Colorado Rejects the ICE Notice and Backs Fentanyl Minimums; Arizona Sends Photo Radar to Local Voters

Colorado voters turned down the immigration notice that would have landed on the charging desk. In the same count they were approving a mandatory eight-year floor for anyone who sells fentanyl, in any amount. The two results point the same direction for one group: district attorneys keep their current immigration rules and pick up longer, harder drug cases on January 1 [1, 2, 4].

Arizona’s ballot reached a different part of the job. Prop 319 freezes photo traffic enforcement at whatever contracts exist on Dec. 31 and makes cities ask their voters before they keep the cameras running [7, 8].

Every figure below is unofficial. Counting was still under way in both states when this column went out.

The Colorado count, measure by measure

Amendment 81 (notice to Homeland Security). As this column laid out on November 2, the measure would have required peace officers, jailers and district attorney staff to notify the federal Department of Homeland Security within 72 hours of charging certain people whose lawful presence they could not confirm. As a constitutional amendment it needed 55 percent [1]. Wednesday morning’s unofficial tally had it at 44.97 percent yes and 55.03 percent no, and the Associated Press called it as failing, Colorado Politics reported [2].

Proposition 132 (fentanyl penalties). A statutory measure, so a simple majority carries it [1]. It led 52.46 percent to 47.54 percent in early returns Tuesday night [3]. By Wednesday it stood at 52.8 percent to 47.2 percent, a lead of about 130,000 votes, and Colorado Politics described it as “poised to win” if those returns held [4]. No call had been reported in that coverage.

Proposition 133 (child sex trafficking). Early returns Tuesday showed 61.53 percent yes and 38.47 percent no [5]. On Wednesday the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault conceded, saying, “We are heartbroken and deeply disappointed by the passage of” the measure [6].

When do Colorado’s new fentanyl and trafficking penalties start?

Both statutory measures carry the same date. Proposition 132’s text says, “This measure is effective January 1, 2027” [1]. Proposition 133 takes effect that day “and applies to offenses committed on or after that date” [1]. A trafficking offense committed before then stays under current law.

What changes for prosecutors and courts under 132, per the Legislative Council’s analysis [1]:

• Distribution, any amount. A mandatory prison term of 8 to 32 years. Today that range is reserved for distribution to a minor, more than 50 grams, or at least 4 grams that caused a death. Distribution under 4 grams currently carries a possible 2 to 4 years.
• Good Samaritan. The penalty reduction for people who report an overdose and stay goes away for distribution charges. It stays for some low-level possession.
• Possession. Any amount becomes a felony. Under 1 gram, the court must order treatment, and completing it can drop the charge to a misdemeanor. Over 1 gram, that route closes.
• Mitigation. Judges may not weigh factors such as whether the person reasonably believed the substance held no fentanyl.

The Legislative Council projects state spending rising to $68.2 million by year five and says the state may need more prison space [1]. It also expects higher costs for county-funded district attorneys “to prosecute longer cases with enhanced penalties” [1]. The measure names no funding source [1].

Proposition 133 makes child sex trafficking a class 1 felony with life without parole, up from a class 2 felony carrying 8 to 48 years plus five years of mandatory parole [1]. It adds “knowingly trades anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor” to the offense, so buyers fall inside it [1]. The analysis expects only a minimal workload increase for district attorneys and puts the first prison costs in budget year 2041-42, at $180,000 [1].

What Amendment 81’s defeat leaves in place

Nothing new. The limits the Blue Book described before the vote stay: agencies may cooperate on federal criminal law, but they may not share certain nonpublic personal information with federal immigration authorities absent a federal law, court order or judicial warrant, with fines up to $50,000 [1]. Local variation stays too. Denver’s restrictions on federal immigration authorities on city property, and El Paso County’s practice of notifying them when officers suspect a person in custody lacks legal status, were the two examples the analysis cited [1].

Arizona: photo radar goes back to the voters

Prop 319 was referred by the Legislature as SCR 1004 [7]. The AP called it at 1:34 a.m. Wednesday with 59 percent of the vote, KJZZ reported [8]. By Wednesday afternoon, with about 84 percent counted, it held 61 percent [9].

The text, as it would add Arizona Revised Statutes section 28-1207 [7]:

• A local authority or state agency may not use a photo enforcement system for speeding or red-light violations unless it has a signed contract “on or before december 31, 2026.”
• A local authority with such a contract must seek its voters’ approval at the next general election after the law takes effect.
• If voters say no, the system must stop within 90 days of that election.
• If voters say yes, the system may run for ten years, and the question returns to the ballot every ten years after that.

By this column’s reading, the voter-approval steps name only local authorities; the text sets no ballot requirement for a state agency that signs a contract in time [7]. The measure becomes law on the governor’s proclamation once voters approve it [7].

The Legislature’s stated intent is to “keep the enforcement of the laws in this state in the hands of trained law enforcement officers” and to ensure enforcement does “not generate revenue for governments” [7]. Tempe Mayor Corey Woods, whose city restarted cameras amid a police officer shortage, said, “We’ve seen a reduction in fatal crashes and collisions by over 21%” [9]. He said he is “not sure” there will be enough support to keep the cameras after 2028 [9].

Prop 317, referred as HCR 2055, declares drug cartels terrorist organizations and says the Arizona Department of Homeland Security “shall do everything within its authority to address the threat posed by drug cartels” [10]. It defines a cartel as an association engaged in human smuggling, drug trafficking for profit or terrorism as state law defines it, and says nothing in it supports an asylum claim [10]. KTAR reported it adds no money for law enforcement and no harsher penalties [11]. This column does not report a tally for it.

Where the sides stand

On Amendment 81, supporters’ case in the Blue Book was a uniform statewide standard so that violent and repeat offenders without lawful status “should be reported to federal immigration authorities” [1]. Henry Sandman of the opposing Colorado Communities First campaign said after the call, “No Coloradan should be subjected to ICE overreach based on mere allegations of a crime” [2].

On Proposition 132, Advance Colorado and other backers argued that while deaths have dropped, “the numbers remain far too high for any society to tolerate,” Colorado Politics reported [3]. Opponents said it “would punish people struggling with addiction” [3]. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, who supports higher fentanyl sentences, said “the proposal mandates treatment without any of the resources cities need to actually provide that treatment” [3].

On Proposition 133, Douglas County Sheriff Darren Weekly said, “This measure gives law enforcement the decisive tools needed to take predators off our streets permanently” [6]. The Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault argued sentencing should stay with judges who can weigh each case [5].

On Prop 317, House Speaker Steve Montenegro said it “makes sure that our law enforcement agents across the state can use every tool” [11]. Gov. Katie Hobbs, vetoing a similar bill in 2023, wrote, “Labeling drug cartels as terrorist organizations to deploy state resources is not a real solution” [11].

What I’m watching

December 31, 2026. The last day an Arizona city, county or state agency can sign a photo enforcement contract and stay inside Prop 319 [7].

January 1, 2027. Propositions 132 and 133 take effect in Colorado if their leads hold [1]. Proposition 133 ties its new penalty to the offense date. Proposition 132’s effective-date section does not mention offense dates at all [1], so the first question for district attorneys is which range applies to a small-quantity sale made in December and charged in January.