Proposition 130: Colorado voters to decide on $350 million in state funding for law enforcement

Colorado voters in November will decide if the state should create a $350 million fund to recruit, train and retain police officers — and, as a result, whether state lawmakers will have to cut other public services to pay for it.

Proposition 130, placed on the ballot through a signature-gathering effort led by conservative groups, gives voters an unusual chance to dictate how their elected officials decide what to fund within the annual state budget.

Public spending questions, of course, are no stranger to Colorado ballots. But usually when voters are asked to spend money on something, they’re also asked for a tax increase or bond issue to pay for it.

Proposition 130, however, doesn’t authorize any new taxes or borrowing. It also doesn’t specify when the state would have to spend the money. That leaves it up to state lawmakers to determine how quickly to distribute the $350 million and what to cut in the state budget in order to cover the cost.

In addition to creating the support fund, the measure would also establish a $1 million death benefit for the families of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

Here’s what else you need to know about Proposition 130.

How would Proposition 130 affect police staffing and crime?

Supporters are calling Proposition 130 the “Back the Blue” initiative — a political response to the social justice movements that sprang up in recent years calling for cutbacks to law enforcement funding in protest of police brutality.

The “defund the police” movement largely fizzled out, failing to persuade many elected officials to reduce spending on law enforcement. Nonetheless, officer staffing levels across the state fell in 2022 to 30-year lows when adjusted for population, FBI data shows, thanks to a wave of retirements following the pandemic.

Last year — after state and local agencies stepped up recruitment efforts — police staffing levels rebounded to pre-pandemic levels. Crime rates, meanwhile, have been falling after spiking during the pandemic, according to FBI data. But Colorado still employs fewer officers per capita than it did in the 1990s and early 2000s. And while Colorado spends more money on law enforcement than most states, according to an Urban Institute analysis, it also employs fewer officers per capita than the national average, according to the FBI.

Supporters of Proposition 130 argue that more law enforcement officers will help reduce crime. Academic studies have found some evidence that they do — but that evidence varies by city.

Opponents note that social services like education, health care and substance abuse treatment have also been shown to reduce crime. So without new taxes to pay for it, spending more on law enforcement will mean less money in the budget for those other programs, potentially offsetting some of the promised benefits.

The money set aside by Proposition 130 can be spent to hire new officers or provide training or bonus pay.

How does Colorado fund law enforcement today?

Today, local governments provide the vast majority of funding for police departments and sheriff’s offices in Colorado, while the state government is primarily responsible for the Colorado State Patrol.

In 2021, the last year for which statewide data is available, local governments spent $2.1 billion on police, according to the U.S. Census. Last budget year, which ended June 30, the state Department of Public Safety spent $300 million from the state’s general fund. The rest of its $733 million budget, which funds the state patrol, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and a number of criminal justice programs, came largely from fees and federal grants.

Spouses and children of most law enforcement officers also receive ongoing survivor benefits through the officer’s pension, which is funded by a mix of employee and taxpayer contributions.

How would it affect the state budget?

If voters pass Proposition 130, the measure’s impact on state spending next budget year could be massive, minimal or somewhere in between, depending on how quickly lawmakers decide to implement the program.

Under the first scenario, if lawmakers tried to create the fund all at once by setting aside $350 million next year, the state would have to double the Department of Public Safety’s entire annual general fund budget, either by reducing funding for other departments or dipping into the state’s reserves.

That would be a difficult task in any year. But lawmakers are already facing financial problems. Budget forecasts show the legislature could need to cut as much as $900 million in projected spending to balance the spending plan that begins July 1, 2025. Add in the law enforcement spending, and the deficit would grow to $1.25 billion. That would likely require deep cuts to other state programs, including higher education and Medicaid, which faces problems of its own.

The ballot measure, however, doesn’t say how soon the state would have to distribute the money. In theory, the legislature could delay the program until its financial outlook improves, or stretch it out over a period of years, setting aside money as it goes until the $350 million target is reached.

This is an unusual use of the ballot. Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights requires taxpayer approval to raise taxes for programs, but decisions of how to spend the money the state already has are typically left to lawmakers who have to weigh the merits of different programs against one another, with limited resources to spend.

The death benefit created by the program is expected to cost $4 million annually, according to legislative forecasts, and would continue in perpetuity even after the $350 million fund is fully spent. The one-time, $1 million payout created by the measure would be in addition to the pension benefits that most officers’ surviving family members already qualify for.

Who is spending money to support and oppose Proposition 130?

As of Sept. 26, there was no campaign committee formed to support the measure, according to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office. It was placed on the ballot by Advance Colorado, a conservative political nonprofit that was behind efforts this year to cut property taxes.

Advance Colorado may be spending directly in support of the measure, activity that wouldn’t show up in the state’s campaign finance system. The nonprofit doesn’t disclose its donors.

Coloradans for Smart Justice had raised $100,500 to defeat Proposition 130 and another criminal justice measure, Proposition 128, which would make people serve more of their sentences before they’re eligible for parole.

The campaign committee reported spending $95,209 in opposition to the two ballot proposals as of Sept. 26. All of its reported funding came from two donors: the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Other resources:

Nonpartisan legislative staff creates a guide for each initiative on the statewide ballot. You can find their analysis of Proposition 130 here.

You can read the full text of the ballot measure here.