Whatever happens with Prop 133, let’s let youth everywhere on Earth live lives full of happiness and free of unnecessary emotional trauma. Tall order, I get it, but let’s try.

At its simplest, passing Proposition 133 (formerly Initiative 108) would increase penalties for being convicted of sexual trafficking of a minor, or minors. It also adds buying or selling of sexual activity with a minor to a list of activities in the state statutes defining trafficking.
This is a statutory measure, not a Constitutional amendment, so it would pass with a simple majority of at least 50% (plus one) of the vote.

The Simple Version

It’s possible to boil what’s most important about the Prop 133 text down to four bullet points, but if readers would rather read the text in full, it’s a few sections below:

  • Changes sexual trafficking of a minor from a class 2 felony to class 1 felony
  • Adds KNOWINGLY TRADES ANYTHING OF MONETARY VALUE TO BUY OR SELL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH A MINOR to a list of conditions in existing law that qualify as sexual trafficking of a minor.
  • The list of existing conditions includes “Knowingly sells, recruits, harbors, transports, transfers, isolates, entices, provides, receives, obtains by any means, maintains, or makes available” a minor for sexual activity – or “Knowingly advertises, offers to sell, or sells travel services” for sexual activity with a minor.
  • Says the court “shall sentence” convicted offenders to life without parole or release

For a little context from the Colorado Department of Human Services webpage on child trafficking, though this statement was NOT intended to be about Prop 133: “Movies and media often portray young people as being kidnapped into child sex trafficking. More commonly, vulnerable young people are identified, groomed and recruited by traffickers over time. Child sex traffickers can be any gender, race and or age. The majority of traffickers are known to the victim (parents, relatives, friends, boyfriends/girlfriends). Traffickers frequently use social media to identify, groom and recruit victims.”

Per the state Blue Book, people convicted of class 2 felonies can be sentenced to between 8 and 48 years in prison. Life sentences could exceed sentencing for class 2 felonies.

Why Proposition 133?

Proposition 133 is one of three 2026 ballot measures co-sponsored by Michelle Allen of Englewood and Erin Lee of Wellington (the other two are Props 134 and 135).

Per the proponent website Protect Kids Colorado, the average age when a child is first brought and sold into sexual trafficking is 14.

The conservative think tank Common Sense Institute led off its report on trafficking with a few bullet points attributed to Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI):

  • Commercial sex trafficking is the majority of human trafficking in Colorado.
  • In 2025, 79% of Colorado human trafficking crimes were for the purposes of commercial sex.
  • On average, 64% of Colorado’s human trafficking victims are minors in any given year between 2008 and 2025.

It is possible for proponents to try running a citizen initiative if the Colorado General Assembly can’t or won’t pass similar legislation. In 2026, Rep. Scott Bottoms of Colorado Springs sponsored House Bill 26-1082, which was nearly identical to Prop 133 except for an extra sentence saying not knowing the minor’s age was not a defense against being charged with trafficking. The bill was defeated in the House Judiciary Committee by 7-4, a straight party-line vote with all Democrats on the committee opposed and all Republicans in favor.

While this linked news story from Denver Channel 7 might not tie directly into Proposition 133, it does demonstrate that trafficking is an issue. In late September 2026, authorities arrested 13 people from the Denver Metro area on charges including child internet luring.

Why Not?

A story in Colorado Newsline from March 2026, when Prop 133 was still Initiative 108, said the organization National Survivor Network, described as “an association of human trafficking survivors,” opposed the measure.

“Survivors of trafficking deserve evidence-based, human-rights driven policies, not the misuse of child protection language for political agendas,” Rebekah Layton, survivor leadership program manager with the National Survivor Network, said in a statement. “Protecting children and supporting survivors requires collaboration, radical empathy, and a commitment to dismantling the power imbalances that harm our diverse communities.”

The Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault said in a recent press release that it opposes Prop 133, along with the Colorado Children’s Alliance, Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, Violence Free Colorado, Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center (RMvlc), and COLOR Action Fund. In part, the release noted that traffickers “also force or coerce victims to commit crimes included in Prop 133, like posting ads, recruiting new victims who are often peers, and facilitating encounters. This is commonly referred to as “forced criminality” by state and national leaders in the anti-trafficking field.” By doing this, the release said it exposes victims to the same mandatory charges and penalties as the traffickers. 

People might or might not take this as a top issue, but the fiscal note for Prop 133 anticipates increased spending should 133 pass of $180,000 in FY 2041-42, increasing by the same amount for years to follow. This reflects the possible differences between the years of sentencing for a class 2 felony and the mandatory life sentence that would be imposed under Prop 133.

Proposition 133 Text

The operative part of Prop 133 is short enough to post in full here. Note that UPPER CASE means new sections of statute, while crossed out text would be deleted from statute if 133 passes. Starting with “18-3-504,” everything in lower case is existing statute, and if it’s not crossed out it would stay the same if 133 passes.

SECTION 2. In Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-3-504, amend (2)(a) and (2)(b); and add (5) and (6) as follows:

18-3-504. Human trafficking for sexual servitude – human trafficking of a minor for sexual
servitude.
(2) (a) A person commits human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude if the person:
(I) Knowingly sells, recruits, harbors, transports, transfers, isolates, entices, provides, receives,
obtains by any means, maintains, or makes available a minor for the purpose of commercial sexual activity; or
(II) Knowingly advertises, offers to sell, or sells travel services that facilitate an activity prohibited
pursuant to subsection (2)(a)(I) of this section; OR
(III) KNOWINGLY TRADES ANYTHING OF MONETARY VALUE TO BUY OR SELL SEXUAL ACTIVITY
WITH A MINOR.
(b) Human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude is a class 2 1 felony. The court shall sentence a person convicted of such a class 2 1 felony to the department of corrections for a term of at least the minimum of the presumptive range for a class 2 felony, LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE OR RELEASE, as set forth in section 18-1.3-401.
(5) NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL LIMIT A GOVERNOR’S STANDING AUTHORITY OF PARDON,
COMMUTATION, OR CLEMENCY.
(6) THE SHORT TITLE OF THIS SECTION IS THE “CHILDREN ARE NOT FOR SALE ACT.”

Proponents: The committees “Protect Kids Colorado – Issue Committee” and “Protect Our Children” have registered to support Prop 133. Protect Our Children is registered to Michelle Austin, one of the designated representatives for the initiative.

  • Protect Kids Colorado is supporting 133 but also 134 and 135. As of Oct. 6, it had reported $133,487.84 in total contributions.
  • Protect Our Children had not reported any contributions.

Opponents:

  • Vote Common Sense has registered to oppose Prop 133, though it’s also opposing 132, 134, 135, 136 and Amendments 81, 82, 84, and 85. 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, and $35,000 from COBALT.

Proposition 133 Pro:

  • Sexual trafficking of a minor is a heinous crime, deserving of strong punishment.
  • Beyond the possibility of physical harm, the emotional trauma of sexual trafficking can last far into a person’s future.
  • Strong sentences could be a deterrent to this particular crime.

Proposition 133 Con:

  • Life in prison is an extreme sentence.
  • Extra years in prison cost taxpayers money, and the benefit to society of those extra years is questionable.
  • It’s also questionable if stronger penalties are more of a deterrent than penalties that are already potentially strong.

Links To More Information

Richard’s Take

I might vote “no” on this measure, but it might be a “game-day decision” for me – it’s close and I find some of the arguments in favor compelling. Child sexual trafficking is reprehensible, and I wish I could find a stronger word without using obscenities. If Prop 133 passes – and it very well might in part because it only needs 50% to pass – I won’t feel sorry for someone who’s convicted and has to serve a long sentence. Child sex trafficking is something anybody with even a tiny amount of conscience should know is wrong, so please just don’t do it in the first place.

However, if I wind up voting “no,” it might be for a couple reasons. One is that it would very clearly remove judges’ discretion in sentencing. The other is that if a person who’s convicted and is young enough so a life sentence means some number of decades, passing 133 could cost the state corrections system measurable money compared to just imposing a “long” sentence. I also don’t particularly believe longer sentences are deterrents against crime, since people committing the crimes ought to know they’re illegal and subject to strong penalties if they’re convicted, and they’re quite likely to be committing these crimes for money they didn’t believe they could earn in some other pursuit.