Three of the fourteen statewide measures on this year’s ballot concern the criminal justice system. One of these, Amendment I, results from careful attention to detail and broad bipartisan support and is worthy of voter approval. The others, Propositions 128 and 130, are not well thought through and should be rejected.
Amendment I – since statehood, Colorado’s constitution has included the right to bail (with details determined by a judge), excluding charges of “capital offenses” where the prosecution can prove “the proof is evident or the presumption is great” that the offense was actually committed. In 2023, our state supreme court determined that after the repeal of the death penalty, there are no longer “capital offenses” for the purposes of constitutional bail provisions. Thereafter, people accused of first-degree murder had to have new bail hearings, and judges set bond at eye-popping amounts up to $100 million, because bail could not be entirely denied.
Amendment I, legislatively referred to the ballot with 94 out of 100 “yes” votes, would restore judges’ ability to deny bail to defendants charged with first degree murder. Under Amendment I, if a person is charged with first degree murder and the prosecution establishes that “proof is evident or the presumption is great” that the accused committed the offense, the person can be detained pending trial, regardless of that person’s ability to pay money for release. This is how it should be – a fair assessment of risk to public safety – not dollars – should determine who is kept behind bars before a trial or a plea deal. Please vote yes on Amendment I.
On the other hand, Proposition 128 deals with parole, another important part of our system, in a careless and potentially dangerous way. The premise that more serious crimes deserve longer sentences is already embodied in Colorado law. More serious offenses receive longer sentences in the first place, and those convicted must serve a greater proportion of time inside DOC before parole is even a possibility.
Proposition 128 makes a few key mistakes including one potentially dangerous one that will put correctional officers and our communities at risk. First, it eliminates “earned time” for certain offenders. Earned time is just that – it has to be earned by good behavior and can be lost by bad behavior. Correctional administrators regularly emphasize the importance of earned time as an incentive for proper conduct and correctional officer safety.
Second, Proposition 128 makes no distinction between offenders who have reformed while “inside” – through completing classes, finding religious faith, or simply passage of time – and those who may not yet have. Sentences are meted out based on what offenders do before going into DOC, but public safety is a function of who offenders are when they parole out. Keeping people in prison longer who have completed educational courses, become mentors and changed their lives makes it more likely they will harm others when they are released and risks reversing the progress they have made. Under current law, Colorado’s parole board, composed of individuals with expertise in law enforcement, criminology, mental health, and more, makes release determinations, and they should continue to do that.
Finally, Proposition 128 will be very expensive to taxpayers. Coloradans spend nearly $60,000/year, on average, to incarcerate each inmate in DOC. This cost increases for older inmates. Like the rest of us, people in DOC tend to have more medical needs later in life, and the state is legally obligated to pay those expenses. It is necessary and appropriate for the state to spend taxpayer dollars on public safety. But Proposition 128 does not establish the key link between spending and safety, and could actually jeopardize the safety of our communities and DOC employees. Please vote no on Proposition 128.
Proposition 130 would obligate taxpayers to give $350 million to city and county law enforcement agencies without any oversight or funding source. This obligation would compete against other public safety priorities, K-12 education and affordable housing. Proposition 130 excludes public safety-related functions like supporting victims of crimes or addressing mental health or drug addiction, making it harder to fund these critical priorities. Because it is “one-time” funding, law enforcement agencies could not realistically use these resources to increase officer pay. Key terms are not defined (what is a “bona fide peace officer function”?) and critical details are entirely missing (what criteria should govern competing requests for money?).
Conspicuously, not one of the many law enforcement or public safety organizations I talk with as a legislator has ever contacted me about Proposition 130 to ask me to support it or even just to talk about it. Public safety is vital, and the legislature has invested over $100 million toward that goal in recent years through bipartisan legislation. But Proposition 130 doesn’t measure up. Please vote no.
Rep. Mike Weissman represents House District 36 in Adams and Arapahoe Counties. He has served on the Judiciary Committee for eight years and chaired the committee for six years.
Ballot initiatives are the very definition of “word salad”; they’re not written in ways common people can understand them or understand what they’re trying to accomplish. There is always deception written into these initiatives, regardless of what they’re trying to get your vote on. I always vote “No” on all ballot initiatives.
He should talk about what the legislature did to law enforcement in Colorado with their knee jerk SB217 bill (Police Reform Bill). He won’t tell you that the legislature drove thousands of police officers out of the job and is still motivating many others to leave as soon as they can financially. That bill attacked Implied Immunity for officers even though Implied Immunity is only granted by a judge when the established law was not clearly stated. He won’t tell you that a judge only allows officers to have that protection in about one third of the cases.
He also won’t tell you that the bill established a minimum force guideline that is dangerous for police officers and no one can define. So, you want to send officers out to fight with people without clear guidelines. In addition, the definition for the prohibited chokehold is written in such a way that an officer could be prosecuted for just holding someone down without touching the person;s neck. So, aggressive prosecutors are charging officers and officers are being fired for just touching someone’s neck. In a sudden resistance, an officer often initially grabs someone around the neck briefly to keep them from getting away. You can watch the same thing in kid’s wrestling, kid’s jiu jitsu, or even pro basketball players wrestling for the ball. If you watch incidents where citizens had to grab a criminal, you will often see them initially grab someone around the neck. It is quicker and more reliable than trying to grab their arms. Even in the Elijah McClain death, the coroner said that it was not the chokehold that killed Elijah.
I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea. So now, the legislature jumps through hoops to try to get more officers while ignoring what they did to law enforcement. More hypocrisy. They know what is best, even when they don’t know anything about the subject. What they won’t do is answer questions about what they have done or fix their mistakes. I have not found an attorney or a police “leader” who can explain the SB217 bill. Yet we go on pretending the emperor has new clothes.
Does it occur to anyone that, even stuck with a charge of Murder 1, suspects no longer need fear for their very life? That’s a huge drop in motivation to flee. And as Rep. Weissman points out, judges can still set bond at eye-popping amounts up to (and beyond) $100 million. We don’t need this “little” tweak to the Colorado Constitution.