Proposition 130, a citizen-initiative seeking a change to Colorado Revised Statutes, if passed, would secure $350 million in new state funding from the General Assembly for municipal and county law enforcement, and support families of officers killed in the line of duty with a one-time $1 million benefit.
A “no” vote would continue funding levels for local law enforcement agencies at current levels, and their families would continue to receive existing benefits provided by current law.
The intent of the initiative is to address the increase in crime in Colorado, particularly violent crime, and to improve recruitment and retention efforts of quality personnel.
The initiative is also a response to a 2020 police reform bill, SB-117, one of the earliest police reform bills Gov. Jared Polis signed into law after the death of George Floyd in Minnesota.
SB-217, seeking greater transparency and accountability from law enforcement officers, includes among its provisions the requirement that body cameras and personal liability insurance be carried by individual officers. Though well-intentioned, it has had a chilling effect on local law enforcement recruitment and retention efforts.
Locally, La Plata County Sheriff’s Office is down 13 of 120 deputy positions and is having a hard time remaining competitive with salaries starting at $62,500 annually compared to Montrose, which has a special funding district, starting at $80,000 a year. All of the department’s fixed costs also continue to rise and other rural areas are seeing a 30% decrease in their positions.
The Journal’s editorial board recognizes that law enforcement is a vital and underfunded public service, especially in rural Colorado. However, we are unsure how $350 million was arrived at and if it is the right amount. Nor is a time requirement specified for when – all at once or over a period of years – this money must be provided.
Law enforcement also is only one piece of our public safety infrastructure. The funding, 10 times what the Legislature currently appropriates for law enforcement, does not consider local decisions about public safety needs nor the state’s broader public safety obligations like funding for correctional facilities and courts, also underfunded, or proven alternatives to traditional policing such as access to behavioral health care and social workers.
The funds may also not be applied to programs with proven track records of reducing criminal behavior like wraparound services such as job training, education, affordable housing and health care.
At a most basic level, there simply are no dollars in the state General Fund to support this measure. Doing so would be irresponsible, as it would require cutting other state programs, including education we just stabilized, and likely result in Colorado’s government being underfunded.
The need is definitely there. The means, however, is not the right one. The Journal’s editorial board suggests a “no” vote.
