AI Generated Image (not an actual Colorado ballot)
Colorado voters decide Tuesday whether to write a duty to tip off federal immigration authorities into their state constitution. Four other states are voting on language that says only U.S. citizens may vote.
Colorado Amendment 81, on the Nov. 3 ballot, would require police officers, jail and prison officers and prosecutors to notify the Department of Homeland Security within 72 hours of charging someone with a crime, when the charge is a violent crime or the person has a prior felony conviction, and the person is not lawfully present or their status cannot be determined. It is the most direct immigration enforcement question on any statewide ballot this year, and as a constitutional amendment it needs 55 percent of the vote to pass.
Voters in Arkansas, Kansas, South Dakota and West Virginia face a related question: whether their constitutions should say plainly that only U.S. citizens may vote. Both arrive alongside new passport record checks for voter citizenship.
What Colorado Amendment 81 would require
The duty starts with a formal charge, not an arrest, and before any court has decided guilt. The Blue Book, the voter guide written by the legislature’s nonpartisan staff, says officers would make a “reasonable effort” to determine whether a charged person is lawfully present, then notify DHS if they are not or if status cannot be confirmed.
The first trigger, a “crime of violence,” covers offenses causing serious bodily harm or death or involving a deadly weapon, such as murder, assault, kidnapping and aggravated robbery. The second is broader than it looks: anyone with a prior felony conviction, however old, who is charged with any offense, including a traffic violation.
Current Colorado law runs the other way. According to the Blue Book, agencies may help enforce federal criminal law but face limits on civil immigration enforcement, and employees may not share certain nonpublic personal information with immigration authorities absent federal law, a court order or a judicial warrant, on pain of fines up to $50,000. No federal or state law now requires police to notify immigration authorities when a person without status is charged.
The 72-hour clock and the data gap
A notice to DHS is not an arrest. It is the step that lets ICE decide whether to lodge a detainer, a request that a jail hold someone briefly for federal pickup. For a defendant whose charge is later dropped, that notice can outlast the criminal case.
How many people the measure would reach is unknown. The Blue Book says Colorado does not track how many people without lawful status are charged with violent crimes or with any crime after a prior felony. Its state cost estimate is small, $50,000 for the Department of Revenue to reach federal databases and $10,000 for the Department of Natural Resources, with most of the work landing on district attorney offices.
Supporters argue in the Blue Book that “violent individuals and repeat offenders residing in the United States unlawfully should be reported to federal immigration authorities,” and that one statewide rule would replace a county-by-county patchwork. Opponents argue the measure “undermines the constitutional right to due process and the presumption of innocence,” and that undefined terms such as “reasonable effort” and “lawful presence” will be applied unevenly.
The vagueness point is likely to be the first test if the measure passes. Lawful presence is rarely obvious from a booking record: people with pending asylum cases, TPS, parole or work permits sit in gray areas, and the measure tells officers to notify DHS whenever status “cannot be determined.” That pushes uncertain cases toward notification, which supporters want and opponents warn will sweep in people with legal status.
Citizen-only voting amendments in four states
Federal law already makes noncitizen voting in federal elections a crime, and recent federal voting charges have fallen mostly on longtime green card holders. The state amendments target a different gap: constitutions that say every citizen may vote without saying only citizens may, wording that has let a handful of municipalities elsewhere open local elections to noncitizens.
| State | Measure | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| Arkansas | Issue 1, “Citizens Only Voting Amendment” | Adds that only a U.S. citizen who meets elector qualifications may vote in state or local elections; effective Jan. 1, 2027 |
| Kansas | Legislative constitutional amendment | Adds U.S. citizenship to the list of voter qualifications |
| South Dakota | Constitutional Amendment J | Clarifies that a voter must be a U.S. citizen |
| West Virginia | Amendment 1 | Provides that only U.S. citizens who are state citizens may vote in any West Virginia election |
These measures change little on Election Day, since noncitizens are already barred from voting in all four states. Mountain State Spotlight reported that West Virginia’s version passed both chambers unanimously and, per the Secretary of State’s office, does not require proof of citizenship, though its lead sponsor wants later legislation that would. That is the longer-term significance: citizen-only constitutional language gives proof-of-citizenship laws firmer footing.
California’s Proposition 39 goes further: according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, it would require “best efforts” to verify voters’ citizenship with government data plus government-issued ID to vote, at a cost of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
After the count
If Amendment 81 clears 55 percent, the questions shift to implementation: which databases prosecutors use to check status, how a 72-hour clock works in small rural offices, and how a constitutional duty fits with the statutory limits on information sharing. A legal challenge over vagueness or due process is a realistic next step. For immigrants in Colorado with old felony convictions, the practical effect is that any new charge, even a minor one, could reach DHS. Related fights continue, from the California mail ballot dispute at the Supreme Court to rules on ICE at polling places.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Sources
- Colorado Legislative Council Staff, 2026 State Ballot Information Booklet (Blue Book), Amendment 81 analysis
- Arkansas Secretary of State, Issue No. 1 (HJR 1018 of 2026)
- Kansas Secretary of State, 2026 proposed constitutional amendments
- South Dakota Secretary of State, 2026 ballot questions
- West Virginia Legislature, state constitution
- Mountain State Spotlight, West Virginia noncitizen amendment (Oct. 28, 2026)
- California Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 39 analysis
About the Author
