Opinion: Amendment 85 is a misguided attempt to solve the Colorado ballot’s readability problem

Amendment 85 would require “all state and local ballot questions to be written in plain language and at no more than an 8th grade reading level.” The goal of this amendment is admirable, but the method is faulty and should not be codified in the Colorado Constitution.

I share the desire to improve the reading ease and clarity of ballot measures. It was good to see the Colorado legislature consider this issue during the 2026 session when they passed House Bill 1320. The law enumerates some of the most important considerations for making ballot titles clear, like avoiding unnecessary legal and technical language and “qualifiers, double negatives, and overly complex phrasing.”

The main problem with Amendment 85 is the specific mandate to put the eighth grade reading level standard in the constitution. This raises several questions and concerns, starting with how we will assess grade level. 

There is no single, standard method for assigning a grade level to a text, and different tests yield different results. Each readability test uses a unique statistical formula to assess the text difficulty by counting factors like syllables or characters per word, words per sentence and sentences per paragraph. Each formula weighs these factors in its own special way. Some tests account for how common a word is (regardless of word length), but most do not. The most commonly used formula, the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, uses the average words per sentence and syllables per word to assign the text a grade level between 0 and 18. 

This can lead to some strange results. A ballot measure about education (a common multisyllabic word) could be scored at a higher reading level than a measure with shorter words that nonetheless require more specialized knowledge, like fiscal, audit or use tax. The tests do not look at whether sentences are logical, ideas are connected or explanations offer sufficient context for the lay reader.

A readability test can be a helpful screening tool to flag a high-complexity text that needs attention. But the grade levels are not as precise as the numerical scores (decimals!) would have you think. 

In my work with health and government organizations, I have seen well-meaning communicators obsess about this metric to bring the grade level down to the required standard (usually grade 6 or 8) by any means necessary. They game the statistics with Dick-and-Jane sentences and overly simplistic vocabulary — all to get the score from grade 9.1 to grade 7.9. 

By the time they finish their linguistic gymnastics, the words may be easier to read, but they no longer convey the intended meaning. Vocabulary unlocks content. The sentence is the unit of meaning. Both have been compromised.  

Research indicates that manipulating grade level alone does not lead to greater comprehension, so all the assessment may be for nought. Regardless, readability tests may be difficult to use on ballot titles because most require a sample of about a hundred words of text to accurately assess the reading level. Many ballot titles will not have the recommended minimum sample.

While I’m all for getting rid of unnecessary legal and policy jargon (“in connection therewith,” anyone?), some word choices are purposeful and cannot be replaced with simpler (shorter?) words. Writers need the flexibility to explain the issue to a novice without the burden of hitting an arbitrary grade-level target.

Amendment 85 would prohibit lawmakers from “requiring language that conflicts with these requirements [in the amendment].” Would this keep Colorado from improving assessment methods as new technology becomes available? Artificial intelligence is already showing more promise for assessing and simplifying texts than traditional readability formulas. We must leave room for the research to evolve.

Voters often need better explanations, not oversimplifications to meet a grade-level target. If we are serious about fair access to information for decision-making, we must continue to work of making complex policies understandable, both on the ballot and elsewhere. 

At the same time, we must find ways to build voters’ background knowledge in government and policy all year long, so election season is not the first time they are grappling with a complex issue that could have real consequences for their lives.

Jeanine Limone Draut, of Denver, is a technical writer and adult learning consultant.

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Sun’s opinion policy. Learn how to submit a column. Reach the opinion editor at opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Facebook.