Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Amendment Immigration Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proponents seek voter approval before Denver spends city funds for services to undocumented immigrants
Summary
At a review hearing with Legislative Council staff, proponents of a proposed Denver charter amendment said the measure would require citizen approval before city funds are spent on services that directly benefit undocumented immigrants, with narrow exemptions and questions remaining on definitions, timing and legal conflicts.
Proponents of a proposed Denver charter amendment told Legislative Council reviewers that the measure would require a voter referendum before the city could use city funds to provide certain services that directly benefit undocumented immigrants.
At a review-and-comment hearing, proponents said the initiative would exclude federal funds, grants and gifts (and later indicated they would add state funds to that exclusion) and would exempt “emergency services related to child welfare, emergency medical services, and law enforcement and detention services.” Anne Wallace, Legislative Policy Analyst for Denver City Council, summarized the proponents’ definition of the target population as “people who are not, lawfully present.”
The measure would, proponents said, require a ballot question before funds that are expended directly for undocumented individuals are spent. “I think the proponents’ intent is that if a pool of funds is used for general services, that would not require voter approval even if a portion of that pool was used for services to undocumented immigrants,” a Legislative Council lawyer said during the hearing. Proponents clarified that direct, targeted benefits — for example a cash or voucher payment made to an identifiable undocumented individual — are the type of expenditure they expect would trigger the voter-approval requirement.
Why it matters: the amendment would shift decisions about certain expenditures from elected officials and staff to Denver voters, which could change how the city contracts with nonprofits and other governments to deliver services. Legislative Council staff flagged potential conflicts between the proposed language and an existing city ordinance that prohibits city officers and employees from asking about immigration or citizenship status when providing services. Staff also noted timing and administrative limits in the charter: Section 8.2.3 limits the Council to calling two special elections per year unless another charter or state law requires one.
Key details from the hearing - Intended timing: Proponents said they were aiming to place the measure on the November ballot this year. Anne Wallace indicated, “I think we were shooting for November, weren’t we? Yeah.” - Definition: Proponents used the phrase “people who are not lawfully present” to describe undocumented immigrants. Staff advised aligning definitions with federal immigration definitions where possible to reduce legal risk, citing Tenth Circuit case law as guidance. - Exemptions: The text, as described by proponents, would exclude federal, grant and gift funding (proponents said they would add state funds to that exclusion) and carve out emergency services tied to child welfare, emergency medical care, and law enforcement/detention. - Point of analysis: Staff explained the operative moment for the voter-approval requirement is the expenditure of funds. If the city appropriates a general pool and later disperses a direct benefit to an undocumented individual, proponents said the targeted disbursement would require voter approval even if the initial appropriation did not. - Third-party transfers: Proponents said that if the city transfers funds to a nonprofit or another governmental entity and that entity subsequently spends the money for direct benefits to undocumented individuals, that downstream expenditure would also require voter approval under the amendment as described. - Cost and election constraints: Staff estimated a special election would cost about $1,400,000. They also flagged Section 8.2.3 of the charter, which limits Council-called special elections to two per year absent a charter or state-law requirement, and advised proponents to consider that in drafting. - Legal risks: Staff advised aligning the amendment’s definitions to federal immigration classifications where possible to survive equal-protection review under rational-basis scrutiny and identified the existing city ordinance that bars employees from requesting immigration or citizenship information as a potential conflict that would need harmonization or a legal determination.
Unresolved drafting questions noted during the hearing included how narrowly to define “use” or “expend” funds, whether transfers between multiple organizations would create a chain of approvals, whether ballot titles should list specific dollar amounts and services, and whether the amendment should explicitly exclude state funds. Proponents said they would revise language and return with clarifications; staff said a second hearing could be required if changes were substantive.
Next steps: Proponents indicated they will revise the initiative language to clarify definitions and exclusions. Under Denver practice described at the hearing, the City Council sets the title for charter amendments and may perform a single-subject analysis when it sets that title; for ordinances the Clerk and Recorder’s Office sets the title and performs the single-subject review. Staff cautioned that if substantive changes are made after this review, the proponents may be asked to return for another hearing before certification.
