OFFICIAL BALLOT QUESTION

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution requiring law enforcement to notify the department of homeland security when a person is charged with either a violent crime or any crime if the person has a prior felony conviction if law enforcement cannot determine that the person is lawfully present in the United States?"

Source  Colorado Secretary of State certified 2026 ballot list

NEUTRAL OVERVIEW

Amendment 81 concerns the ability of Colorado and local law-enforcement agencies to communicate and cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Immigration law is primarily a federal responsibility, while state and local officers handle most ordinary policing, arrests, jails, and community safety. The measure addresses the point at which those systems intersect. A YES vote expands or protects lawful communication and cooperation contemplated by the measure. A NO vote preserves the current Colorado framework and its existing limits on certain forms of state or local participation in federal immigration enforcement. The measure should not be read as declaring that immigrants, lawful or unlawful, are inherently dangerous; its legal focus is governmental cooperation.

THE PROPONENT CASE

Supporters argue that government should not create artificial barriers when local officers and federal authorities possess legitimate information about the same person. They contend that communication can help identify repeat offenders, people wanted on warrants, and individuals who may be subject to lawful federal immigration action after entering the criminal-justice system. Proponents also argue that a coordinated transfer from a jail or other controlled environment can be safer than requiring federal officers to locate a person later at a home, workplace, street, or other uncontrolled location. Better information sharing can improve planning, reduce uncertainty, and protect officers, subjects, families, neighbors, and bystanders.

Supporters further argue that cooperative relationships can make Colorado agencies better positioned to participate in lawful federal task forces, information-sharing arrangements, training, reimbursement, or grant opportunities when those programs are available. They emphasize that the measure does not itself guarantee federal money, but say Colorado should not unnecessarily exclude its agencies from legitimate partnerships involving federal responsibilities.

THE OPPONENT CASE

Opponents argue that closer cooperation can blur the distinction between local policing and federal civil immigration enforcement. They warn that immigrants who fear that any contact with local police may expose themselves or family members to immigration consequences may become less willing to report crimes, serve as witnesses, seek protection from domestic violence, or cooperate with investigations. Opponents also raise concerns about detainers, mistaken identity, due process, racial profiling, and the possibility that local personnel and resources will be diverted toward a federal mission.

They further argue that Colorado should retain the ability to set boundaries around state and local participation, especially when federal enforcement priorities change from one administration to another. In their view, community trust is itself a public-safety resource, and a policy that damages that trust can impose costs even if it improves cooperation in individual cases.

OFFICIAL MEASURE INFORMATION

Committee listings can change. Current listing and full contact information  Colorado Secretary of State

THE COLORADO CONSERVATIVE RECOMMENDS: YES

WHY WE RECOMMEND YES

Our support begins with a simple public-safety proposition: two legitimate levels of law enforcement should be able to communicate when their lawful responsibilities intersect. That can help remove repeat criminal offenders who are also subject to federal immigration action and can reduce the need for riskier attempts to locate them after release.

Operational safety matters. When a person is already in a controlled setting, coordinated communication or transfer may prevent a later encounter in a neighborhood, workplace, or crowded public area. Government officials are free to criticize policy, litigate alleged illegality, and protest peacefully, but government should not deliberately turn a lawful enforcement action into a volatile public confrontation.

Cooperation may also allow agencies to pursue federal resources when legally available. We do not claim Amendment 81 guarantees funding; we argue that Colorado should not automatically close the door to legitimate reimbursement, training, intelligence, or partnership opportunities.

Our YES comes with an equally firm standard: good law enforcement does not terrorize the population it serves. A badge is an extraordinary public trust. Cooperation is not permission for racial profiling, indiscriminate sweeps, intimidation, unnecessary force, or treating immigrant communities as criminal populations. Victims and witnesses must remain able to seek help.

Cooperation and accountability are not opposites. The objective should be professional, constitutional, de-escalatory policing: serve the public, protect the innocent, enforce the law, and respect the Constitution. The Colorado Conservative recommends YES.

HOW WE REACHED THE SCORES

Each category uses five tests worth 0 to 10 points. The fixed anchors are: 0 for clear harm or failure; 2 for a material weakness; 5 for mixed or neutral evidence; 8 for a clear benefit with workable safeguards; and 10 for an exceptional benefit with strong controls. Intermediate whole numbers are used only when the evidence falls between anchors.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY   25 OF 50   ★★★☆☆

The stated state cost is modest, but local costs and funding are uncertain.

LIMITED GOVERNMENT   25 OF 50   ★★★☆☆

The action is narrow, but the constitutional rule limits local control and is hard to change.

INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY   22 OF 50   ★★☆☆☆

The measure requires notice rather than custody, but key protections are missing.

INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY   36 OF 50   ★★★★☆

The main duty is clear, but the amendment lacks audit and correction rules.

LONG-TERM COLORADO IMPACT   30 OF 50   ★★★☆☆

The measure offers consistency and possible safety value, with lasting trust and flexibility risks.

OVERALL RESULT

The result supports a YES recommendation while preserving strict scrutiny of accuracy, cost, civil-liberty protections, community trust, and whether the policy produces a measurable safety benefit.

WHAT WE WILL HOLD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR

Whatever the election result, this publication will revisit this measure after implementation. We will look for measurable outcomes, fiscal accuracy, agency rules, litigation, constitutional concerns, unintended consequences, and whether officials administer the policy more broadly or narrowly than voters were told.

APPENDIX EXACT TEXT OF INITIATIVE 95

Source  Colorado Secretary of State final text of Initiative 95

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:

SECTION 1. In the constitution of the state of Colorado, add section 17 to article XVIII as follows:

Section 17. Notification requirements for felons and violent offenders unlawfully present in the United States

(1) Definitions. AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES, "LAW ENFORCEMENT" MEANS:

(a) A CERTIFIED PEACE OFFICER DESCRIBED IN LAW, WHO IS EMPLOYED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY;

(b) A CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; OR

(c) AN ATTORNEY OR INVESTIGATOR WHO IS EMPLOYED BY A DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

(2) Requirement to notify upon charging. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF COLORADO LAW, LAW ENFORCEMENT SHALL NOTIFY THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WITHIN SEVENTY-TWO HOURS AFTER CHARGING THE PERSON WITH A CRIME IF:

(a) THE PERSON IS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES OR THE STATUS OF THE PERSON'S LAWFUL PRESENCE IS UNKNOWN AFTER A REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE IT HAS BEEN MADE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND

(b) EITHER:

(I) THE PERSON IS CHARGED WITH A CRIME OF VIOLENCE AS DEFINED BY COLORADO STATUTE; OR

(II) THE PERSON HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF A PRIOR FELONY.

(3) Reasonable effort required. LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS A DUTY TO MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PERSON CHARGED WHO WOULD BE THE SUBJECT OF A NOTIFICATION UNDER THIS SECTION IS LAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.