Colorado's Amendment 81 Would Put an ICE Notice on the Charging Desk: 72 Hours, Two Triggers, a 55% Bar

“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?” [1]

That is the question Colorado voters answer on Tuesday as Amendment 81. If it reaches 55 percent, it writes a notice duty into the state constitution that lands on police officers, jail staff and, mostly, prosecutors [1, 2]. Ballots went out to registered voters between October 2 and October 9 [1].

What the measure says

The filed text is short. It adds a section to Article XVIII of the constitution with three parts [2].

Who. “Law enforcement” means a certified peace officer employed by a law enforcement agency, a correctional officer, or an attorney or investigator employed by a district attorney [2].

When. Within 72 hours after charging a person, “notwithstanding any other provision of Colorado law,” law enforcement shall notify the federal Department of Homeland Security if two things are true [2]. First, the person is not lawfully present, or their status is unknown “after a reasonable attempt to determine it has been made” [2]. Second, the charge is a crime of violence as defined by Colorado statute, or the person has a prior felony conviction [2].

Duty to check. Law enforcement must make a “reasonable effort” to determine whether a person who would be subject to notice is lawfully present [2].

The Legislative Council’s analysis fills in the reach. A crime of violence covers offenses such as murder, assault, arson, escape, extortion, kidnapping, aggravated robbery and certain sexual and human trafficking offenses [1]. The prior-felony trigger has no time limit, and it applies to any new charge, “including traffic violations, petty offenses, misdemeanors, and felonies” [1]. The duty attaches at formal charging, “not at the time of arrest,” and before any finding of guilt [1].

The text names no penalty for missing the 72-hour window and sets no effective date of its own [2]. It also does not say what a reasonable effort is or how status is to be verified.

How Colorado got here

Current law runs the other way. The Blue Book summarizes it: state and local agencies may cooperate on federal criminal law, but their role in civil immigration enforcement is limited, and they may not share certain nonpublic personal information with federal immigration authorities without a federal law, court order or judicial warrant requiring it [1]. Employees who break those rules face a fine of up to $50,000 [1]. Neither federal nor state law requires an agency to tell immigration authorities when a person without lawful status is charged [1].

The Gazette traced that framework to two bills. HB 19-1124 bars officers from arresting someone solely on a civil immigration detainer [5]. SB 25-276, signed by Gov. Jared Polis on May 23, 2025, extended the information-sharing limits to school districts, special districts, the courts, the legislature and public colleges, with the $50,000 civil penalty [5].

Local practice varies inside those limits. The Blue Book points to Denver, which bars federal immigration authorities from city-controlled property such as courthouses, and to El Paso County, which requires officers to notify immigration authorities when they suspect someone in custody lacks legal status [1]. Amendment 81 would set one statewide floor above both [1].

Advance Colorado put the measure on the ballot by petition. The Gazette reported 142,299 valid signatures against 124,238 required [5].

What it changes for the people doing the work

District attorneys carry most of it. Because the trigger is a charge, the Legislative Council expects “most of the workload will fall on district attorney offices,” varying with how many people each jurisdiction charges [1].

Every prior-felony case becomes a status question. The violent-crime trigger is narrow. The prior-felony trigger is not. A person with a felony from decades ago who is charged with a petty offense falls inside the text, and the charging office must then decide whether it has made a reasonable attempt to confirm status [1, 2]. Denver District Attorney John Walsh described the practical result: “Unless a person charged with a crime happens to be carrying their passport, or unless local law enforcement can verify their immigration status within 72 hours, Amendment 81 would require us to report that person to ICE” [3].

Systems and access. The Legislative Council puts state costs in 2026-27 at $50,000 for the Department of Revenue to reach federal databases and update programs, and $10,000 for the Department of Natural Resources [1]. It lists added workload for Higher Education, Human Services, Judicial, Law and Public Safety, plus police, district attorneys and Regional Transportation District officers locally [1]. The measure names no funding source; the analysis assumes the General Fund [1]. No local dollar figure is given.

The overlap with current law. The text says it applies notwithstanding other Colorado law [2]. How that sits beside the SB 25-276 penalty for sharing personal information is not spelled out in the measure.

No data exist to size any of this. State and local authorities do not track how many people without lawful status are charged with crimes of violence, or with any crime after a prior felony, the Blue Book says [1].

Where the sides stand

The case for it, in the Blue Book’s words: violent and repeat offenders living in the country unlawfully “should be reported to federal immigration authorities,” and a uniform statewide standard would reduce variation among local policies [1]. Kristi Burton Brown, executive vice president of Advance Colorado, told Colorado Politics the measure “gives Colorado law enforcement the ability to report violent criminals or repeat felons if they are here illegally without facing a $50,000 fine from the state” [4]. She said reports would come only after there is enough evidence to charge, and that nothing in the measure allows profiling or gives ICE agents new authority [4].

The case against, also in the Blue Book: charges are allegations, and people lawfully present could be “swept up in immigration enforcement actions if they are unable to prove their status in the measure’s strict 72-hour timeframe” [1]. Opponents add that leaving “reasonable effort” and “lawful presence” undefined pushes the decision onto individual officers and could deter people from reporting crimes [1]. Walsh called it “a recipe for abuse and racial and ethnic profiling” [3]. ACLU Colorado director Olivia Mendoza said, “ICE has no place in our state, and Amendment 81 invites them to take a strong foothold in Colorado” [4].

The associations that speak for police and sheriffs have stayed out. The Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police is neutral, and the County Sheriffs of Colorado has taken no position on any ballot measure, Colorado Newsline reported [3].

Polis’s position on Amendment 81 does not appear in the record this piece draws on. He has disputed the “sanctuary state” label, saying Colorado “fully cooperates with federal authorities in identifying, apprehending and prosecuting criminals – regardless of immigration status” [4].

Also on the Colorado ballot

Two statutory measures need only a simple majority. Proposition 132 would make possession of any amount of fentanyl a felony and require 8 to 32 years in prison for distributing any amount, removing the “Good Samaritan” reduction for distribution [1]. The Legislative Council projects state spending rising to $68.2 million by year five, with added prosecution costs for county-funded district attorneys [1]. Proposition 133 would mandate life without parole for child sex trafficking and add buying sexual activity with a minor to the offense [1].

What I’m watching

Tuesday, November 3. Polls close at 7 p.m. [1]. Amendment 81 needs 55 percent; Propositions 132 and 133 need a majority [1].

January 1, 2027. The date written into Proposition 132’s text if it passes [1]. Amendment 81’s text carries no such date [2], so the first practical question for prosecutors is what counts as a reasonable attempt by hour 72.