Proposition 137: Designate Sporting Goods Sales Tax Revenue for Conservation

Colorado · initiated statute · on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The ballot wording and the arguments for and against from the state’s official voter guide, in the state’s own words, each read the same way for rhetorical techniques. We don’t recommend a vote.

On the ballot

no rhetorical technique found

Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes creating new law to increase water and land conservation funding without raising taxes, and, in connection therewith, through a voter-approved revenue change, allowing the state to keep and spend a portion of revenue from the state sales tax on sporting goods and equipment to conserve and protect Colorado’s water, land, and forests, prevent wildfires, support outdoor recreation training and activities, and reduce revenue spent on these conservation purposes if necessary to preserve funding for certain tax credits?

From coloradosos.gov. Checked 2026-10-20. Confirm with your official ballot (sample-ballot lookup).

Argument for

By Colorado Legislative Council Staff (State Ballot Information Booklet)

no rhetorical technique found

1) Without increasing tax rates or changing the cost of sporting goods, the measure directs needed money to recreation access, protects land from development, mitigates wildfire risk, and safeguards watersheds.

Competing priorities squeeze the state budget, federal support is unreliable, and the state has not kept up with necessary investments to improve the environment and outdoor economy for residents and visitors. The measure funds trusted programs like GOCO, which has supported conservation projects statewide for over 30 years.

2) Colorado’s outdoor spaces are under strain with more visitors, ongoing drought, and more frequent and devastating wildfires. These pressures threaten communities, water resources, and recreational spaces. This measure provides a user-based model for supporting the outdoors, protecting our communities from wildfire, and restoring watersheds.

Residents and visitors who rent or buy sporting goods often use them in outdoor-related activities, making them natural stakeholders in protecting Colorado’s lands, water, and wildlife. Linking spending to conservation ensures that those who benefit most from the outdoors help sustain it.

From content.leg.colorado.gov, the official voter guide.

Argument against

By Colorado Legislative Council Staff (State Ballot Information Booklet)

no rhetorical technique found

1) This measure is a tax increase in disguise because it reduces or eliminates future TABOR refunds. Keeping state revenue subject to the current constitutional limit is a critical taxpayer protection that is continuously being undermined. Allowing the state to keep even more taxpayer money has the same effect as taxpayers paying higher taxes.

Every dollar retained under this measure is a dollar less in either tax refunds or spending on other critical state priorities like health care and education.

2) This measure directs more money to organizations and government entities with specific interests and limited accountability to the legislature or voters. As many of these programs already have dedicated, reliable funding sources, siphoning additional state dollars to these programs reduces the ability of the state to respond to changing conservation needs as best practices evolve.

State legislators already have the power to spend money to meet these needs and should have the flexibility to balance their budget priorities without being constrained by this measure.

From content.leg.colorado.gov, the official voter guide.

Who’s behind it

Party positions: Colorado Democratic Party: No · Colorado Republican Party: No position published · Libertarian Party of Colorado: No · Colorado Forward Party: No position

Committees registered to support or oppose Proposition 137, and what they reported to Colorado Secretary of State TRACER (tracer.sos.colorado.gov). Checked 2026-10-20.

Before comparing the sides: each committee’s figures come from its own latest report, so they can cover different dates. Some committees work on more than one measure or other campaigns, and their totals include all of it. A side with no registered committee can still have supporters. How much a side raised says nothing about whether the measure is a good idea.

Supporting

PROTECT COLORADO’S LAND AND WATER, PREVENT WILDFIRES

Ballot measure committee

Raised $5,258,550 · spent $5,080,805 · as reported through Oct 14, 2026

Largest contributors as filed:

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY · $2,045,323
501(c)(3) nonprofit
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACTION FUND · $525,000
501(c)(4) nonprofit · federal PAC contributions, 2025–26: $160,750 to Democratic and $50,500 to Republican candidates and party committees (FEC)
WRA ACTION FUND · $524,331
501(c)(4) nonprofit
WESTERN RESOURCE ADVOCATES · $440,174
501(c)(3) nonprofit
FUND FOR A BETTER FUTURE · $349,857
501(c)(4) nonprofit

MAKE GOOD CHANGE

Ballot measure committee

“The People's Ballot is an unofficial voter guide to the 14 statewide ballot measures on Colorado's Nov. 3, 2026 general election ballot.” — its website

Registered; no financial report filed yet.

Opposing

PROTECT COLORADO’S LAND, COMMUNITIES, AND TAX DOLLARS

Ballot measure committee

Raised $6,780 · spent $6,296 · as reported through Oct 14, 2026

Largest contributors as filed:

RAWLUK, MIKE · $5,050 · individual
SCHLOSSBERG, JOSH · $750 · individual
HUTCHINSON, NATHAN · $200 · individual
SHINDEL, JEAN · $125 · individual
SHEETS, FRANCINE M · $100 · individual

A rhetorical technique is about wording, not about whether a measure is a good idea or an argument is true. Ballot wording is written under each state’s own rules, and official arguments by the people the state names. All Colorado measures →