and careful treatment of required fiscal and legal disclosures.

# WHAT WE WILL HOLD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR

Whatever the election result, the publication will track whether the amendment makes ballot questions easier to understand without removing material facts or giving officials a new way to shape the outcome.

## HOW WE WILL DO IT

**1\. Set a baseline.** Collect state and local ballot questions from at least the two general elections before implementation. Record word count, sentence length, and grade level under the formulas later chosen for enforcement.

**2\. Record the official method.** Identify the formula, software, version, rounding rule, and treatment of names, numbers, acronyms, and required legal terms. Recalculate a sample of titles so the public can confirm the score.

**3\. Compare drafts with final titles.** For each statewide measure, save the first public draft and the final ballot question. Show which words were removed or added and whether the changes improved readability without changing meaning.

**4\. Check for missing facts.** Review whether the final question states the main legal change and any material tax, debt, spending, enforcement, penalty, or exception. Flag any required disclosure removed because of the clause limiting statutory language.

**5\. Track disputes and deadlines.** Record title-board rehearings, local objections, lawsuits, court rulings, late revisions, printing delays, and measures that fail the standard. Separate a readability dispute from an accuracy or fairness dispute.

**6\. Measure voter understanding.** Compare available voter surveys, election-office questions, complaints, and public-test results before and after implementation. Report the question asked, sample size, method, and limits of each result.

**7\. Follow the cost and local effect.** Collect state and local spending on drafting, software, training, legal review, and litigation. Compare large and small jurisdictions and note whether compliance costs or title-writing practices differ sharply.

**8\. Publish the evidence.** Link to the exact ballot text, calculations, public records, and court documents used in each review. Report favorable and unfavorable findings and issue dated corrections when needed.

*Primary accountability records: Secretary of State ballot listings and Title Board files, Legislative Council fiscal and ballot analyses, local ballot certifications, reading-level calculations, rulemaking records, public costs, court dockets, and published voter-comprehension research. Core sources: coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ and leg.colorado.gov/initiatives/plain-language-ballot-questions-234.*

# APPENDIX EXACT TEXT OF INITIATIVE 234

**Source Colorado Secretary of State final text of Initiative 234**

*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.