Reviewers ask sponsors to clarify draft initiatives that would require law enforcement to notify DHS

DENVER — Legislative Council and Office of Legislative Legal Services staff reviewed two proposed citizen initiatives, numbered 25-26 Nos. 74 and 75, at a public review hearing on April 25, 2025, and asked proponents to tighten the draft language to avoid ambiguities about which officers must notify the federal Department of Homeland Security and when.

"The major purpose of the proposed amendments to the Colorado Revised Statutes appears to be to require law enforcement to notify the federal Department of Homeland Security in certain circumstances that a person is not lawfully present in the United States or if the status of the person's lawful presence is unknown," said Conrad Amel of the Office of Legislative Legal Services during the review. Staff and proponents agreed that the statement accurately reflected the initiatives' purpose.

The hearing — opened by Julianne Jensen of Legislative Council staff at 10:05 a.m. — focused first on procedural drafting questions. Staff noted the draft for No. 74 adds a section numbered 24-76.6103 even though that section already exists and advised proponents either to repeal the existing 24-76.6103 and add the new text as 24-76.6104 or to use a repeal-and-reenact clause so the enacted provisions would not conflict with any intervening legislation.

Staff also raised several substantive ambiguities in No. 74's current wording. The draft would require "law enforcement" to notify DHS "upon charging the person" and "at least 72 hours prior to release after a conviction," and it lists categories such as certified peace officers, correctional officers, and district attorney attorneys and investigators. Because the draft originally used the non‑limiting term "includes," staff asked whether the sponsors intended other actors to fall under the duty. Proponents responded that they changed the word to "means" to limit the definition but that they will refine language further.

A central drafting concern was allocation of duties across actors at different custody stages. Staff warned that, as written, a district attorney, correctional officer and peace officer could all be read as having the same two obligations. Staff suggested tailoring duties to custody: for example, a peace officer might notify upon charging if the person is in that officer's custody, a correctional officer might notify before release, and a district attorney might notify upon charging. Proponents said they want to ensure someone is responsible without producing language that would confuse voters or permit mutual finger‑pointing among agencies.

Staff asked the sponsors to clarify the statute's notification triggers. They presented two possible readings: (a) notification is required when a person is charged with a crime of violence, or when both the person has a prior felony conviction and is not lawfully present; or (b) notification is required if the person is not lawfully present and (either charged with a crime of violence or has a prior felony). Proponents confirmed their intent aligns with the latter reading: the person must be not lawfully present and meet one of the criminal criteria.

No. 75, which staff reviewed after No. 74, contains similar notification provisions and would additionally require law enforcement to make a "reasonable effort" in specified circumstances to determine a person's lawful presence. Sponsors and staff discussed timing for that reasonable‑effort requirement — for example, within a reasonable period after charging or before release if the person is serving a sentence — but did not define a precise deadline in the hearing record.

Staff also asked whether "correctional officers" in the draft should be limited to Colorado Department of Corrections employees, county jail staff, or include private corrections staff; proponents said they intend to include jail employees and private correctional employees where applicable.

There were no formal votes taken at the review hearing. Proponents acknowledged the drafting questions and said they would revise the initiative language to address the staff's technical and substantive recommendations. The hearing concluded at about 10:21 a.m.

What happens next: staff comments and suggested redrafts remain part of the public record; proponents indicated they would review the suggested changes and return with revised language for further consideration or to resubmit to the Title Board as required by statute.