Amendment 81: Law Enforcement Communication with Federal Immigration Authorities
NCSL lists initiative number; official ballot designation differs (mapped by title)
CO has no rebuttals; Blue Book arguments are written by Legislative Council Staff.
Page numbers/running headers removed from extracted text.
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?
A “yes” vote on Amendment 81 requires law enforcement to notify federal immigration authorities after filing certain criminal charges against individuals who are not confirmed to be lawfully present.
A “no” vote on Amendment 81 maintains current law, which allows cooperation with federal immigration authorities in some criminal matters, but limits state and local law enforcement involvement in civil immigration enforcement.
Not published by the state
State Spending In state budget year 2026-27, state spending and workload will increase for agencies that employ law enforcement officers. Two departments require system updates: the Department of Revenue requires $50,000 to access federal databases and make programming changes, and the Department of Natural Resources requires $10,000 to update computer systems. The measure does not specify a funding source to pay for these costs and it is assumed that they will be paid from the General Fund. Workload may also increase in these departments, as well as the departments of Higher Education, Human Services, Judicial, Law, and Public Safety, to the extent they are required to determine a charged individual's immigration status and communicate with the federal government on affected cases; however, this work will be primarily conducted by local governments. Local Government Spending Local law enforcement agencies, including police, district attorney offices, and Regional Transportation District officers, will have increased workload and potential spending. As with the state, the added workload involves determining a charged individual's immigration status and communicating with the federal government on affected cases. Because this determination happens after charges are filed, most of the workload will fall on district attorney offices. The amount of work will vary by jurisdiction depending on how many individuals are charged there. Spending, if incurred, will be on systems updates.
1) Violent individuals and repeat offenders residing in the United States unlawfully should be reported to federal immigration authorities for further enforcement action, which could include removal from the country. The measure increases communication and coordination between Colorado law enforcement and federal immigration authorities to identify individuals who may pose a threat to public safety, without targeting those who are otherwise law-abiding and contribute positively to society. 2) The measure creates a new uniform statewide standard for cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Consistent requirements across jurisdictions improve enforcement and reduce variation among local policies, thus improving public safety and allowing the criminal justice system to work efficiently and effectively in removing potential criminals from the country.
Colorado Legislative Council Staff (Blue Book; arguments are prepared by nonpartisan staff with public comment, not signed by proponents)
1) The measure undermines the constitutional right to due process and the presumption of innocence by requiring local law enforcement to report individuals to DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) before a court determines whether the individual committed a crime. Criminal charges are allegations, not findings of guilt, and individuals should not face potentially life-altering immigration consequences, including deportation, before receiving a fair trial. People who are legally present or who are found to not have committed any crime could be swept up in immigration enforcement actions if they are unable to prove their status in the measure’s strict 72-hour timeframe. 2) The measure is too broad to be enforced equitably and consistently, which erodes trust between law enforcement and their communities. By failing to define key terms such as “reasonable effort” or “lawful presence,” enforcement is left up to the discretion of individual officers, who may rely on subjective characteristics such as language spoken or personal appearance when deciding to review a person’s legal status. This breakdown in trust may deter some individuals from reporting crimes, cooperating with investigations, or seeking assistance for fear of subjecting themselves or members of their community to immigration enforcement.
Colorado Legislative Council Staff (Blue Book)
Both columns use the same layout. Text is quoted from the official state guide. Views expressed belong to the argument authors.