Law Enforcement Communication with Federal Immigration Authorities
Police and prosecutors would have to report certain people they charge to federal immigration authorities, before any trial.
Cheat sheet The whole measure in 30 seconds tap to open
Law enforcement must notify federal immigration authorities after filing certain criminal charges against people who are not confirmed to be lawfully present.
Current law stays: cooperation with federal authorities on some criminal matters, but limits on state and local involvement in civil immigration enforcement.
Strongest case for
People here unlawfully who are charged with violent crimes or are repeat offenders should be reported so federal authorities can act, which improves public safety without targeting otherwise law-abiding residents.
Strongest case against
It undermines due process and the presumption of innocence, because reporting happens before a court decides guilt - and legally present people could be caught up in it if they cannot prove their status inside 72 hours.
Watch out: It triggers at charging, not conviction. And the 'prior felony' branch covers any new charge however minor - the Blue Book specifically names traffic violations and petty offenses.
What this actually does
Right now Colorado police can help federal authorities on criminal matters but are limited in helping with civil immigration enforcement. This measure says that when someone is charged with a violent crime - or charged with any crime at all if they have a past felony conviction - law enforcement must make a reasonable effort to find out whether that person is legally in the United States. If they cannot confirm the person is here legally, they must tell federal immigration authorities within 72 hours. This happens when charges are filed, before any court has decided guilt.
What your vote means
Law enforcement must notify federal immigration authorities after filing certain criminal charges against people who are not confirmed to be lawfully present.
Current law stays: cooperation with federal authorities on some criminal matters, but limits on state and local involvement in civil immigration enforcement.
On every measure, yes means change something and no means leave it alone.
Easiest thing to get wrong
Read this twice
It triggers at charging, not conviction. And the 'prior felony' branch covers any new charge however minor - the Blue Book specifically names traffic violations and petty offenses.
The case each side makes
Straight from the state's official booklet, shortened. These are arguments as each side makes them — not findings of fact, and not our view.
Why people say yes
- People here unlawfully who are charged with violent crimes or are repeat offenders should be reported so federal authorities can act, which improves public safety without targeting otherwise law-abiding residents.
- It replaces a county-by-county patchwork with one statewide standard, which makes enforcement more consistent.
Why people say no
- It undermines due process and the presumption of innocence, because reporting happens before a court decides guilt - and legally present people could be caught up in it if they cannot prove their status inside 72 hours.
- Key terms like 'reasonable effort' and 'lawful presence' are undefined, leaving it to each officer's discretion, which invites profiling and discourages people from reporting crimes or cooperating with police.
Where this sits politically
high confidence Filed by Advance Colorado's Michael Fields and Republican attorney Suzanne Taheri. Funded by a conservative slate committee and opposed by the ACLU and the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. Immigration enforcement cooperation is a core conservative position and all four signals agree.
How we place the needle and why it is an estimate, not a measurement
We read four things, all of them public and documented:
- Who filed it and what they are affiliated with.
- The recorded party vote, where one exists. On this ballot only Proposition NN has one, because it is the only measure the legislature referred.
- Which side of the political infrastructure is paying for each campaign.
- Which direction the policy moves compared with current law.
Confidence is high when all four point the same way and low when they contradict each other. A low-confidence needle is telling you the measure genuinely does not sort neatly — Amendment 86 is the clearest case, with conservative sponsors and anti-gerrymandering content.
This is our editorial read, not a measurement. A citizen initiative has no party sponsor, so for 13 of these 14 measures there is no official partisan label to report — only inference. Use the needle to get oriented, then read the measure and decide for yourself.
What it costs
About $60,000 in one-time state system updates ($50,000 Revenue, $10,000 Natural Resources), with no funding source identified. Most of the ongoing workload falls on county district attorney offices, since the duty triggers after charges are filed.
Who it touches: Anyone charged with a violent crime, or charged with any crime who has a prior felony conviction, plus police, jails and district attorney offices statewide.
Who put it on your ballot
Conservative
People who filed it
Campaigning for it
Campaigning against it
Michael Fields leads Advance Colorado, a conservative advocacy nonprofit that does not disclose its donors and was behind roughly half of this year's citizen initiatives. Suzanne Taheri is a longtime Republican attorney and former Colorado deputy secretary of state. No party formally sponsors a citizen initiative.
Who is paying for the ads
Money for it
Money against it
What the money tells you
Roughly even once you discount the slate committees, which spread their money across many measures.
Figures are a late-September 2026 snapshot from TRACER campaign-finance filings and will have moved since. A committee marked slate spreads one total across several measures — do not read its number as spending on this measure alone.
Questions people ask
Common questions (6)
The things people want to know before they vote, answered from primary sources where they exist. Every answer was drafted with AI assistance from retrieved documents, then read and approved by a person. Figures carry the year they refer to.
What does Colorado law currently say about police cooperation with federal immigration authorities?
Current Colorado law allows police to cooperate with federal immigration authorities on criminal matters but strictly limits their involvement in civil immigration enforcement.
Under laws passed by the state legislature in 2019, 2023, and 2025, local law enforcement agencies face several restrictions. Police and sheriffs cannot arrest or hold someone in jail solely based on a civil immigration detainer request from federal authorities without a warrant signed by a judge. State and local employees, including probation officers, are prohibited from sharing a person's personal information with federal immigration authorities for civil enforcement. Additionally, local governments cannot enter into contracts to hold people in local facilities for civil immigration violations.
Supporters of Amendment 81 argue that these current restrictions prevent local police from coordinating with federal authorities to identify and remove violent individuals and repeat offenders who are in the country unlawfully. They say the measure would create a uniform statewide standard for cooperation.
Opponents argue that current law already allows police to work with federal authorities on criminal matters. They say forcing local police to report individuals to federal authorities before they are convicted of a crime undermines the presumption of innocence and damages trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.
How many people in Colorado are charged with violent crimes or have prior felonies each year?
The state of Colorado does not publish a single, combined count of how many people are charged with violent crimes or have prior felony convictions each year.
While exact charge counts are unavailable, related statistics provide some context for how many people Measure A81 might affect: * According to the FBI, Colorado's violent crime rate in 2024 was 476 per 100,000 people, which is about 32 percent higher than the national average. * The Colorado Division of Criminal Justice reported that violent crime rates decreased by 13.3 percent in the first half of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024. * Not all reported crimes result in an arrest or formal charges. * The Colorado Judicial Branch reported 205,927 total cases filed in district courts, which handle felonies, during Fiscal Year 2024. * The state does not maintain a public, centralized count of how many defendants charged with new crimes already have a felony conviction on their record.
Because Measure A81's reporting requirement triggers when charges are filed, the state's fiscal note estimates that most of the ongoing workload will fall on county district attorney offices. However, the fiscal note does not estimate the exact number of individuals this will apply to.
How many other states require local law enforcement to report a suspect's immigration status to federal authorities before a conviction?
There is no single official count of how many states require local law enforcement to report a suspect's immigration status to federal authorities before a conviction. State laws vary widely and frequently change due to ongoing court challenges.
However, several states mandate that local police check the immigration status of people they arrest or cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). For example, a 2024 Georgia law requires jailers to check the immigration status of anyone arrested and report suspected undocumented individuals to ICE. Other states with laws mandating local cooperation with ICE include Texas, Florida, and Tennessee.
Conversely, at least 11 states have laws that limit how much local police can cooperate with federal immigration authorities, according to a 2025 report by the Migration Policy Institute. In these states, local law enforcement is often prohibited from asking about a suspect's immigration status or holding them for ICE without a judicial warrant.
Supporters of mandatory reporting laws argue they help remove criminals from communities and ensure local police assist federal immigration efforts. Opponents argue these mandates strain local police resources, erode trust in immigrant communities, and make victims less likely to report crimes.
What specific databases or methods are local law enforcement agencies required to use to make a reasonable effort to determine a person's immigration status?
The text of Amendment 81 does not specify which databases or methods law enforcement must use, leaving the term "reasonable effort" undefined. According to the 2026 State Ballot Information Booklet, the state's official voter guide known as the Blue Book, the measure requires police, correctional officers, and prosecutors to try to determine if a person is lawfully present in the United States. This duty triggers when someone is formally charged with a violent crime, or charged with any crime if they have a prior felony conviction.
Supporters argue that this requirement ensures local authorities cooperate with federal immigration enforcement when dealing with individuals accused of serious crimes. They say it provides a necessary check on people who may be in the country illegally and are facing criminal charges, which they argue makes all communities safer.
Opponents point out that because "reasonable effort" is left vague, the measure could lead to inconsistent practices across different police departments and district attorney offices. They argue this ambiguity might result in racial profiling or cause immigrant communities to fear reporting crimes to local police. The Blue Book also notes that the measure does not set a penalty for agencies that fail to make this effort or notify the federal government.
What happens to an individual who is reported to federal immigration authorities under this measure but is later found not guilty of the state charges?
Under Amendment 81, an individual reported to federal immigration authorities could still face federal detention or deportation even if they are later found not guilty of the state charges.
The measure requires local law enforcement and district attorneys to notify federal authorities within 72 hours of filing certain criminal charges if they cannot confirm the person is lawfully present in the United States. Because this notification happens before a trial, the federal government receives the information regardless of the case's final outcome.
Immigration enforcement is a separate federal civil process. Once federal authorities are notified, they can choose to investigate, detain, or initiate deportation proceedings based on the individual's immigration status, independent of the state criminal court's verdict.
Opponents argue this undermines the presumption of innocence, as people found not guilty could still suffer deportation based on unproven allegations. The 2026 Legislative Council Blue Book notes opponents' concerns that legally present individuals could also be swept up in enforcement actions if their status cannot be verified within 72 hours. Supporters designed the measure to ensure federal authorities are alerted when individuals whose legal status cannot be confirmed are accused of serious crimes, allowing federal agencies to enforce immigration law.
How much will it cost county district attorney offices statewide to implement the required immigration status checks and meet the 72-hour reporting deadline?
There is no specific statewide dollar estimate for how much Amendment 81 will cost county district attorney offices. According to the 2026 Colorado State Ballot Information Booklet, most of the new workload will fall on district attorneys. This is because the requirement to check a defendant's immigration status triggers after criminal charges are filed. The state's fiscal analysis notes that local costs will vary by jurisdiction depending on how many qualifying cases they handle.
At the state level, the fiscal note estimates the measure will cost $60,000 in the 2026-2027 budget year for one-time computer system updates. This includes $50,000 for the Department of Revenue and $10,000 for the Department of Natural Resources. The measure does not identify a funding source for these costs.
Supporters argue the measure will create a consistent statewide standard for notifying federal authorities about repeat offenders and people accused of violent crimes. Opponents, including some district attorneys, argue the mandate will strain local resources and erode community trust. They say this breakdown in trust could make victims less likely to report crimes.
Go deeper, if you want
We had two AIs summarize this independently Minor differences
Both models got the same official text, the same instructions, and could not see each other's answer. Here is each one in its own words.
Claude
Right now Colorado police can help federal authorities on criminal matters but are limited in helping with civil immigration enforcement. This measure says that when someone is charged with a violent crime - or charged with any crime at all if they have a past felony conviction - law enforcement must make a reasonable effort to find out whether that person is legally in the United States. If they cannot confirm the person is here legally, they must tell federal immigration authorities within 72 hours. This happens when charges are filed, before any court has decided guilt.
Flagged: It triggers at charging, not conviction. And the 'prior felony' branch covers any new charge however minor - the Blue Book specifically names traffic violations and petty offenses.
Gemini
Amendment 81 requires Colorado police and prosecutors to notify federal immigration authorities if they charge someone with a violent crime or if the person has a past felony. This rule applies if the person is in the country illegally or if their legal status cannot be confirmed. The notification must happen within 72 hours of the charges being filed, before a trial takes place.
Flagged: The notification happens before a person is proven guilty, and applies to minor charges like traffic tickets if the person has a prior felony.
Where they came apart
- Both land on the same substance and both independently flagged the same two catches: notification happens before any conviction, and the 'prior felony' branch reaches down to traffic tickets.
- Gemini's plain summary compresses the two triggers into one and reads as 'charged with a violent crime, or has a past felony' — it drops that the second branch also requires being charged with a new crime. Small, but it makes the measure sound broader than it is.
- Gemini describes the cost as 'minor costs to update computer systems' without the Blue Book's actual figures ($50,000 Revenue, $10,000 Natural Resources) or its note that no funding source is identified. Claude includes both.
The comparison notes were written by Claude — one of the two models grading the contest — which is exactly why both summaries are printed above them in full.
The other model's take on cost and reach second opinion
Cost: State and local governments will face increased workloads and minor costs to update computer systems and access federal databases. Most of the new workload will fall on district attorney offices.
Who it touches: Individuals charged with violent crimes or who have prior felonies, and state and local law enforcement agencies.
Did this explanation help?
Rate the explanation, not the measure. It tells us what to write better.
Discussion
Disagreement is welcome. Personal attacks are not.
No comments yet. Be the first.
Source: 2026 Colorado State Ballot Information Booklet (the "Blue Book"), Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly, Research Publication No. 842. Read the original.