Should there be increased spending on law enforcement, even just to get these guys new motorcycles? It’s one of the issues of our times, as some support more spending while others support less.
At its simplest, passing Colorado Proposition 130 would require the state to appropriate $350 million to a new Peace Officer Training and Support Fund in the Colorado Department of Public Safety (CDPS). The measure does not require new taxes or fees. The money would be used for death benefits to families of law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty, and for other types of grants that will be mentioned below. Prop 130 does not specify when the money would need to be spent, but the $350 million would be a one-time allocation.
Proposition 130 is a citizen-initiated ballot measure, and proponents gathered enough valid petition signatures to get what was once called Initiative 157 on the ballot. It is a statutory initiative, not a Constitutional amendment, and would pass with a simple majority of voters.
What Would Proposition 130 Do?
If Proposition 130 passes, the $350 million could be used in awarding grants for the following general purposes:
- To increase annual pay for law enforcement officials in Colorado
- To provide hiring, retention, or merit bonuses to law enforcement officials
- To hire additional officers that would work in specific geographic areas or address certain types of criminal activity, including gangs, drugs, human trafficking, or stolen vehicles.
- To fund “initial and continuing education” for law enforcement officials on topics including use of force, non-lethal force, physical fitness, studies in criminal justice, or other pursuits to help train or re-train officers.
According to state Blue Book information, CDPS has already provided $30 million over the past two years for local officer retention and recruitment.
Passing 130 would also establish new death benefit payments in the amount of $1 million for “the surviving spouse, children or estate of any peace officer killed in the line of duty.”
Why Was Proposition 130 Proposed?
According to the initiative language, some of the main purposes of proposing Proposition 130 are because proponents believe violations of laws “must be more rigorously and comprehensively enforced,” and that there’s a need to address “a significant increase in crime, and especially violent crime” in Colorado.
But the initiative language doesn’t address one possibly relevant question about crime rates – “since when?”
Those who are interested in raw statistics on crime rates in Colorado – but don’t have a ton of time for research – might wish to visit this linked state Division of Criminal Justice webpage. See the chart below for one example, but readers might find super-generally that many major categories of crime rates did increase in the first couple years after the pandemic began – relative to rates before the pandemic – but they’re trending downward at present. Still, this chart is not intended to even attempt to tell the complete story of how individuals might feel about levels of crime in Colorado.
And back to the question of “since when?,” the conservative Common Sense Institute noted in their report on statistics that could be relevant to Prop 130 that from “2011 to 2023, Colorado’s crime rate rose 26%, including crimes against persons (2%), crimes against society (16%), and motor vehicle thefts (225%).”
A number of local law enforcement departments in Colorado have said they believe they’re facing staffing shortages in recent years, including in Boulder per this story from Boulder Reporting Lab, while the University of Colorado Police Department reported that they’ve used CDPS grants for officer retention and recruitment to try addressing their shortages. A quick and by no means complete search showed various recent news stories about staffing shortages in Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, and Montrose.
However, it’s not universally accepted that cities need to spend more on law enforcement or add more officers at all. Just for one glaringly obvious example, the George Floyd murder in Minneapolis was a major factor leading some people toward “defund the police” sentiments, even if they actually preferred re-allocating budgets away from armed officers and toward alternative strategies. A number of cities are employing such alternative programs, like the Support Team Assisted Response (STAR) program in Denver.
There are countless reports investigating the links between raw spending on law enforcement and its impact on crime rates. On one hand, this Washington Post story looked at very high-level nationwide statistics and found there was a point in the 1990s where crime rates began falling off dramatically but spending on law enforcement continued to increase steadily. But localized impacts can be quite different from nationwide trends and statistics. For just one report among many, this New York Times story about Minneapolis reported that “As of early June (2023), the Minneapolis Police Department had 585 officers, down from 912 in 2019. As police ranks thinned out, violent crime soared.”
Follow The Money
A committee called Coloradans For Smart Justice has formed to oppose both Prop 130 and Prop 128, and it reported $101,000 in total contributions as of Oct. 15. The main donations included $51,000 from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and $50,000 from the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition.
While the organization Advance Colorado is supporting Prop 130, the news outlet Colorado Sun has reported the following about Advance’s role in campaign finance:
“Advance Colorado may be spending directly in support of the measure, activity that wouldn’t show up in the state’s campaign finance system. The nonprofit doesn’t disclose its donors.”
Richard’s Take
I’m likely to vote NO on 130, but primarily only because it appears to be an arbitrary amount of money and an unfunded mandate. There is no new source of revenue defined for the new Fund, which means funding for 130 could cut into other needs in the state government. I’m not saying I’m necessarily opposed to increased funding for law enforcement if it’s done thoughtfully and through public process, but readers can imagine how all or parts of the $350 million could be used for other items like housing programs, health care, or any of a number of beneficial uses.
I’d prefer a legislative discussion on the issues and types of spending to this ballot measure. Colorado’s state legislature would still be able to create a fund that’s similar to what’s proposed in 130, but they would have so many options beyond what we’d get from a take-it-or-leave-it ballot measure. The legislature could deliberate over different amounts of money, different uses for the money, or identifying specific funding sources. Plus, there would be opportunities for public input that might influence details, but with this ballot measure we’re just allocating $350 million no matter what.
In fairness, I sometimes oppose specific ballot measures but often note that they’re proposed because some segment of “the people” are not certain they’ll get what they want from legislative bodies. In this case, there is no guarantee that the Colorado General Assembly would allocate a major new amount of money toward programs like CDPS grant funding, and this might be a legitimate reason to run a ballot measure and potentially force the issue.
I don’t anticipate this measure to be the highlight of the election cycle, but could see some discourse painting it as a “tough on crime” measure while opponents are “soft on crime.” I hope readers will resist this type of false dichotomy, because there are so many ways the state and local governments can choose to fund law enforcement or even strategies to reduce crime without directly using law enforcement.
Most police and sheriff’s departments in Colorado are actually primarily funded at the local level. To the extent that people might believe a local area needs more funding for law enforcement (or less), the local governments and citizens can already work toward determining their optimal levels of funding and staffing. And I won’t deny that additional state funding might help local departments, especially since there are departments like CUPD already using state grants. But as I mentioned above, the state legislature can take up discussions on the items suggested in Proposition 130 or nearly anything else, and I’ll argue that they can do it more precisely than a ballot measure through proposed bills during the legislative session and the yearly budget process.
