Amendment 81Law Enforcement Communication with Federal Immigration Authorities
Read the full text of the measure: on this page or in the Blue Book (PDF, page 69)
In plain words
Amendment 81 covers people charged with a violent crime, and people charged with any crime who already have a felony (serious crime) on their record. Police, jailers and prosecutors would have to try to find out if the person is lawfully present, meaning allowed under the law to be in the U.S. If they cannot confirm it, they would have to tell the federal Department of Homeland Security within 72 hours of filing the charges. source: Blue Book, p. 15
Before and after
| Question | Today | If Amendment 81 passes |
|---|---|---|
| Must officers tell federal immigration officials when certain people are charged? | No. Neither state nor federal law requires it. | Yes, within 72 hours of filing charges, if the person's legal status cannot be confirmed |
| Who is covered? | No one. There is no notice rule. | People charged with a violent crime (such as murder, assault, arson or kidnapping), and people with any past felony charged with any crime, even a traffic violation |
| When does the check happen? | No check is required | When charges are filed, before any court decides guilt or innocence |
| Can each city or county set its own policy? | Yes, within state law. Denver keeps federal immigration agents off city property like courthouses. El Paso County has officers notify them when they suspect someone in custody lacks legal status. | Every agency must follow the new notice rule |
| Cost to the state | No added cost today. The cost at right is what this measure would add | About $60,000 in budget year 2026-27 for computer and database work |
From the official analysis source: Blue Book, p. 15
Example
Illustration only: A person was convicted of a felony many years ago. Today they are charged with a traffic violation. If the prosecutor cannot confirm the person is in the U.S. legally, the prosecutor must notify the Department of Homeland Security within 72 hours of filing the charge, before any trial. source: Blue Book, p. 15
Biggest change
- Officers, jailers and prosecutors would have to notify the federal Department of Homeland Security within 72 hours of charging certain people whose legal status they cannot confirm. Today no state or federal law requires that notice. source: Blue Book, p. 15
Who it affects most: People charged with a violent crime, or with any crime after a past felony, whose legal status cannot be confirmed, and the district attorney offices that would do most of the checking.
Cost to the state: About $60,000 for the state in budget year 2026-27: $50,000 for the Department of Revenue and $10,000 for the Department of Natural Resources, for computer and database updates. The Blue Book assumes it comes from the General Fund (the state's main account for everyday spending). Local police and district attorneys will have more work, but the Blue Book gives no dollar amount for them.
Our plain-words summary at an 8th-grade reading level. Every line points to its source.
What your vote means
Officers must notify federal immigration officials within 72 hours of charging someone with a violent crime, or someone with a past felony, whose legal status they cannot confirm.
No law requires that notice, and state limits on sharing private information with federal immigration officials stay in place.
Our plain-words summary.
The Blue Book's official wording of YES and NO (tap to open)
YES: 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.
NO: 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.
Why people want it, and why others object
Why this is on the ballot
- Citizens put this on the ballot by gathering voter signatures (a citizen initiative). It would change the Colorado Constitution, the state's highest set of laws, which only a statewide vote can change. It needs 55 percent of the vote to pass. source: Blue Book, p. 15
- Today each city and county sets its own level of cooperation with federal immigration officials, within state law. Denver keeps federal immigration agents off city property like courthouses, while El Paso County has officers notify them when they suspect someone in custody lacks legal status. State and local agencies do not track how many people who are not lawfully present are charged with these crimes. source: Blue Book, p. 15
Why supporters want it
- 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. source: Blue Book, p. 15
- 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. source: Blue Book, p. 15
Why opponents object
- 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. source: Blue Book, p. 15
- 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. source: Blue Book, p. 15
Who backs each side
Most totals are through October 4, 2026 (Rocky Mountain Voice, Oct 6); some are as of September 21 (Colorado Politics). Spending grows until Election Day. These figures come from news reports of state campaign finance filings and were not checked line by line against the filings.
- For: A Brighter Colorado reported $311,000 as of Sept 21. Top donors: Common Sense America ($250,000) and Advance Colorado ($20,000).
- Against: Colorado Communities First reported $239,644 through Oct 4. Top donors: Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition ($158,954) and ACLU of Colorado ($58,597).
Sources: Rocky Mountain Voice, Oct 6, 2026 · Colorado Politics, Sept 25, 2026 · Colorado Secretary of State: committees for and against 2026 measures · TRACER campaign finance search
Supporter and opponent arguments are the official ones printed in the Blue Book, written by the Legislative Council's nonpartisan staff after hearing from both sides. Who is registered for and against (Secretary of State) . We don't endorse either side.
At a glance
Our plain-words summary of the official Blue Book analysis. Every line points to its source.
Who it affects
- People charged with a crime of violence (for example murder, assault, arson, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, certain sexual offenses and human trafficking) whose lawful presence in the U.S. is not confirmed. (Blue Book, p. 15 )
- People with any prior felony conviction, from any year, who are charged with any new offense, including traffic violations, petty offenses and misdemeanors, whose lawful presence is not confirmed. (Blue Book, p. 15 )
- It applies when charges are filed, not at arrest, and before any court decides guilt or innocence. (Blue Book, p. 15 )
- Agencies that must do the work: police and sheriffs, correctional officers, district attorney offices (most of the workload, because the check happens after charges are filed), RTD police, and state departments that employ officers. (Blue Book, p. 15 )
- Local policies that differ today would be replaced by one statewide rule. For example, Denver limits federal immigration agents on city property, and El Paso County already requires officers to notify federal authorities when they suspect someone in custody lacks legal status. (Blue Book, p. 15 )
How many: Unknown. The Blue Book says state and local authorities do not track or publish how many people who are not lawfully present are charged with crimes of violence, or charged with any crime after a prior felony conviction.
Money: economic and budget impact
- State: one-time costs of about $50,000 for the Department of Revenue (federal database access and programming) and $10,000 for the Department of Natural Resources (computer updates) in budget year 2026-27, assumed to come from the General Fund. (Blue Book, p. 15 )
- State: more workload, with no dollar estimate, in the departments of Higher Education, Human Services, Judicial, Law and Public Safety. (Blue Book, p. 15 )
- Local: more workload and possible system-update costs for police, sheriffs, district attorneys and RTD. The amount depends on how many people are charged in each place. No dollar estimate is given. (Blue Book, p. 15 )
- No new tax and no change in state revenue is listed. (Blue Book, p. 15 )
Officers, jailers and prosecutors must make a reasonable effort to find out whether a person charged with a covered crime is lawfully present. If they cannot confirm it, they must notify the federal Department of Homeland Security within 72 hours of filing charges. Because it is a constitutional amendment, changing it later would take another statewide vote.
Current law stays. Colorado law allows cooperation on federal criminal matters but limits state and local help with civil immigration enforcement, and bars sharing some nonpublic personal information without a court order, judicial warrant or federal law requirement. No law requires notifying immigration authorities when someone is charged. Local governments keep setting their own policies within state law.
Not yet known
- How many people a year would be reported. No official count exists, and the guide has not yet found a credible independent estimate.
Can it actually be enforced?
Short answer: Partly. Colorado can require its own officers, jailers and prosecutors to send the notice. It cannot make federal immigration agents do anything with it.
- What the state controls: its own police, sheriffs, jails, prosecutors and records. A state constitution binds state and local officials, so the duty to check status and notify would apply to them, replacing the different local policies the Blue Book describes. (Blue Book, p. 15 )
- Federal law already forbids any government from blocking its officials from sharing a person's citizenship or immigration status with federal immigration authorities (8 U.S.C. 1373). A state rule that requires sharing goes in the same direction as that law, not against it. (law.cornell.edu )
- What the state cannot control: what federal agents do next. The amendment only requires a notice. Whether ICE or DHS acts (a detainer, an arrest, removal or nothing) is a federal decision. The U.S. Supreme Court has said the federal Executive Branch has broad discretion over immigration enforcement priorities, and that courts generally will not order more arrests or prosecutions (United States v. Texas, 2023). (supreme.justia.com )
- The anti-commandeering rule works the other way. It stops the federal government from ordering states to carry out federal programs (Murphy v. NCAA, 2018). It does not stop a state from choosing to cooperate, which is what Amendment 81 would do. So Colorado's current limits are a state choice, and this amendment would be a different state choice. (supreme.justia.com )
- Federal preemption risk looks limited but is not zero. In Arizona v. United States (2012) the Supreme Court struck down parts of Arizona's immigration law but let its status-check provision stand, while warning that holding people longer just to check status could raise constitutional problems. Amendment 81 asks for checks and a notice after charges are filed. It does not on its face authorize holding anyone longer. (supreme.justia.com )
- Possible legal challenges: the Blue Book's arguments against point to due process (reporting before any conviction) and to undefined terms like "reasonable effort" and "lawful presence". Whether a court would agree is not known. (Blue Book, p. 15 )
- Gaps in the text: the Blue Book does not describe any penalty for an officer who fails to notify, or who would enforce the duty. (Blue Book, p. 15 )
Not yet known
- Whether lawsuits have been filed or threatened over Amendment 81, or how courts have treated similar notice-on-charge laws in other states. We have not finished this search yet.
This is our reading of the cited law, not legal advice. Court outcomes are uncertain.
Official ballot wording
Official ballot wording, word for word (tap to open)
The ballot title, word for word from the 2026 Blue Book.
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?
The official analysis
The full Blue Book analysis, word for word (tap to open)
Everything in this section is quoted from the nonpartisan Legislative Council's 2026 State Ballot Information Booklet (the Blue Book). Charts are described in words. Read the full Blue Book (PDF)
Amendment 81 proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to:
- require state and local law enforcement to make a reasonable effort to determine whether an individual charged with a crime is lawfully present, if the charge is a crime of violence or the individual has a prior felony conviction; and
- notify federal immigration authorities within 72 hours of filing charges if law enforcement cannot determine that the charged individual is lawfully present in the United States.
Summary and Analysis of Amendment 81
What does the measure do?
Amendment 81 requires certified peace officers employed by a law enforcement agency, correctional officers, and district attorney personnel to notify the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) within 72 hours of charging someone with a crime if the charge is a crime of violence or if the individual has a prior felony conviction. The notification requirement applies if the charged individual is not lawfully present in the United States, or if their lawful status cannot be determined.
Which individuals are subject to notification?
The measure applies to an individual charged with, but not yet convicted of, a crime of violence, which are crimes causing serious bodily harm or death to another person, or involving the use of a deadly weapon. This includes crimes such as murder, assault, arson, escape, extortion, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and certain sexual offenses and human trafficking.
The measure also applies to individuals with any prior felony conviction, regardless of when it occurred, who are charged with any type of crime—including traffic violations, petty offenses, misdemeanors, and felonies.
In all cases, the measure applies once the individual is formally charged with a crime, not at the time of arrest, and before any legal process has determined whether they are guilty or innocent.
What is current law related to communication with federal immigration authorities?
Colorado law currently permits state and local law enforcement to cooperate in the enforcement of federal criminal law, but limits state and local participation in civil immigration enforcement. Among other restrictions, state and local government agencies and employees are prohibited from sharing certain nonpublic personal information with federal immigration authorities, unless directed by federal law, a court order, or a judicial warrant. Employees who violate these prohibitions may be subject to a fine of up to $50,000. However, neither federal nor state law require law enforcement agencies to notify federal immigration authorities when unlawfully present individuals are charged with crimes. State and local authorities do not currently track or publish data on how many unlawfully present individuals are charged with crimes of violence or are charged with any crime after a prior felony conviction.
What authority do local governments have to engage with federal immigration authorities?
Unless prohibited by state law, local governments have the authority to determine their level of cooperation and communication with federal immigration authorities. For example, the City and County of Denver expanded upon state law by prohibiting federal immigration authorities from accessing city-controlled property like courthouses. Conversely, El Paso County requires officers to notify federal immigration authorities if they suspect that an individual in their custody does not have legal status.
Arguments For Amendment 81
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.
Arguments Against Amendment 81
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.
Information about the organizations supporting and opposing this measure is available on the Colorado Secretary of State's website:
www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/Initiatives/ballot/contacts/2026.html
Fiscal Impact of Amendment 81
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.
Latest news
Recent reporting from a range of outlets, newest first. We link to it; we don't endorse it.
- 2026-10-02 Colorado Politics: Amendment 81 | Local cooperation with federal immigration authorities
- 2026-09-29 The Colorado Sun: Amendment 81 explained: Colorado law enforcement would have to work with ICE
- 2026-09-25 CPR News: Amendment 81: Requires local law enforcement to communicate with ICE
- 2026-09-14 Colorado Newsline: Police cooperation with ICE to appear on Colorado ballot
Coverage of all the statewide measures
- 2026-10-06 Rocky Mountain Voice: What's on your 2026 Colorado ballot: all 14 statewide measures
- 2026-09-25 Colorado Politics: Major donors fuel Colorado ballot measure fights across the state
- 2026-09-25 CPR News: 2026 Colorado state ballot measures voter guide
Full text of the measure
Word for word from the Blue Book, page 69 (PDF ). Where the measure changes existing statutes, new wording is in CAPITAL LETTERS, as in the printed booklet.
Show the full text
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.
Read more
- 2026 Blue Book (PDF) , including the full legal text of the measure
- Colorado Secretary of State: who is registered for and against
- TRACER: Colorado campaign finance filings
What people are saying
Official campaign accounts on each side, and public posts. Links only: nothing here loads from social media sites. We link to posts; we don't endorse them.
No official campaign accounts listed yet.
Colorado Communities First
Website ↗ · Instagram ↗ · Facebook ↗