In the 2026 midterm elections, Colorado ballot measures Amendment 81, Proposition 132 and Proposition 133 will ask voters to evaluate the role of law enforcement and consider alternatives to current Colorado punishment standards.

All three of the measures are citizen-initiated and were brought by right-leaning organizations. If passed, they are expected to increase state spending.

Amendment 81

Amendment 81 would require state and local law enforcement officials to work closer with federal immigration authorities. This ballot measure would amend the Colorado Constitution and requires 55% of the vote to pass. 

Under Amendment 81, law enforcement officials, correctional officers and district attorneys would be required to notify the United States Department of Homeland of Security within 72 hours if an individual who is charged with, but not yet convicted of, a crime of violence is identified to not lawfully be present in the United States or their immigration status cannot be determined. The measure would also apply to anyone who has previously been convicted with a felony, regardless of the time it occurred and the type of crime the individual had been convicted of.

It is expected to raise state spending and increase workload for law enforcement agencies.

Jeffery Nowacki, an associate professor of sociology at Colorado State University, recently co-authored a research paper examining local law agencies’ roles in immigration enforcement and said the amendment is a departure from current Colorado standards.

“One of the consequences of those types of agreements is this kind of conversation between public safety and due process and having rapport and community and legitimacy within communities,” Nowacki said.

The amendment was brought by Advance Colorado, a right-wing nonprofit organization behind eight of the 14 ballot measures. The representatives for the amendment are Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, and Suzanne Taheri, both of whom are members of West Group, which is headquartered in Colorado and specializes in political and governmental law.

Proponents of Amendment 81 argue “violent individuals and repeat offenders” should face harsher consequences and the amendment would create a standardized process of cooperation with federal authorities. The measure is formally supported by Brighter Colorado.

Opponents say the amendment “undermines the constitutional right to due process” and the presumption of innocence.” They also say the amendment’s broad language could lead to unequal and inconsistent enforcement, particularly based on discrimination against subjective characteristics. The Associated Students of Colorado State University, CSU’s student government, recently passed Resolution #5612, which endorsed the “No/Against” position on the amendment.

Proposition 132

Proposition 132 is another measure brought by Advance Colorado. The measure is an initiated state statute and would pass with a majority vote. Prop 132 asks voters whether the penalties for manufacturing, dispensing, possessing and selling fentanyl should be increased. The law currently varies the severity of the penalties depending on the type and quantity of drug. 

If passed, Prop 132 would limit judicial discretion and require the sentencing for all cases relating to the distribution of fentanyl fall in a mandatory range of eight to 32 years in prison. Under current state law, convicts would see this level of punishment if they had distributed over 50 grams of the substance. 

Under Prop 132, individuals convicted of possession between 1-4 grams would face an increase in sentencing maximums from one year to four years. According to the Denver Post’s editorial board — which supports the measure — individuals could receive reduced charges if they complete treatment measures outlined by the law.

Michael Hogan, an associate professor of sociology at CSU who works with the Center for the Study of Crime and Justice, said harsher punishments could lead to effects like increases to prison populations, larger numbers of people involved in the criminal justice system and increasingly placing the financial burden of criminal justice involvement on offenders.

“There is little evidence that any of this reduces crime and may actually have the opposite effect by increasing recidivism,” Hogan wrote in an email-based interview with The Collegian.

Proponents of Prop 132 argue it would increase both public safety and accountability for drug users, which could in turn reduce Colorado’s rate of overdose deaths, many of which are related to fentanyl. Prop 132 is also supported by Brighter Colorado and Eagle County Republican Women Club.

Opponents argue the proposition is unlikely to be effective and could instead deter people from contacting emergency services and curb addiction treatment initiatives. Concerns with funding have been raised as the measure doesn’t specify a funding source to pay for increased criminal-justice spending. By the fifth year, it is estimated Prop 132 would cost Colorado $68.2 million. According to Ballotpedia, the five organizations are registered to oppose Prop 132: Coloradans for Real Safety Solutions, Vote Common Sense, The People’s No, Make Good Change, and People for a Fair Colorado

Proposition 133

Proposition 133 would increase the penalty for child sex trafficking to “life in prison without parole.” The measure was filed by Erin Lee, the founder of Protect Kids Colorado, and Republican strategist Michele Austin and requires a majority vote to pass.

The proposition would remove judicial discretion, automatically making the penalty for child sex trafficking life in prison without parole. The proposition also would expand the definition of child sex trafficking by including the exchange of anything of value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor.

Under current law, child sex trafficking is considered a Class 2 felony and sentencing may range from eight to 24 years in prison with five years of mandatory parole. If passed, Prop. 133 would classify child sex trafficking as a Class 1 felony, which carries a penalty of life in prison without the possibility of parole — the same mandatory punishment for first-degree murder.

Prop. 133 is expected to increase future state spending beginning in approximately 14 years.

Erin O’Callaghan, a CSU assistant professor of sociology researching sexual violence, said Colorado already has a lot of punitive options to address trafficking. 

“The bigger concern is getting survivors to feel comfortable with formal help-seeking,” O’Callaghan said. “With trafficking in particular, it’s incredibly complicated.”

The measure is backed by organizations such as Protect Our Children and Protect Kids Colorado, who highlight the harm child sex-trafficking leaves on victims, saying the measure will deter child sex trafficking and send a strong message.

Opponents of the measure include victim advocacy organizations such as the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, who have called the measure misleading, saying it would punish victims who may have been coerced or forced to help traffickers and that it makes it difficult for them to seek help. 

Reach Chloe Rios at news@collegian.com or on social media @RMCollegian.