Former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem isn’t with DHS anymore, but DHS’ budget remains huge with large numbers of personnel. Passing Amendment 81 could expose more people to whatever treatment they might face at the hands of DHS or ICE.

At its simplest, passing Amendment 81 (formerly Initiative 95) would amend the Colorado Constitution to add new requirements for local law enforcement to cooperate with federal entities in case a person who is or has been convicted of certain crimes might be undocumented.

The actual initiative language is relatively short (see section near the end of this post), but in a nutshell, passing it would:

  • Require Colorado law enforcement and/or attorneys to notify the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) within 72 hours of a person being charged of a crime, if the person is either actually in the country without documentation or can’t be proven to be in the country legally.
  • However, the person must also have been charged with a crime of violence, or convicted of a prior felony.
  • Colorado law enforcement would be required to make a “reasonable effort” to determine if such a person is legally present in the United States.

The current Colorado Constitution does not deal with immigration policy. Passing Amendment 81 would add a completely new Section 17 to the Constitution’s Article 18, which is titled “Miscellaneous” and is currently sort of a catch-all of random sections – including lotteries, liquor, hunting, term limits, medical marijuana, and much, much more.

Instead, there are current laws on immigration enforcement in the state’s Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS). Also, it’s relevant to note that per the website congress.gov, “Long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizes Congress as having plenary power over immigration.” Colorado statutes currently state, paraphrased, that state and local law enforcement is not required to work with the federal government on issues of immigration enforcement.

Since Amendment 81 is Constitutional, it would require 55% of the vote (plus one) or more to pass.

Why Was Amendment 81 Proposed?

The designated representatives of Amendment 81 are Michael Fields and Suzanne Taheri, both associated with the conservative organization Advance Colorado. Advance has released on its website a report called “Examining Violent and Repeat Criminal Offenses by Illegal Immigrants“, available at this link.

The report includes a statement that the Colorado state legislature has passed recent laws that “have effectively prevented our state from any proactive coordination with federal law enforcement, with no exceptions for violent criminals or repeat felons.” It listed some incidences of crimes committed by undocumented persons in Colorado and the U.S. – mostly people with Latino surnames but also the Egyptian national who carried out a firebombing attack on Boulder’s Pearl Street Mall in 2025.

The very general opinion thread running through this report is that local law enforcement cooperation with ICE or DHS might have prevented some of these crimes. It does not read like a peer-reviewed research report, but readers might wish to check it out for the examples. Also, interested readers could click on links to read legislative bills that limited or prevented cooperation between local and federal authorities, such as HB 19-1124 and SB 25-276.

Who’s Opposing Amendment 81 and Why?

A number of organizations oppose Amendment 81, including Rocky Mountain Equality. A statement from its executive director Bruce Parker said, “This initiative is not about public safety, it’s about fear and targeting. Reporting someone to ICE the moment they are charged, before any conviction, before any due process, is a dangerous overreach that will make our communities less safe, not more. In fact, we have absolutely no reason to believe that the paramilitary, masked, and armed force known as ICE is capable of making any community safer.”

Per the Colorado Democratic Party: “Colorado law protects residents by prohibiting local law enforcement from coordinating with ICE, a deliberate policy choice to preserve community trust and due process. Initiative 95 (now Amendment 81) would embed the opposite mandate in our state constitution, requiring officers to report people to DHS within 72 hours of a charge, not a conviction.”

Text of Amendment 81 in Full

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.

Proponents: The organizations “A Brighter Colorado” and “Eagle County Republican Women Club” have registered to support Amendment 81.

  • A Brighter Colorado also supports Amendments 82, 85, and 86, and Propositions 132 and 136. As of Oct. 6, it had reported $2,612,150.00 in total contributions, including a non-itemized report from Oct. 6 of $2,305,525.00 in contributions, $250,000 from McLean, Virginia-based Common Sense America, and $100,000 from Colorado Dawn.
  • Eagle County Republican Women Club had reported $1,765 in monetary contributions and $3,664.49 in non-monetary contributions.

Opponents: The organizations “Colorado Communities First,” “The Peoples’ No,” and “Vote Common Sense” have registered to oppose Amendment 81.

  • Colorado Communities First had reported $242,719.28 monetary contributions, $44,689.42 in non-monetary contributions,
  • The People’s No also opposes Propositions 132, 134, 134, and as of Oct. 6 had reported $200,000 in monetary contributions, $51,246.11 in non-monetary contributions, including $246,346 from ACLU of Colorado and $103,332 from COLOR Action Fund.
  • Vote Common Sense also opposes Amendments 82, 84, and 85, along with Propositions 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136. As of Oct. 6, it had reported $646,500 in total contributions, including $200,000 from Washington, DC-based Green Advocacy Project, $100,000 from Merle Chambers of Denver, $65,0000 from Colorado Fund for Children & Public Education, $50,000 from Coloradans for Real Safety Solutions, $50,000 from Colorado Immigration Rights Coalition, $50,000 from Colorado WINS, $35,000 from COBALT.

Amendment 81 Pro:

  • An undocumented person might commit serious crimes in the U.S., but they can’t if they’re not in the country. Deporting or detaining criminals might prevent some crime.
  • The Democratic-controlled state legislature appears unwilling to require local law enforcement to cooperate with DHS/ICE, but perhaps the voters will overrule the legislators.
  • Putting this in the Constitution would take away some discretion for certain cities or counties to not cooperate with DHS/ICE.

Amendment 81 Con:

  • Forcing local law enforcement to deal with immigration status puts more on their already full plates of responsibilities.
  • Some people might believe this issue shouldn’t be in the Constitution.
  • The initiative does literally allow local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE before there’s a conviction, in specified instances.
  • It seems very likely that this initiative would be most likely to impact Latinos in Colorado due in part to racial profiling.

Links to Additional Information

Richard’s Take

Vote NO. We’re literally voting on whether this entire initiative should go into the state Constitution. It flat-out should not be in the Constitution, in my opinion, but that’s not the only reason for my opposition because it also carries an element of callous disregard for how human beings might be treated if Amendment 81 goes forward.

Immigration enforcement excess has without exaggeration been ridiculous during the second Trump administration. It’s been a steady stream of brutality, kidnapping, shipping humans to mass prisons in other countries, exposing the imprisoned to serious disease, using tear gas and rubber bullets on innocent civilians, smashing car windshields, warrantless searches, and murder. That’s the short version. But those are just the factors leading up to my reasons for opposing the letter of the proposed law in Amendment 81.

  • It’s an unfunded and unstaffed mandate. Requiring state or local law enforcement to figure out if someone is undocumented within 72 hours is not now a part of their official job duties, and should not become part of their job duties. Immigration remains a federal responsibility, and that’s how it’s written in state statutes. The DHS budget for 2027 is about $118 billion, while local law enforcement agencies have much smaller budgets coming from local governments who can’t print money.
  • Turning someone in to ICE just because officers can’t determine immigration status puts potentially innocent people at risk of the brutality others have in fact experienced, possibly without due process.
  • As Amendment 81 is drafted, one of the conditions for turning people over to ICE is that they had been “convicted of a prior felony.” It does not say anything about if they had been paroled or had served their sentences.

I expect the very well-publicized past year of ICE excess to weigh this initiative down, and given that it needs 55% to pass, I don’t expect it to prevail. But still, there are Coloradans who will want even stricter immigration enforcement, and might vote for this measure if only for that reason. Frankly, I do want border security and strict punishment of violent criminals, but not at the cost of requiring local law enforcement to turn people who might not deserve cruel or unusual punishment over to the present-day ICE.

This next paragraph might not have been relevant enough for my analysis above, but I personally received a fair number of messages saying people gathering petition signatures for this initiative used misleading language to try getting people to sign. This was an initiative that needed a given number of signatures from each state Senate district to qualify for the ballot, and it seems as if misleading people might have been one way for them to get enough signatures out of largely liberal Boulder County.

Read more about this issue from Colorado Times Recorder at this link, but to me this episode seemed reprehensible, and I hope local voters won’t reward this campaign with their votes even if they might have mistakenly signed a petition. I don’t necessarily want a lot more ballot measures every election, but I’m starting to consider wanting one regarding petitioning reform.