Colorado Proposition 118, Paid Medical and Family Leave Initiative (2020)

Colorado Proposition 118
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Welfare and Healthcare
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Colorado measuresColorado Amendment 76Colorado Amendment 77Colorado Amendment BColorado Amendment CColorado Proposition 113Colorado Proposition 114Colorado Proposition 115Colorado Proposition 116Colorado Proposition 117Colorado Proposition 118Colorado Proposition EESubmit

Colorado Proposition 118, the Paid Medical and Family Leave Initiative, was on the ballot in Colorado as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported establishing a paid family and medical leave program in Colorado to provide 12 weeks (up to 16 weeks in certain cases) of paid leave (with a maximum benefit of $1,100 per week) funded through a payroll tax to be paid for by employers and employees in a 50/50 split.

A "no" vote opposed establishing a paid family and medical leave program in Colorado.

Aftermath

Chronos Builders, LLC v. Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Family and Medical Leave Insurance

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether Proposition 118 is constitutional; whether it violates Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR)
Court: Denver District Court, Colorado Supreme Court
Ruling: Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and upheld Proposition 118; the measure does not violate TABOR; it is not an income tax; fees are held in the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Fund
Plaintiff(s): Chronos Builders, LLC	Defendant(s): Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Family and Medical Leave Insurance

  Source: Colorado Politics

Chronos Builders LLC filed a lawsuit in Denver District Court arguing that Proposition 118 is unconstitutional and violates the Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), which states that "any income tax law change after July 1, 1992 shall also require all taxable net income to be taxed at one rate .. with no added tax or surcharge." Chronos Builders alleged that the payroll tax used to fund the paid medical and family leave program is an added surcharge that would not be taxed at one rate. District Court Chief Judge Michael A. Martinez dismissed the lawsuit on December 13, 2021, and Chronos Builders appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

On June 21, 2022, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld Proposition 118. In the ruling, Justice Monica M. Marquez wrote that the measure does not violate TABOR because it is not an income tax, rather, the premiums are fees that are held in the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Fund.

Election results

Colorado Proposition 118
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,804,546	57.75%
No		1,320,386	42.25%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Reactions

The following is a list of reactions to the approval of Proposition 118:

• U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders tweeted, "Florida passed a $15 minimum wage; Montana, South Dakota, Arizona & New Jersey legalized marijuana; Colorado passed 12 weeks of paid family leave; Arizona increased taxes on the rich to fund education... All over America, voters approved a progressive agenda. Now, Congress must act."

• Loren Furman, senior vice president of state and federal relations with the Colorado Chamber of Commerce said, "I don’t think anyone can determine what the long-term economic devastation will be for businesses during and after the pandemic. I would maintain that this is still the worst time to raise payroll taxes on employers and workers, and it is unlikely that they will have ‘fully recovered’ by 2023.”

• State Sen. Faith Winter (D) said, "I’m really proud of Colorado for being the first state to pass paid family and medical leave at the ballot box. It shows the independence of Colorado voters and the thoughtfulness of Colorado voters to come together to find solutions. This has worked in eight other states. I think this will be one of the issues that takes off in the coming years."

• Tony Gagliardi, Colorado director for the National Federation of Independent Business, said, "Many small businesses will be encouraged to reexamine their need for their current number of employees. hen we will see if the out-of-state groups who funded the proponents’ campaign will be back in Colorado offering financial assistance to Colorado taxpayers who are now saddled with the liability of the program."

Overview

What did Proposition 118 do?

See also: Measure design

Proposition 118 allows for 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave funded through a payroll tax paid by employers and employees in a 50/50 split. An additional four weeks of leave are allowed for pregnancy or childbirth complications. The first premiums began to be paid on January 1, 2023, and benefits began to be available on January 1, 2024. Under Proposition 118, employers cannot take disciplinary or retaliatory actions against employees for requesting or using paid leave.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 118?

See also: Campaign finance, Support, and Opposition

Colorado Families First and AARPCO Committee to Support Proposition 118 were registered to support Proposition 118. The committees reported $9.04 million in contributions. The top donors were the North Fund, which gave $4.4 million, and the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which gave $3.04 million. Colorado Families First said, "Eighty percent of Coloradans don’t have access to paid family and medical leave. They can’t afford to take time off work to care for a newborn baby or a seriously ill loved one — something that’s needed now, more than ever. ... Currently, 2.6 million Coloradans would benefit from the program. ... Coloradans should not have to choose between paying their bills and taking care of their seriously ill family members or having a baby."

Not Now Colorado was registered to oppose Proposition 118. The committee reported $799,926.02 in contributions and $796,945.06 in expenditures. The top donor was the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, which gave $65,000. Not Now Colorado said, "[The initiative] is dishonest. To fund the program, proponents designate a 'payroll premium' as the source. The premium is actually a payroll tax deducted directly for the paychecks of hardworking Coloradans. ... Did anyone ask them if they could afford it? Colorado is in the midst of a worldwide pandemic and an economic recession that has been compared to the Great Depression. Is now the time to ask families who are just getting back to work to pay a payroll tax out of their wages for an unproven, state-run program that they may not ever use? Not Now, Colorado!"

Measure design

Premiums

The program was designed to be funded through a payroll tax paid for by employers and employees in a 50/50 split. For 2023, the maximum annual premium was estimated to be $1,455 since premiums can only be assessed on wages up to $161,700 per person.

2023 and 2024

For the first two years of the program (2023 and 2024), the premiums are set to be 0.9% of the employee's wage (0.45% paid by the employer and 0.45% paid by the employee). Employers can choose to pay a larger percentage of the cost up to 100%. The initiative exempts businesses with less than 10 employees from paying the premium. Sole proprietors can opt in to the program. Premiums under the program began on January 1, 2023.

2025 and after

Premiums will be adjusted for 2025 so that the total amount of premium contributions to the program equals 135% of the previous year's claims and 100% of the administration costs. The premium may be set up to a cap of 1.2% of each employee’s wages.

Benefits

A covered individual may receive up to 12 weeks of paid family or medical leave under Proposition 118. An additional four weeks of leave are allowed for pregnancy or childbirth complications. Individuals receive 90% of their average weekly wage (AWW) for the portion of wages that are less than or equal to 50% of the state average weekly wage (SAWW) and 50% of the portion of their wages that exceed 50% of the SAWW. The maximum benefit is capped at $1,100 per week for 2024. The SAWW was estimated to be $1,340 for 2024. The maximum weekly benefit in 2025 is estimated to be $1,253 per week (90% of the SAWW, which is estimated to be $1,392 per week).

The following table shows an example of paid family and medical leave benefits:

Weekly wage	Weekly benefit	Maximum annual benefit	Percent of weekly wage
$500	$450	$5,400	90%
$1,000	$768	$9,216	77%
$1,500	$1,018	$12,216	68%
$2,000	$1,100	$13,200	55%
$3,000	$1,100	$13,200	37%

Reasons for leave

A covered individual can take leave for the following reasons:

• caring for their own serious health condition;
• caring for a new child during the first year after the birth or adoption or for foster care of a new child;
• caring for a family member with a serious health condition;
• when a family member is on active duty military service or is called for active-duty military service; and
• when the individual or the individual’s family member is a victim of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault.

Individuals are eligible to receive the benefits after they have earned $2,500 in wages that were subject to the paid family and medical leave (PFML) premiums and have been employed by the employer for at least 180 days.

Job protections

Under Proposition 118, employers cannot take disciplinary or retaliatory actions against employees for requesting or using paid leave. Job protections become available to employees who work for the employer for at least 180 days. Employees who take leave under Proposition 118 are entitled to return to the same position or a position with the same pay, benefits, and seniority or status. Employees cannot lose their health benefits during their leave and are still be required to pay their health insurance premiums while on leave.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 118 was as follows:

“ Shall there be a change to the Colorado Revised Statutes concerning the creation of a paid family and medical leave program in Colorado, and, in connection therewith, authorizing paid family and medical leave for a covered employee who has a serious health condition, is caring for a new child or for a family member with a serious health condition, or has a need for leave related to a family member’s military deployment or for safe leave; establishing a maximum of 12 weeks of family and medical leave, with an additional 4 weeks for pregnancy or childbirth complications, with a cap on the weekly benefit amount; requiring job protection for and prohibiting retaliation against an employee who takes paid family and medical leave; allowing a local government to opt out of the program; permitting employees of such a local government and self-employed individuals to participate in the program; exempting employers who offer an approved private paid family and medical leave plan; to pay for the program, requiring a premium of 0.9% of each employee’s wages, up to a cap, through December 31, 2024, and as set thereafter, up to 1.2% of each employee’s wages, by the director of the division of family and medical leave insurance; authorizing an employer to deduct up to 50% of the premium amount from an employee’s wages and requiring the employer to pay the remainder of the premium, with an exemption for employers with fewer than 10 employees; creating the division of family and medical leave insurance as an enterprise within the department of labor and employment to administer the program; and establishing an enforcement and appeals process for retaliation and denied claims? ”

Summary and analysis

The summary and analysis provided for this measure in the 2020 State Ballot Information Booklet are available on page 54 at this link.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“ State revenue. Proposition 118 is expected to increase state revenue from PFML premiums by approximately $575.4 million in state budget year 2022-23 (half-year impact) and $1.2 billion in state budget year 2023-24 (full-year impact). Because of higher-than-usual economic uncertainty, the amount of premiums collected may differ from this estimate. The measure may also increase state revenue from bond proceeds and potentially gifts, grants, or donations to cover program start-up costs beginning in state budget year 2021-22. The timing of when this additional revenue is received will depend on final budget estimates for the program and when revenue bonds are issued. State spending. Proposition 118 will increase state spending by $3.2 million in state budget year 2021-22 and $48.6 million in state budget year 2022-23 to create and administer the PFML insurance program. In state budget year 2023-24, state spending will increase by $523.9 million to administer the PFML program, pay the employer share of premiums for state employees, and pay PFML benefits to eligible employees in the second half of the year. Local government spending. Beginning January 1, 2023, local governments that participate in the PFML insurance program, school districts, and other public entities will have increased spending to pay the employer share of premiums for their employees. Local governments will also be required to process payroll deductions, and coordinate leave and benefits for employees. Local governments that decline to participate will not pay premiums, but may still be required to handle premium deductions and coordinate leave and benefits for employees if they have employees that elect to participate in the PFML insurance program.. ”

Full text

The full text of the measure can be read below.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Colorado Title Board wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 17, and the FRE is 26. The word count for the ballot title is 270, and the estimated reading time is 1 minute and 12 seconds.

Support

Colorado Families First led the campaign in support of the initiative.

Supporters

Officials

• Colorado State Representative Matt Gray (D)
• Colorado State Representative Faith Winter (D)

Organizations

• Democracy for America
• Progress Now Colorado
• Sixteen Thirty Fund
• The Fairness Project

Arguments

• Colorado Families First: "Eighty percent of Coloradans don’t have access to paid family and medical leave. They can’t afford to take time off work to care for a newborn baby or a seriously ill loved one — something that’s needed now, more than ever. ... Currently, 2.6 million Coloradans would benefit from the program. ... Coloradans should not have to choose between paying their bills and taking care of their seriously ill family members or having a baby. Eight states, including Oregon, Washington, and Connecticut, have passed similar paid family and medical leave programs. These programs have had lower than expected costs, increased employee retention and have boosted morale. "
• Colorado State Representatives Faith Winter (D) and Matt Gray (D): "In fact, paid family and medical leave is a win not just for Colorado workers, but for Colorado businesses as well. It provides a low-cost option to all businesses to help their employees and the public stay healthy and safe. Additionally, small businesses with fewer than 10 employees won’t have to pay anything to cover their workers, but employees will still be able to access the benefit. The fight for paid family and medical leave has been a long one, but this November we have our chance to do right by Colorado workers and businesses."

Official arguments

• Official Blue Book argument: "1) Paid leave has a positive impact on the health of Colorado families, especially new parents and those with health issues. Research has shown that offering paid leave to expectant and new mothers decreases the risk of infant mortality, and allowing parents time to bond with their children will positively affect child development. Most individuals will need to take leave to care for themselves or a loved one at some point during their careers, and this measure allows employees to do so with some financial support and job protection. The measure ensures that Coloradans will not be forced to choose between their health and their livelihood. 2) Paid leave will increase employment opportunities for Coloradans, and benefit the state’s economy. Only 18 percent of U.S. workers currently have access to paid leave. Employees without paid leave risk being demoted or even losing their jobs if they have to take off work due to serious illnesses or to care for family members. This measure allows caretakers and those with chronic health issues to join and remain in the workforce, which will strengthen Colorado’s economy. All workers deserve paid leave benefits, no matter their income level, the type of work they do, or the size of their employer."

Opposition

Not Now Colorado led the campaign in opposition to the initiative.

Opponents

Organizations

• Colorado Rising State Action
• Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce

Arguments

• Not Now Colorado: "[The initiative] is dishonest. To fund the program, proponents designate a 'payroll premium' as the source. The premium is actually a payroll tax deducted directly for the paychecks of hardworking Coloradans. ... A dual-income family making $110k per year will pay approximately $1,000 per year into this state-run program. This equates to a car payment or a few weeks of groceries for a family. Did anyone ask them if they could afford it? Colorado is in the midst of a worldwide pandemic and an economic recession that has been compared to the Great Depression. Is now the time to ask families who are just getting back to work to pay a payroll tax out of their wages for an unproven, state-run program that they may not ever use? Not Now, Colorado!"
• Colorado Rising State Action: "Establishes a mandatory paid medical and family leave program. To pay for the program, employees and employers will split the cost, taking 50% of the premium for the new insurance program directly out of employee wages, with the employer covering the other 50%. This initiative creates a new enterprise within the department of labor and employment to administer the program which is estimated to cost $2 billion per year."
• Dave Davia, CEO and executive vice president of Rocky Mountain Mechanical Contractors Association: "In short, this measure sets up a new state bureaucracy, makes empty promises and saddles Coloradans with a huge, new tax bill we simply can’t afford. At a time when Coloradans are struggling to overcome the impacts of a global pandemic, and the energy industry is fighting for its very survival, our economy is ravaged. This is not the time to experiment with costly programs and false assurances."

Official arguments

• Official Blue Book argument: "1) This measure places a financial and regulatory burden on employers to navigate the program’s complex requirements. Businesses face increased costs to accommodate paid leave and new state-mandated sick leave obligations. The measure unfairly requires large businesses, but not certain small businesses or local governments, to pay premiums to fund the program. In addition, small businesses may be discouraged from growing in order to avoid premium costs. In the end, it will be up to employers and employees to bear the cost of an uncertain and expensive new government program. 2) This measure requires employees to pay into a program that they may never benefit from using. Employees are already faced with job uncertainty in the current economy, and cannot afford to lose part of their salary or other benefits. If the demand for the benefit is higher than anticipated, employees will be expected to contribute an even larger percentage of wages in the future or sacrifice other workplace gains.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Colorado ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through November 30, 2020.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$8,274,801.00	$764,776.89	$9,039,577.89	$8,242,590.58	$9,007,367.47
Oppose	$799,790.02	$136.00	$799,926.02	$796,809.06	$796,945.06

Ballotpedia identified two committees registered to support the initiative: Colorado Families First and AARPCO Committee to Support Proposition 118. The committees reported $9.04 million in contributions. The top donors were the North Fund, which gave $4.4 million, and the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which gave $3.04 million. The committee reported $8.8 million in expenditures, of which, $2.23 million was paid to FieldWorks, LLC for signature gathering.

Ballotpedia identified one committee registered to oppose the initiative: Not Now Colorado. The committee reported $799,926.02 in contributions and $796,945.06 in expenditures. The top donor was the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, which gave $65,000.

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.

Committees in support of Proposition 118
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Colorado Families First	$8,274,801.00	$763,022.77	$9,037,823.77	$8,242,590.58	$9,005,613.35
AARPCO Committee to Support Proposition 118	$0.00	$1,754.12	$1,754.12	$0.00	$1,754.12
Total	$8,274,801.00	$764,776.89	$9,039,577.89	$8,242,590.58	$9,007,367.47

Donors

The following were the top donors to the support committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
North Fund	$4,400,000.00	$0.00	$4,400,000.00
Sixteen Thirty Fund	$2,670,000.00	$293,500.00	$2,963,500.00
The Fairness Project	$200,000.00	$80,538.68	$280,538.68
New Approach Pac	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
SEIU	$0.00	$108,533.98	$108,533.98

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 118
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Not Now Colorado	$799,790.02	$136.00	$799,926.02	$796,809.06	$796,945.06
Total	$799,790.02	$136.00	$799,926.02	$796,809.06	$796,945.06

Donors

The following were the top donors to the opposition committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Associated General Contractors of Colorado	$63,500.00	$0.00	$63,500.00
Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
Colorado Concern	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
Colorado Construction Industry Coalition	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
Rocky Mountain Mechanical Contractors Association	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• Journal-Advocate Editorial Board and Fort Morgan Times Editorial Board: "While this proposal is not perfect, it does provide some exemptions such as for small businesses with less than nine employees, and for those that already offer qualifying paid leave programs."
• Colorado Springs Indy Editorial Board: "Most employees will need to take leave for personal reasons at some point in their careers, and Proposition 118 allows them to do so with financial support and job protection. It also protects employers who will no longer need to pay the wages of an employee who needs to take time off due to a major surgery or to bond with their newborn child. Vote Yes on Prop 118."
• Boulder Weekly Editorial Board: "Approving such an insurance program, especially one that casts such a wide net for personal needs, will benefit Colorado workers and businesses alike."

Opposition

• Steamboat Pilot & Today Editorial Board: "We recommend a 'no' vote. While we support the concept of expanding family and medical leave, we believe this initiative has too many loopholes. The measure stipulates employees and employers would share in the costs of the program, but local governments can opt out and many small businesses would be exempt. And while the employee and employer shares of the program may seem small, those payments would be especially painful for low-wage earners and companies that would pass the costs along to consumers. We would prefer an initiative of such scope and far-reaching implications be driven federally instead of through a state-level, citizen-driven initiative."
• Durango Herald Editorial Board: "Proposition 118 ... would create an enterprise in the state’s Department of Labor. Given what is certain to be a sizable administrative office, and its cost to employers and employees, this is the wrong plan at the wrong time. No on Proposition 118."

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2020 ballot measure polls

Poll results for the measure are detailed below:

Colorado Proposition 118
Poll	Yes	No	Unsure	Margin of error	Sample size
Survey USA poll 10/1/20 - 10/6/20	57.0%	21.0%	22.0%	+/-3.9	1,021
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Federal family and medical leave laws

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) provides that eligible employees may take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year for the following reasons:

• caring for a newborn child, newly adopted child, or foster care of a new child;
• caring for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
• taking medical leave if the covered individual is unable to work due to a serious health condition.

FMLA applies to public agencies, public and private elementary and secondary schools, and companies with 50 employees or more. Employees are covered after having worked with the employer for 12 months and contributed 1,250 hours of work during the 12 months.

Under FMLA, employees must be restored to their job or given an equivalent job with the same pay, benefits, and conditions. The employee's health insurance benefits are required to continue under FMLA. Under FMLA, employers cannot retaliate against employees for taking family or medical leave.

Expanded leave under Families First Coronavirus Response Act

The federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act expanded medical and family leave for reasons related to the Coronavirus pandemic. The act provided that, from April 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, employees were eligible for:

• up to 80 hours of sick leave (at regular rate of pay) if the employee is directed to quarantine themselves by a federal, state, or local government order or health care professional; or is experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and is seeking a diagnosis;
• up to 80 hours of paid sick leave (at two-thirds regular rate of pay) if the employee needs to care for someone subjected to quarantine or care for a child whose school is closed; and
• up to 10 weeks of additional leave at two-thirds regular rate of pay to care for a child whose school is closed due to COVID-19 for employees who have worked for an employer for at least 30 days.

The law was designed to apply to certain public employers and private employers with less than 500 employees.

Paid medical leave in Colorado

Under Senate Bill 20-205, the Healthy Families and Workplace Act, signed into law on July 14, 2020, employers with 16 or more employees are required to provide 48 hours (6 days) of paid sick leave per year to employees (hours are to be accrued at one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked) beginning on January 1, 2021. The requirements go into effect for all employers on January 1, 2022. The sick leave could be used for the following reasons:

• the employee has a mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition; needs a medical diagnosis, care, or treatment related to such illness, injury, or condition; or needs to obtain preventive medical care;
• the employee needs to care for a family member who has a mental or physical illness, injury, or condition or needs a medical diagnosis, care, or treatment related to such illness, injury, or condition; or needs to obtain preventive medical care;
• the employee or family member is or was a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or harassment and needs to be absent from work for purposes related to such crime; or
• a public official has ordered the closure of the school or place of care of the employee's child or of the employee's place of business due to a public health emergency and therefore the employee cannot work.

Under the bill, employers are required to provide at least 80 hours of additional paid sick leave during a public health emergency for employees who work 40 hours per week or more.

Expand the table below to see a comparison of Proposition 118, Senate Bill 20-205, and FMLA.

Comparison of Proposition 118, FMLA, and SB 20-205
	Proposition 118	SB 20-205	FMLA
Type of leave	Family and medical	Medical	Family and medical
Length of leave/paid or unpaid	12 weeks (up to 16 for pregnancy or childbirth complications); paid	Up to 6 days; paid	12 weeks; unpaid
Eligibility requirements	After $2,500 in wages have been subject to premiums	Employee earns 1 hour paid sick leave per 30 hours worked; up to 48 hours per year	After employee has worked for 12 months
Job protection	After working for employer for 180 days	N/A	Yes
Employer size	All employers	Employers with 16 or more employees as of Jan. 2021; all employers beginning Jan. 2022	All elementary and secondary schools; public agencies; private businesses with 50 or more employees
Reasons for leave	1Birth or adoption of child; caring for self or family member; family member going on active duty in the military; sexual assault/abuse, & stalking	Care for employee's health/safety; care for a person that the employee needs to provide health/safety-related care	Birth or adoption of child; caring for family member; family member going on active duty in the military

State paid sick leave policies

As of 2020, 13 states and Washington, D.C., had laws requiring private employers to provide paid sick leave to their employees. Connecticut was the first state to enact a paid sick leave requirement, with Gov. Dan Malloy (D) signing a bill into law in 2011. In addition to Connecticut, state legislatures in nine states passed laws providing for paid medical leave. Voters in three states— Massachusetts (2014), Arizona (2016), and Washington (2016)— passed ballot initiatives to require paid sick leave.

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in Colorado and Laws governing the initiative process in Colorado

The state process

In Colorado, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated state statute for the ballot is equal to 5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the office of Colorado secretary of state in the preceding general election. State law provides that petitioners have six months to collect signatures after the ballot language and title are finalized. State statutes require a completed signature petition to be filed three months and three weeks before the election at which the measure would appear on the ballot. The Constitution, however, states that the petition must be filed three months before the election at which the measure would appear. The secretary of state generally lists a date that is three months before the election as the filing deadline.

The requirements to get an initiated state statute certified for the 2020 ballot:

• Signatures: 124,632 valid signatures
• Deadline: August 3, 2020

The secretary of state is responsible for signature verification. Verification is conducted through a review of petitions regarding correct form and then a 5 percent random sampling verification. If the sampling projects between 90 percent and 110 percent of required valid signatures, a full check of all signatures is required. If the sampling projects more than 110 percent of the required signatures, the initiative is certified. If less than 90 percent, the initiative fails.

Details about this initiative

• Timothy Tyler and Wendy Howell filed versions #247 and #248 of the initiative on February 7, 2020, and filed version #283 of the initiative on March 6, 2020. The three versions of the initiative were cleared for signature gathering on May 7, 2020. Sponsors began collecting signatures for version #283.
• Proponents delivered 205,660 signatures to the secretary of state's office on July 31, 2020.
• The measure was certified for the ballot on August 25, 2020. Of the 205,660 signatures submitted by proponents, 137,999 were projected to be valid. To qualify for the ballot, 124,632 valid signatures were required.
• Changes to Colorado ballot initiative process due to COVID-19: On May 17, 2020, Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) signed Executive Order D 2020 065, which authorized the Colorado Secretary of State to establish temporary rules allowing for ballot initiative petitions to be signed through mail and email. The order also temporarily suspended the state law requiring signatures to be submitted six months after ballot language finalization. Under the order, signatures for 2020 Colorado initiatives were due by August 3, 2020. Legal challenges were filed against the order, specifically challenging the mail and email signature gathering provisions. Those provisions of the order were ultimately struck down by the Colorado Supreme Court on July 1, 2020, meaning proponents needed to collect signatures in person.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired FieldWorks, LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,229,000.00 was spent to collect the 124,632 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $17.88.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Colorado

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Colorado.

How to cast a vote in Colorado

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. Poll times In Colorado, polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time for those who choose to vote in person rather than by mail. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration requirements Check your voter registration status here. In Colorado, an individual can register to vote if he or she is at least 16 years old and will be 18 by Election Day. A voter must be a citizen of the United States who has lived in Colorado at least 22 days prior to Election Day. Colorado voters can register to vote through Election Day. However, in order to automatically receive a mail-in ballot, a voter must register at least eight days prior to Election Day. A voter can register online or submit a form in person or by fax, email, or mail. Automatic registration Colorado automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Colorado has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Colorado allows same-day voter registration for individuals who vote in person. Residency requirements Colorado law requires 22 days of residency in the state before a person may vote. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Colorado does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. Verifying your registration The site Go Vote Colorado, run by the Colorado Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Colorado requires voters to present non-photo identification when voting in person. If voting by mail for the first, a voter may also need to return a photocopy of his or her identification with his or her mail-in ballot. Click here for more information. The following list of accepted forms of identification was current as of April 2023. Click here for the most current information, sourced directly from the Office of the Colorado Secretary of State. “ The following documents are acceptable forms of identification: A valid Colorado driver’s license or valid identification card issued by the Colorado Department of Revenue. (Note: documents issued to not lawfully present and temporarily lawfully present individuals under Part 5 of Article 2 of Title 42, C.R.S. are not acceptable forms of identification.) A valid U.S. passport. A valid employee identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. government or of Colorado, or by any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political subdivision of Colorado. A valid pilot’s license issued by the federal aviation administration or other authorized agency of the U.S. A valid U.S. military identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector. A copy of a current (within the last 60 days) utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector. A Certificate of Degree of Indian or Alaskan Native Blood. A valid Medicare or Medicaid card issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. A certified copy of a U.S. birth certificate for the elector. Certified documentation of naturalization. A valid student identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by an institute of higher education in *Colorado, as defined in section 23-3.1-102(5), C.R.S.. A valid veteran identification card issued by the U.S. department of veterans affairs veterans health administration with a photograph of the eligible elector. A valid identification card issued by a federally recognized tribal government certifying tribal membership. Any form of identification listed above that shows your address must show a Colorado address to qualify as an acceptable form of identification. The following documents are also considered acceptable forms of identification for voting: Verification that a voter is a resident of a group residential facility, as defined in section 1-1-104(18.5), C.R.S. Verification that a voter is a person committed to the department of human services and confined and eligible to register and vote shall be considered sufficient identification of such person for the purposes of section 1-2-210.5, C.R.S. Written correspondence from the county sheriff or his or her designee to the county clerk indicating that a voter is confined in a county jail or detention facility. ” }}

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Healthcare on the ballot
• 2020 petition deadlines

Colorado

• Colorado ballot measures
• Colorado initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Colorado Secretary of State: Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results
• Initiatives filed with the Legislative Council Staff
• Initiative 283 full text
• Colorado Ballot Information Booklet (Blue Book)

Support

• Colorado Families First (Yes on 118) campaign website
• Families First (Yes on 118) Facebook page
• Colorado Families First (Yes on 118) Twitter page

Opposition

Submit links to editor@ballotpedia.org.