Skip to main content
The Full Record
Menu

Amendment 81: Law Enforcement Communication with Federal Immigration Authorities

Statewide — all of Colorado

General election · Tuesday, November 3, 2026

  • Placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. The Blue Book lists 14 statewide measures on the November 3, 2026 ballot.[1][2]

The question on the ballot

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]

Requires peace officers, correctional officers and district attorney personnel to make a reasonable effort to determine the lawful presence of a person charged with a crime of violence, or charged with any crime after a prior felony conviction, and to notify the U.S. Department of Homeland Security within 72 hours of charging if lawful presence cannot be determined. Current Colorado law permits cooperation with federal criminal enforcement but limits state and local participation in civil immigration enforcement. Passes with 55 percent of the vote. Fiscal impact per the Blue Book: state spending and workload rise for agencies that employ officers, including $50,000 for the Department of Revenue and $10,000 for the Department of Natural Resources for system updates; most workload falls on local governments, chiefly district attorney offices.[1]

A YES vote means

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 means

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.

The law today

Per the Blue Book: Colorado law permits state and local law enforcement to cooperate in enforcing federal criminal law but limits state and local participation in civil immigration enforcement, and bars sharing certain nonpublic personal information with federal immigration authorities absent federal law, a court order or a judicial warrant (violations can bring a fine of up to $50,000). Neither federal nor state law requires agencies to notify federal immigration authorities when unlawfully present people are charged. Local governments set their own level of cooperation unless state law prohibits it; Denver bars federal immigration authorities from accessing city-controlled property such as courthouses, while El Paso County requires officers to notify them if they suspect a person in custody lacks legal status.[1]

Official fiscal estimate

Per the Blue Book: in 2026-27 state spending and workload rise for agencies employing law enforcement officers, including $50,000 for the Department of Revenue to access federal databases and $10,000 for the Department of Natural Resources for system updates, assumed to come from the General Fund. Local law enforcement, mostly district attorney offices, face increased workload and possible systems-update spending that varies by jurisdiction.[1]

Read the full text of the measure ↗

Arguments made for

  • Blue Book argument for: "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."[1]
  • Blue Book argument for: "The measure creates a new uniform statewide standard for cooperation with federal immigration authorities."[1]

Arguments made against

  • Blue Book argument against: "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."[1]
  • Blue Book argument against: "The measure is too broad to be enforced equitably and consistently, which erodes trust between law enforcement and their communities."[1]

On record in support

  • A Brighter Colorado: registered supporting issue committee (Secretary of State list).[3]
  • Eagle County Republican Women Club: registered supporting issue committee (Secretary of State list).[3]
  • Advance Colorado: Colorado Politics calls Amendment 81 “another Advance Colorado measure”; the initiative's designated representatives file c/o West Group per the Secretary of State.[4][3]

On record in opposition

  • Colorado Communities First: registered opposing issue committee (Secretary of State list).[3]
  • The People's No: registered opposing issue committee (Secretary of State list).[3]
  • Vote Common Sense: registered opposing issue committee (Secretary of State list); Colorado Politics reports it also opposes Amendments 82 and 85.[3][4]
  • People for a Fair Colorado: registered opposing issue committee (Secretary of State list).[3]
  • Make Good Change: registered opposing issue committee (Secretary of State list).[3]

Campaign money

Supporting: A Brighter Colorado had raised nearly $3 million through Oct. 13 across all measures it takes a side on, most of it $1.75 million from Common Sense America in September (Colorado Sun); Colorado Politics reported $311,000 through Sept. 21, with Common Sense America ($250,000) and Advance Colorado ($20,000) as its largest early donors. Opposing (Colorado Politics, Sept. 25): Colorado Communities First had raised more than $200,000, with the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition ($158,000) and the ACLU ($58,600) as its biggest funders; The People's No had raised $100,000 from the COLOR Action Fund; Vote Common Sense, which also opposes Amendments 82 and 85, had raised just under $500,000.[5][4]

Research notes & limits

Source: the official 2026 Blue Book (Legislative Council Staff, nonpartisan), which gives the ballot title, the 'what your vote means' text, an analysis with arguments for and against, and the fiscal impact. Its 'for' and 'against' arguments are the staff's own summaries of the main arguments on each side, not statements from named campaigns; the booklet points to the Secretary of State's page for supporting and opposing organizations, which was not reviewed here. Ballotpedia is cited only for the certified-measure count. Ballotpedia notes a separate road-funding initiative was certified but withdrawn after its proponents reached an agreement with the state, so it is not on the ballot. Added from the Secretary of State's certified-measure page (registered committees), Colorado Sun / Colorado Politics campaign-finance reporting (dates in the text), and the Blue Book. TRACER itself (tracer.sos.colorado.gov) is a form-driven site and was not queried directly, so finance figures are as reported by those outlets and may be out of date; committees keep filing until Election Day. Registered-committee lists show registrations, not endorsements, and several committees (Vote Common Sense, People for a Fair Colorado, Make Good Change) are registered on many measures.

Sources · 5

Researched 2026-10-19. Green citations are official government records.

  1. 1.2026 State Ballot Information Booklet (Blue Book) · Colorado Legislative Council Staff · 2026-09-10 Official record
  2. 2.Colorado 2026 ballot measures · Ballotpedia · 2026-10-18 Reference
  3. 3.Amendments and Propositions on the 2026 Ballot: information and contacts (certified measures, registered issue committees) · Colorado Secretary of State · 2026-10-19 Official record
  4. 4.Colorado ballot measure committees raise more than $20 million for 2026 election · Colorado Politics · 2026-09-25 News report
  5. 5.Millions in untraceable conservative money flooding into Colorado election · The Colorado Sun · 2026-10-14 News report