Colorado’s Amendment 87, which would replace the state’s 4.4% flat income tax with graduated rates topping out at 8.4%, was still too close to call Wednesday. The Yes side held a narrow edge in the count, 50.49% to 49.51% with 76% of votes counted, according to the Washington Free Beacon’s Wednesday account of the unofficial returns.
The Tax Foundation’s Jared Walczak put it the same way, writing that voters appear to have narrowly approved the measure but that “the race has not yet been called, and the outcome could still change.” The measure leads by about one percentage point in that count, which leaves a close race that late ballots could move in either direction.
The large increases would start only at $500,000 of income. The two lowest brackets would charge less than today’s flat rate, and the band from $100,001 to $500,000 would keep paying 4.4%. A vote this tight is mostly a fight over what higher earners and corporations owe.
Retirement deadlines, in your inbox: Miss an enrollment or claim deadline and the money can be gone. Join the Retirement Money Brief and we’ll send you our Will My Social Security Be Taxed? Worksheet as a welcome gift.
Get the Brief + the tax worksheet →
We may earn a commission from links on this page.
What would Amendment 87 change in the tax schedule?
Colorado taxes income at a flat 4.4% today. The National Taxpayers Union Foundation describes the proposal as six new progressive brackets, ranging from a bottom rate of 3.7% to a top rate of 8.4%. Ballotpedia lists the steps: 3.7% on the first $25,000, 4.2% up to $100,000, 4.4% up to $500,000, then 7.4% up to $750,000, 7.9% up to $1 million and 8.4% above that.
The Tax Foundation says the amendment pairs a constitutional change with an initiated statute that sets those starting rates, and that lawmakers could change the rates and brackets later. It also applies graduated rates to corporations. Single and joint filers share the same bracket widths, so married couples face a penalty; the Tax Foundation’s example is $16,575 for two spouses who each earn $500,000.
How much money is at stake, and why only a simple majority?
The ballot title says the measure would raise state taxes by $2.7 billion a year, and Ballotpedia reports that Gov. Jared Polis, an opponent, cited the same figure. A Denver Gazette editorial estimated about $2 billion a year, and the Colorado Academy of Family Physicians projected $2 billion to $3 billion in revenue outside TABOR limits. The new revenue is dedicated to education, health care and child care.
Most Colorado constitutional amendments need 55% of the vote. Amendment 87 needs only a simple majority because it removes constitutional language instead of adding any, the Tax Foundation says. That is why a lead of one percentage point is enough for it to pass, and why the count matters so much.
The campaign split people who usually vote together. Ballotpedia lists the Democratic Party of Colorado among supporters and Polis, also a Democrat, among opponents, and Colorado Politics ran a piece on how Colorado Democrats split on the proposal. The Republican Party of Colorado opposed it, as did business groups such as the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Could Proposition 136 undo it?
A second measure, Proposition 136, was written to cap individual and corporate income tax rates at 4.4% by statute. If both pass, the one with more votes prevails on the provisions that conflict. If Proposition 136 had finished ahead, graduated brackets would still be allowed, but the top rate could not exceed 4.4%, the Tax Foundation says. The state’s voter guide, known as the Blue Book, says the outcome of a conflict between the two is unclear and would be settled by the courts.
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation wrote on Wednesday that Proposition 136 “is currently not on track” to invalidate Amendment 87. The overlap matters only if both measures pass, so for now the Yes lead on Amendment 87 is the number to watch.
What did Proposition NN do on the same ballot?
Voters were also deciding Proposition NN, which the National Taxpayers Union Foundation reports as passing and which would raise Colorado’s TABOR spending caps by more than 25 percent. TABOR, the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, limits how much the state can collect and spend before it must refund the excess to taxpayers. Under the measure, taxpayers would forfeit about $4.6 billion in refunds over the first 10 years, the group’s guide says.
Taken together, the two measures point in the same direction for the state budget: more money collected from the top end, and more of it kept instead of refunded. Among the groups backing Amendment 87 are the Colorado Education Association, the Colorado AFL-CIO and the Bell Policy Center. The Independence Institute and Advance Colorado Institute are among those fighting it.
Where does the count stand, and what happens next?
The figures above are unofficial and were still moving. The Free Beacon’s numbers carry a Nov. 4 date, and the Tax Foundation’s piece, also from Wednesday, had the measure ahead with about 75% of votes in. Neither organization reported a call.
The measure also drew court challenges before the vote. Colorado’s highest court ruled on Oct. 30 that the proposal could stay on the ballot, rejecting an effort to remove it. If the measure holds, the Tax Foundation notes that lawmakers could still change the brackets later, so the rates on this ballot would be a starting point.
Would graduated rates change a Colorado retiree’s tax bill?
If Amendment 87 holds, Colorado’s flat 4.4% rate gives way to six brackets, and anyone whose income in a single year climbs toward $500,000 would meet the first of the higher ones. A count this close can still move, and retirees who plan withdrawals around a flat rate would be planning around a rate that may be gone.
Cut Your Retirement Tax Bill: 12 Moves lays out your state’s rules, including the eight states that tax some Social Security, and works out how much of your Social Security is taxed on one worksheet. It also covers RMDs on time, without the 25% penalty or the first-year trap.
This article was produced with AI assistance and edited for accuracy against the sources linked above.
David M. Keller is a finance writer based in Columbus, Ohio, covering personal finance and consumer-focused economic topics. He earned his degree in journalism from Ohio University and began his career reporting on local business and economic trends for a regional media outlet. Since then, he has contributed to a variety of online publications, focusing on clear, practical coverage of topics such as cost of living, debt, and everyday financial decision-making.
