Proponents tell Colorado reviewers they want plain‑language ballot questions with an 8th‑grade cap

Proponents of two proposed Colorado constitutional amendments told legislative legal staff on March 20 that they want all ballot questions written in plain language and aimed at an eighth‑grade reading level, and that one proposal also would limit initiative ballot questions to 100 words.

At a review hearing in Senate Committee Room 354, Sam Anderson of the Office of Legislative Legal Services summarized the measures’ goals, saying the proposals would “require that measures initiated by or referred to the people in accordance with the Colorado Constitution be written in plain language that does not exceed an eighth grade reading level” and, in the second proposal, add a 100‑word limit. Proponent Suzanne Tehary agreed those statements reflected their intent, saying, “Our intent is that all ballot questions should be written in plain language.”

Why it matters: the wording of ballot questions can influence voter understanding of constitutional amendments. The proponents told reviewers they intend the change to apply broadly to ballot language, and to prevent statutes from imposing mandatory phrasing within initiative ballot questions.

During the session, staff raised several technical and constitutional questions. Reviewers asked whether the proposals meet the Colorado Constitution’s single‑subject requirement; the proponents told staff the single subject is “plain language ballot questions.” Staff also asked about the measure’s effective date, and proponents accepted the Colorado Constitution’s default rule that an approved initiative takes effect on or after the official declaration of the vote and the governor’s proclamation.

Reviewers questioned how the proposed statutory prohibition on mandated language would interact with existing constitutionally required ballot language, including Article 10, Section 20 (the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR). The proponents said they did not believe a conflict would arise because their drafts bar statutes (not constitutional provisions) from prescribing initiative ballot phrasing. When staff asked whether constitutionally mandated words would count against the 100‑word cap in initiative 277, proponents answered yes.

The committee also asked what standard would determine an eighth‑grade reading level. Proponents said they had examples from other states but deliberately left the drafting standard unspecified so the responsible drafting authority — whether a title board, legislative office, or local clerk — could apply an appropriate accessibility standard. On whether the language “no statute may mandate” was intended as permissive or mandatory, proponents said the provision is intended to be mandatory and will be clarified in drafting.

On complexity and single‑subject concerns, proponents acknowledged that highly technical measures might be difficult to compress to an eighth‑grade level; they suggested drafters could use broader descriptive language (for example, describing a tax as ‘a tax increase for state corrections’ rather than naming a department) or that such complexity could indicate the measure fails the single‑subject requirement.

No formal action was taken at the hearing. Staff closed the record after reviewing questions in their March 18 memorandum; staff said they could review technical edits if proponents desired. The review hearing concluded at 1:10 p.m.

Sources: Office of Legislative Legal Services memorandum (03/18/2026) and remarks on the record by Sam Anderson (Office of Legislative Legal Services), Amanda King (Legislative Counsel Staff) and proponent Suzanne Tehary.