Proponents of Proposition 128 and Proposition 130, two ballot measures put forth by the conservative advocacy group Advance Colorado for the Nov. 5 election, say they’re needed to curb crime in Colorado. Opponents say they would do more harm than good.
The two ballot measures come as Democrats’ control of state government has expanded. Policy debates — including around criminal justice — largely are defined by and unfold among the wings of the Democratic caucuses.
For conservatives, ballot questions increasingly have become their sharpest tool to interrupt that paradigm. Advance Colorado had five initiatives approved for the ballot before it dropped two property tax-related measures late in the summer, following negotiations with legislative leaders and Gov. Jared Polis’ office and an August special session to pass more tax relief.
“We are putting this up to the voters,” Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, said of the criminal justice measures. “The voters can look at it, and they can decide.”
Simultaneously, Republicans — starting with former President Donald Trump, the party’s nominee again — have run on claims of runaway crime surges. Overall crime in Colorado spiked during the pandemic, peaking in 2022, but has been dropping since then, state and local crime data show. Those declines have also been seen nationally, with President Joe Biden trumpeting “record declines in crime” in a White House statement on Sept. 23.
Opponents of the two measures argue that increasing sentences and diverting $350 million to law enforcement from the state’s budget will not decrease crime in Colorado — and will exacerbate the state’s precarious budget situation.
Though Colorado Democrats are far from united on how best to approach criminal justice policy, the legislature has grown more leery of tough-on-crime policies in recent years. Several Democratic lawmakers have questioned recent increases in the Colorado Department of Corrections’ budget.
Those two dynamics would be upended by the ballot measures’ passage.
“Colorado has led the nation for a long time on criminal justice reform,” said Kyle Giddings, the civic engagement coordinator at the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition. “And Prop 128 and 130 would be a major rollback of the efforts over the last 10 years to make sure we are advancing public safety through common-sense solutions, without breaking the bank.”
Pushing for “Truth in Sentencing"
People sentenced to prison in Colorado typically serve less than half of their total sentences before they are released on parole, state data shows.State law requires prisoners to serve at least 75 percent of their sentences, but that time can be reduced further if prisoners maintain good behavior while incarcerated — a reduction known as “earned time” or “good time.”
People convicted of Class 2 felonies — the second-most serious felony in Colorado — on average were sentenced to 28 years in prison and served 13 years before they were released, according to Colorado Department of Corrections data for the 2022 fiscal year. That’s about 46 percent of their sentences.
For certain crimes, Proposition 128 would change state law by increasing the amount of time a person must serve in prison to 85 percent of their sentence before the person could be eligible for earned-time reductions or parole.
The change would apply only to a handful of convictions beginning Jan. 1: second-degree murder, first- or -second-degree sexual assault, aggravated robbery, first-degree assault, kidnapping, first-degree arson and first-degree burglary.
Additionally, people convicted of a third crime of violence — a wider swath of crimes — would be ineligible for any type of early release and would be required to serve an entire sentence on their third conviction.
Fields said the changes were needed to ensure transparency in the justice system.
“There isn’t truth in sentencing,” he said. “You have a sentence and you get out after half of it. … What we have is a disconnect between what people think is happening and what is actually happening.”
He and other proponents of the ballot measure say the extra prison time would improve public safety by keeping what Fields called the “worst of the worst” offenders in prison longer.
But opponents say that position is not supported by evidence, and they say earned time is a powerful incentive for prisoners to participate in rehabilitation while incarcerated.
Prisoners who can’t earn good time will feel more despair and be more likely to participate in violent and dangerous behaviors, said Dana Mueller, a Colorado Department of Corrections release case manager. She spoke on behalf of her union, Colorado Workers for Innovative and New Solutions, which has come out against Proposition 128.
“This would not reduce recidivism or crime, and it wouldn’t fix what is wrong in corrections,” she said. “Instead, it would make things worse, making conditions more dangerous both for workers and the inmate population.”
She added that prisoners who exhibit good behavior in prison are better prepared to reintegrate into society than those who do not.
“The majority of people incarcerated in DOC eventually get out,” she said.
If Proposition 128 passed, it would affect roughly 220 prison sentences annually. The financial impact would come in about 20 years, when the longer time served by some inmates would add to the prison population — increasing state spending on prisons by an estimated $12 million to $28 million, state analysts found.
Rep. Judy Amabile, a Boulder Democrat and member of the House Judiciary Committee, argued that legislators and policymakers should instead take a deeper look at the Department of Corrections’ operations to ensure it’s providing rehabilitative services and the treatment that offenders require to get out on time. Doing so would save money in the long run, she said.
“I think our whole approach has to be about how do we rehabilitate people — how do we set people up to succeed?” she said. “I have never seen any data that says, ‘Just keep them longer and they’ll miraculously do better when they get out.’ ”
But John Kellner, the district attorney for the 18th Judicial District, said Prop 128 would bring a measure of certainty to victims for how long the offender would be locked up.
Right now, he said, no one can be sure.
“In all honesty, nobody in that courtroom knows how long that offender is truly going to serve,” he said. “Not the judge, not the defendant and certainly not the victim.”
Prop 130 Raises Budget Concerns Among Some
Advance Colorado’s other measure, Proposition 130, aims to create a $350 million state fund for Colorado law enforcement agencies to use to increase officers’ pay, hire new officers and increase police training. It would be up to state lawmakers to decide where to draw that money from when they fill the fund.The measure would also establish a $1 million death benefit paid to the family of any officer killed in the line of duty, on top of any existing benefits available.
Proponents say Colorado needs more police officers to bring down crime in the state. They point to several years of high crime during the COVID-19 pandemic as driving the need for more police officers. They also say more officers on the street will reduce violent and property crimes.
Crime has been declining in Colorado since rates peaked in 2022, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reported violent crime, including allegations of murder, sex offenses, robbery and aggravated assault, dropped 6 percent in 2023 compared to 2022, state data show. Violent crime remains 21 percent higher than pre-pandemic levels in 2019, according to the data.
Property crime followed a similar trend. Reported crimes of burglary, larceny, vehicle theft and arson were up 14 percent compared to 2019, but down 8 percent from the 2022 peak.
“This thin blue line that keeps us safe has been stretched far too thin,” said former Denver police chief Paul Pazen. “I believe putting more uniformed officers out on the street to keep our community safe will help deter crime and enhance that sense of security.”
State officials would decide how to issue grants to aid local agencies with hiring and retention, but the use of grant dollars for some ongoing costs, such as new officers’ salaries or for recurring pay bumps, could create challenges for the agencies.
Colorado state Rep. Gabe Evans, a Fort Lupton Republican who’s running for Congress and is a former police officer, said during a September press conference in support of the measure that law enforcement agencies needed more money.
“They don’t have the resources, they don’t have the equipment, they don’t have the training to be able to do a job that is critical to public safety,” he said.
Opponents say allocating $350 million to police alone cuts out many other important services aimed at reducing crime, and that the money could be better spent with more stakeholder and community input in the process.
Giddings, from the justice reform coalition, called it “really bad fiscal policy” to ask the state to invest $350 million into police only — and not into fire departments, emergency medical services or community organizations that often work closely with police.
“It just doesn’t make any sense,” he said.
He noted that the measure is not self-funding — there’s no associated tax or revenue generation — so the $350 million would come out of the state’s general fund.
“That is almost 6,000 teacher salaries … or the entirety of Colorado’s affordable housing budget, or it is state funding for six to eight years of programs like SNAP,” he said, referring to the state program that helps low-income households purchase food.
Legislators also have warned about the impact to the broader state budget — already expected to be tight next year — if they have to move $350 million to fulfill the ballot measure’s mandate.
Given Advance Colorado’s conservative background, Democrats have accused the group of running the ballot measure as a roundabout way of reducing government spending on existing programs.
Rep. Shannon Bird, a Westminster Democrat and the chair of the legislative committee that crafts the state budget each year, said she thought the initiative was “coming from exactly the right place” because the state “needs to do better by our public safety professionals.”
Still, she was concerned about the deeper impact to the state’s budget. Lawmakers already will have to make cuts because of high Medicaid spending, she said, and she noted that law enforcement funding largely comes from local revenues, not state coffers.
“What people need to understand is that (Proposition 130) means $350 million, instead of being spent on K-12 or higher education or health care for the most vulnerable in our state — or to be frank, invested in our prisons to maintain the other side of public safety — now can’t be used for those purposes,” Bird said.
“We present a balanced budget every year, so every dollar is spoken for. So every time you create a new liability, that means something else gets cut.”
©2024 MediaNews Group, Inc. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
