Organizers of a proposal seeking to dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to road construction and maintenance have submitted signatures to state election officials in their campaign to put the initiative on the ballot this November.

If officials certified the signatures as sufficiently meeting the threshold — organizers need 124,000 to be valid — the battle shifts to persuading voters to embrace or reject the ballot question.

The measure, Initiative No. 175, would require that all transportation-related revenue be used exclusively for building and repairing roads and bridges, improving safety, conducting transportation planning and engineering, and supporting Colorado State Patrol operations.

The battle over road funding has intensified over the last few weeks. At the state Capitol, legislators passed legislation to effectively negate the initiative that supporters say is sorely needed but which critics insist would divert money from other state priorities.

At stake is roughly $700 million in state dollars.

The group behind the ballot measure — Restore Our Roads — said Tuesday that it submitted more than 180,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office for verification.

“This is a huge step forward for all the Coloradans tired of bad roads, endless congestion and politicians who talk about transportation but never deliver a sustainable funding solution,” said Tony Milo, president and CEO of the Colorado Contractors Association, a member of Restore Our Roads.

About 67% of the revenue affected already comes from dollars dedicated to highways under the Highway Users Tax Fund.

Some lawmakers earlier warned that the initiative could jeopardize funding for other essential areas — including health care and education — if it passes.

In response, the Colorado state legislature passed House Bill 1430, which would negate the initiative by reducing excise taxes on fuel, certain registration fees, and road usage fees from 2027 to 2030.

The legislative response also establishes an enterprise, or government-owned business, to hold funds intended for road maintenance. Enterprises are exempt from the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights revenue limits. It would only apply if voters approved Initiative 175.

In a statement, the initiative’s backers argued that the bill was crafted without input from the road construction industry and would run counter to voters’ will.

“If, in the end, the legislature truly chooses to override the will of the voters, then that will be their decision to explain to the people of Colorado,” Milo said. “Our job is to make sure Coloradans have a clear choice and a real opportunity to be heard.”

House Speaker Pro Tempore Andrew Boesenecker, D-Fort Collins, earlier said the ballot measure’s language does not make it clear that increasing road funding means taking money from elsewhere.

“Nobody would argue that we need to better fund roads in our state,” he told Colorado Politics. “However, if you’re going to propose that the voters are being asked to do this for the price of nothing, of course, the voters are going to say yes.”

“But if you ask, ‘What if it may close the hospital?’ That’s a very big question.”

The bill’s sponsors estimated that Initiative No. 175 would divert more than $700 million in state funds from areas like K-12 and higher education, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the Peace Officer Standards and Training cash fund. They said it would also divert money away from other critical services, such as health care.

Boesenecker said he and his cosponsors are happy to discuss how to better fund infrastructure improvements in Colorado, but “jeopardizing core services” isn’t the way to do it.

“I would hope we could find a compromise. But absent that, we also need to make sure that folks are protected,” he said.

Backers of HB 1430 additionally argued that the state is making progress on its road conditions, including improvements on more than 2,500 miles of rural roads in the past five years. They said more than 800 lane miles have also been improved through the Colorado Department of Transportation’s 10-Year Plan.

The group behind the initiative suggested that a compromise is possible.

Restore Our Roads said it issued a letter to parties across the state, seeking input on “long-term solutions to the state’s transportation funding challenges.”

The group asked others to provide any feedback by June 15 — the deadline for a “potential compromise” between the coalition and backers of House Bill 1430.

In arguing for Initiative 175, backers said it dedicates just 2% of the state budget to road repairs and maintenance, while not asking the public to raise taxes.

“Nothing in Initiative 175 cuts a single dollar from healthcare or classrooms. All it does is ensure that existing transportation-related revenue is finally used for its intended purpose: fixing and maintaining Colorado’s roads,” the group said in a statement.

The group also claimed that roads have been “at the bottom” of legislators’ priority list, even as Colorado residents fork out $3,060 per vehicle in metro areas for repairs and fuel costs “related to poor road conditions and congestion delays.”

These costs, the group said, affect not just daily motorists but also school transportation, emergency response times and business operations.

Additionally, the group said Colorado’s deteriorating infrastructure was likely a contributing factor in about a third of all fatal traffic crashes from 2013 to 2023, while state leaders “have either sat on their hands or proactively made things worse, raiding transportation dollars for other budgetary needs.”

Just this year, legislators took “another $100 million” from transportation, even as the funding is already $350 million short each year of what the Colorado Department of Transportation needs to maintain existing infrastructure. Of that $350 million, some $200 million is needed for pavement maintenance alone, the group said.

“Anyone who drives our roads knows how bad they are. Potholes and crumbling pavement are costing me and other drivers across the state time and money,” said Michael A. Hancock, a proponent of Initiative 175, in a statement.