Protect Colorado's Constitution

Here's the legal trap hiding inside Initiative 302: Colorado courts give newer amendments priority over older ones. 302's "right to harvest wildlife" using vague "traditional methods" language could be used to chip away at the 1996 trap ban — not through a vote, but through litigation. Courts, not biologists, deciding wildlife management. That's what's at stake.

Colorado's Constitution belongs to the people — not to lobbyists, not to industry groups, not to special interests. Initiative 302 would embed vague, exploitable language into our most important legal document. If you care about protecting Colorado's constitution, this one matters.

Hunting and fishing are already legal in Colorado under state statute. So why does a special-interest group want to enshrine this in our Constitution? Because constitutional language is harder to challenge, easier to exploit, and permanent. Don't let narrow industry interests rewrite our founding document.

Initiative 302 would embed vague, exploitable language into our most important legal document. If you care about protecting Colorado's constitution, this one matters.

Colorado banned leghold traps in 1996 for a reason. Initiative 302's "right to harvest wildlife" using vague "traditional methods" language could be weaponized in court to argue that ban is unconstitutional. Not through a public vote — through litigation. Special interests don't need to win at the ballot box if they can win in a courtroom.

Refuse to sign. Spread the word. Vote wisely.

Colorado’s Constitution is meant to protect our freedoms, not to serve as a carve out for special-interest groups that don’t represent the public.