Rep. Max Brooks' 2026 Voter Guide

Your ballot is arriving soon, and Colorado voters have some consequential decisions to make.

There are plenty of voter guides circulating right now. I want to make my position on three statewide measures especially clear.

• NO on Proposition NN.
• NO on Amendment 87.
• NO on Proposition 137.

Of the three, Proposition NN deserves particular attention.

PROPOSITION NN - My Recommendation is to Vote No

Proposition NN is being sold to Coloradans as an education measure.

I believe that sales pitch obscures what the measure actually does to TABOR.

NN would allow state government to keep hundreds of millions of dollars that would otherwise be returned to Colorado taxpayers under TABOR. The official state analysis estimates that the state would retain an additional $329.9 million in the 2026-27 budget year and $521 million in 2027-28.

That is your money.

The measure raises the state's revenue cap, allowing government to retain more revenue rather than returning it to taxpayers through TABOR refunds.

Supporters are running ads focused heavily on education. But voters should read beyond the advertising.

Under the structure of NN, only a portion of the additional retained revenue is specifically dedicated to K-12 education during its initial period. After ten years, the structure changes again, and remaining funds can ultimately be used for purposes determined by the legislature.

My concern is bigger than one year's budget.

This is part of a continuing effort to dismantle TABOR one piece at a time.

For years, we have heard politicians complain that TABOR prevents government from spending enough money. The attitude is often summarized as, "TABOR is the reason we can't have nice things."

I see it differently.

TABOR is the reason Colorado taxpayers have a seat at the table.

TABOR requires government to ask before raising taxes. It limits how quickly government can grow. When government collects revenue beyond those limits, taxpayers are entitled to refunds unless voters authorize the state to keep the money.

And Colorado voters have repeatedly demonstrated that they value those protections.

NN asks voters to surrender another significant portion of them.

The official Blue Book itself describes one of the arguments against NN this way: the measure would permanently eliminate or reduce TABOR refunds and allow government to keep more of the money Colorado families earn.

That is the issue.

You can support teachers.

You can support schools.

You can support Colorado children.

And you can still insist that state government respect TABOR.

Those principles are not mutually exclusive.

I oppose Proposition NN.

AMENDMENT 87 - My Recommendation is to Vote No

Amendment 87 would abandon Colorado's flat income tax structure and replace it with a graduated income tax.

Colorado currently taxes individual income at a flat rate. Amendment 87 would establish multiple income tax brackets with rates ranging from 3.7 percent to 8.4 percent.

That represents a significant change in Colorado tax policy.

The measure is expected to generate approximately $2 billion in additional state revenue in its first full year, with that revenue exempted from the normal TABOR revenue limit.

Once again, voters are being asked to weaken one of the fiscal restraints that has distinguished Colorado for decades.

Today the argument may be about taxpayers earning above a particular threshold.

But Amendment 87 does not adjust its tax brackets for inflation. That means that, over time, inflation alone could push more of a taxpayer's income into higher tax brackets, even if that taxpayer's purchasing power has not meaningfully increased.

Tomorrow the thresholds can change.

The rates can change.

The legislature's appetite for revenue can change.

The fundamental question is whether Colorado should abandon its flat-tax model and move toward a system in which government divides taxpayers into brackets and imposes increasingly higher rates as income rises.

I do not believe we should.

I oppose Amendment 87.

PROPOSITION 137 - My Recommendation is to Vote No

Proposition 137 takes another approach to getting revenue outside TABOR.

The measure would redirect state sales-tax revenue generated from sporting-goods purchases toward specified conservation, wildfire mitigation, forestry, watershed, parks, and outdoor-recreation programs.

Those may sound like worthy purposes.

But there is another part of the proposal voters should understand.

The revenue would be exempted from the TABOR limit.

The official state analysis estimates that Proposition 137 could redirect approximately $175 million in the 2027-28 budget year and $180.2 million the following year. In years when Colorado exceeds its TABOR limit, the measure would reduce the amount returned to taxpayers through TABOR refunds.

Once again, the question is not whether Colorado should protect forests, mitigate wildfire risks, or preserve outdoor recreation.

We should.

The question is whether those priorities should become another vehicle for removing revenue from TABOR's protections.

Colorado has a legislative budgeting process.

Lawmakers should prioritize spending, defend those priorities to the public, and make difficult decisions with the revenue taxpayers already provide.

Continuously carving additional revenue out of TABOR undermines the purpose of having a limit in the first place.

I oppose Proposition 137.

THE COMMON THREAD

NN raises the amount of money state government can retain before TABOR refunds occur.

Amendment 87 establishes a graduated income tax and exempts the resulting additional revenue from the TABOR limit.

Proposition 137 redirects another category of revenue and exempts it from the TABOR limit.

Three measures.

Three different mechanisms.

One recurring issue.

TABOR

I believe TABOR remains one of Colorado's most important taxpayer protections.

It does something politicians often dislike.

It imposes limits.

It forces government to prioritize.

It requires elected officials to make their case directly to you when they want more of your money.

And when government collects more than the law allows it to keep, TABOR says the excess belongs to the taxpayers.

That is why the continuing effort to weaken TABOR concerns me.

Coloradans have repeatedly been asked to surrender these protections. The political establishment keeps returning with new approaches, new exemptions, and new promises about how the additional money will be spent.

My position is simple.

• Respect the taxpayer.
• Respect TABOR.
• Respect the voters who have repeatedly chosen to preserve it.

On Proposition NN, Amendment 87, and Proposition 137, my position is NO.

Whatever your decision, read your ballot carefully, read the Blue Book, understand what each proposal actually changes, and vote.

It is your government.

Make your voice heard.