Colorado voters will soon decide whether people convicted of certain violent crimes should be held in prison longer before becoming eligible for parole.
Proposition 128 is spearheaded by a conservative group and requires a majority of voter support to pass.
Here’s what you need to know about Proposition 128, as well as who is supporting and opposing the measure.
What happens if Proposition 128 passes?
A “yes” vote on Proposition 128 would require a person convicted of certain violent crimes — second-degree murder, first-degree assault, kidnapping, sexual assault, arson, burglary or aggravated robbery — to serve at least 85% of their prison sentence before they become eligible for parole.
It would also prevent them from being eligible for good-behavior or other reductions in their prison sentences until they have served 85% of their sentence. Under current law, prisoners can gain “earned time” that reduces a person’s time in prison as an incentive for progressing toward certain personal, professional or educational goals by up to 10 or 12 days a month, depending on the crime for which the person was convicted.
Proposition 128 would also make it so people convicted of those violent offenses committed after July 1, 2025, are ineligible for parole or earned-timed reductions if they have been twice-previously convicted of a crime of violence.
A “no” vote would maintain the status quo, meaning that people convicted of certain violent crimes would continue having to serve 75% of their prison sentence before becoming eligible for parole.
About 220 people per year are sentenced to prison for violent crimes and they are currently serving an average of 23 years in prison, according to Colorado Legislative Council staff.
How did Proposition 128 get on the ballot?
The measure qualified for the ballot after Advance Colorado, a conservative political nonprofit, paid circulators to collect roughly 125,000 signatures from Colorado voters.
The group is also behind Proposition 130, which would order the legislature to set aside $350 million for a new law enforcement officer training and support fund. Advance Colorado is also responsible for Amendment 80, which would place a right to school choice in the state constitution.
Republican lawmakers this year tried to pass a bill that would have had the same effect as Proposition 128.
House Bill 1127 was rejected by the legislature’s Democratic majority during its first committee hearing. Republican Rep. Mike Lynch and Sens. Mark Baisley and Perry Will were the prime sponsors of the bill.
What do supporters of Proposition 128 say?
Supporters of the measure say it would boost public safety by keeping people convicted of violent crimes in prison longer.
“Currently, violent criminals — people that have class two felonies — are only serving 46% of their sentence on average, according to the Department of Corrections, and this measure would make it 85% so we’re talking the worst of the worst — kidnapping, raping, murders,” said Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado.
“I think common sense would say that people should be serving at least 85% of their sentence.”
What’s the argument against Proposition 128?
Whether the measure would deter crime is unclear.
Kyle Giddings, civic engagement coordinator with the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition, or CCJRC, called Proposition 128 a “misguided ballot initiative” that undermines Colorado’s existing parole system.
“By extending sentences, Proposition 128 would unfairly punish those who have worked hard to turn their lives around and are ready to return home,” Giddings said. “Colorado spends an average $56,766 a year to keep someone in prison, while investing in only $8,489 per K-12 student. Our focus should be on investing in our communities, not on keeping people incarcerated longer.”
Proposition 128 would also worsen overcrowding at the state’s prisons, he said, which have struggled to recruit and retain adequate staff.
What impact would Proposition 128 have on state spending?
Nonpartisan state analysts estimate the measure would initially increase state spending by about $12,000 to cover a one-time computer update to the Department of Corrections’ case management system.
Then, in about 20 years, the measure would increase spending by between $12 million and $28 million per year due to the longer prison sentences people convicted of violent crimes would have to serve. The estimate is based on the current costs and average length of stay for people inside state prisons. Actual costs will likely increase with inflation and depend on offender behavior and decisions by the State Board of Parole.
“Since the measure will apply to offenders convicted after the measure’s passage, impacts on the correctional system are not anticipated before the mid-2030s, based on the average sentences for these offenses,” the analysts wrote.
If passed, the measure would impact people convicted of crimes on or after July 2025.
Fields said he felt the extra cost caused by the measure would be well spent and that Colorado voters will support allocating funds to increase public safety.
“We’re only talking 400 or 500 people a year that do these horrible crimes — these Class 2 felonies — and this is why it’s going to voters. It is for them to decide, is that money worth it?” Fields said.
Giddings with CCJRC said he felt $28 million was a conservative estimate and that costs could increase as Colorado’s incarcerated population grows older and requires more health care.
“Proposition 128 essentially turns Colorado’s prisons into nursing homes, extending sentences for elderly individuals who have already served long terms, aged out of criminal behavior, and have been deemed safe for release by the parole board,” he said. “Rather than spending on expanded incarceration, Colorado should focus on investing in community-based reentry services and social programs, which have proven to reduce recidivism.”
The Daily Sun-Up podcast | More episodes
Is there any organized opposition or support for the measure?
There doesn’t appear to be an issue committee supporting the measure. But Advance Colorado may be spending directly in support of the initiative, activity that wouldn’t show up in the state’s campaign finance system. The nonprofit doesn’t disclose its donors.
The issue committee Coloradans for Smart Justice is opposing the measure. It’s funded by the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado and the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition.
The group had raised about $100,000 through Sept. 25 and spent about half of that on polling and the rest on advertising in opposition to Propositions 128 and 130.
Other resources
Nonpartisan legislative staff creates a guide for each initiative on the statewide ballot. You can find their analysis of Proposition 128 here.
You can find the full text of the ballot measure here.
And here is some previous Colorado Sun coverage of the measure: