The measure does not impact the parole eligibility of a person who is incarcerated
for crimes committed before January 1, 2025.
Proposition 128: A Path to Mass Incarceration and Increased Costs for Colorado Taxpayers
In the 2024 election, Colorado voters approved Proposition 128, a measure that requires individuals convicted of certain violent crimes to serve a larger portion of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole. It also eliminates parole eligibility for individuals with two prior violent crime convictions. Proponents hailed the measure as a step toward truth in sentencing and public safety, but critics warn it could lead to dire consequences, including mass incarceration, skyrocketing costs for taxpayers, and the need to expand Colorado’s already overburdened prison system.
A Step Backward
The proposition’s intent to increase “certainty in sentencing” may resonate with those seeking justice for victims, but the long-term consequences could mirror Colorado’s overcrowded prison crisis of the mid-2000s. According to Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) data, the state’s prisons were so overcrowded in 2006 that inmates were sent to private, out-of-state facilities in Oklahoma. Have we learned nothing from this costly and inhumane approach?
With more individuals serving longer sentences under Proposition 128, Colorado risks repeating history. The CDOC may again face overcrowding, leading to costly contracts with private prison operators or the construction of new facilities. These expenses will ultimately fall on taxpayers, who could be paying an estimated $12 million to $40 million annually just to implement the proposition, not including additional costs for new infrastructure.
Financial and Social Costs
The fiscal burden of Proposition 128 is only one part of the story. Mass incarceration comes with broader social costs, including the long-term impacts on families and communities. Incarcerating individuals for longer periods has been shown in many studies to have diminishing returns on public safety, especially when rehabilitation and reintegration efforts are sidelined. Instead of addressing root causes of crime—such as poverty, addiction, and lack of access to education—Proposition 128 relies on punitive measures that perpetuate cycles of incarceration.
District Attorney John Kellner’s example of Jonathan Bell, who reoffended after early release, has been used to justify the measure. But this anecdote overlooks the systemic issues at play, such as inadequate parole supervision and lack of support for reentry. Longer sentences may keep individuals like Bell off the streets temporarily, but they don’t address the factors that drive recidivism.
Overcrowding and the Strain on CDOC
CDOC has already indicated that the state’s prison system could struggle to accommodate the increased population resulting from longer sentences. Without immediate action, overcrowding could reach critical levels, forcing the state to build new prisons or expand existing facilities—projects that take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Additionally, Colorado has a history of relying on private, for-profit prisons, which have been criticized for prioritizing profits over rehabilitation. Sending inmates out of state, as was done in the mid-2000s, separates them from their families and support networks, hindering their chances of successful reintegration.
Did Voters Understand the Full Picture?
While Proposition 128 passed with over 62% of the vote, it’s worth questioning whether voters were fully informed about its long-term implications. Proponents framed the measure as a way to enhance public safety and fairness, but they failed to highlight the financial and social costs it entails.
Tom Raynes, executive director of the Colorado District Attorneys Council, has suggested that the state legislature may need to revisit sentencing guidelines to avoid unintended consequences. However, revising guidelines after the fact could lead to further confusion and delays, while the damage—overcrowded prisons and strained resources—has already been done.
Hassan A. Latif, President of Aurora, CO, and Founder of Second Chance Center, established this community reentry agency in 2012 to support the successful transition of individuals returning from incarceration. Interestingly, he also serves on the Board of Directors for the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition (CCJRC), though his role there raises questions. It’s unclear why he holds this position, as his contributions to meaningful reform appear limited.
Having served nearly 14 years in the CDOC himself, Latif’s background is rooted in reentry efforts. However, the effectiveness of advocacy organizations like CCJRC, where Latif is reportedly involved, remains questionable. In the lead-up to the November 6, 2024 election, CCJRC allocated $15,000 to campaign against Proposition 128. When I discussed this with Kyle, their representative, I pointed out that Proposition 128 would likely pass due to the prevailing myth that extended incarceration improves community safety. Kyle responded that CCJRC would lobby legislators to address sentencing guidelines if the measure passed.
More recently, I learned that CCJRC is now requesting $20,000 in donations. The purpose of these funds is unclear, especially considering their already well-equipped office and opaque daily operations. Their president, who is affiliated with the controversial Second Chance Center, has consistently avoided engaging with me and appears disconnected from genuine advocacy efforts.
This reflects the broader state of advocacy work in Colorado: disjointed, lacking transparency, and in desperate need of reform. The criminal justice and reentry systems require immediate overhauls to focus on impactful, transparent solutions rather than perpetuating a broken and ineffective system.
A Missed Opportunity for True Reform
Rather than pursuing punitive measures like Proposition 128, Colorado should focus on comprehensive sentencing reform that balances public safety with fiscal responsibility. Expanding diversion programs, increasing access to mental health and substance abuse treatment, and investing in reentry services would do far more to reduce crime and recidivism than simply locking people up for longer periods.
As Boulder County District Attorney Michael Doherty noted, certainty in sentencing does not require extending sentences. “There’s a way to build more certainty in without extending sentences, but it would require us to change the ranges we have under the law,” he said.
Unfortunately, Proposition 128 represents a missed opportunity to pursue smarter, more sustainable solutions to Colorado’s crime and incarceration challenges. Instead, it risks plunging the state back into an era of mass incarceration, with taxpayers footing the bill for a system that prioritizes punishment over progress.
As Colorado moves forward, it’s crucial to remember the lessons of the past and ensure that criminal justice reforms prioritize both safety and fairness—without sacrificing fiscal responsibility or human dignity.
Proposition 128: A Voter-Approved Law Without the Governor’s Signature
Proposition 128, passed by over 62% of Colorado voters in the 2024 election, is a rare example of direct democracy in action. Unlike traditional laws requiring the governor’s signature, this voter-approved ballot measure bypasses the legislative process entirely, becoming law solely through the will of the electorate. The proposition, aimed at implementing “truth in sentencing,” will now go into effect as outlined, reshaping Colorado’s criminal justice system.
What Happens Next?
1. Implementation Timeline
State agencies, including the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), will begin the work of applying the new sentencing guidelines. Key steps include:
- Updating parole policies to reflect the measure’s requirements.
- Training courts, prosecutors, and public defenders on the changes to ensure uniform application.
The timeline for these updates depends on the measure’s specifics, but the groundwork will start immediately.
2. Legislative Adjustments
Although Proposition 128 bypassed the legislature, its effects may prompt lawmakers to respond:
- Revising Sentencing Ranges: Legislators could consider reforms to prevent unintended consequences, such as excessively long sentences for low-level offenders.
- Funding Increases: The General Assembly might allocate additional resources to handle the anticipated rise in the prison population.
- Infrastructure Expansion: Overcrowding may necessitate new prison facilities or contracts with private prisons to accommodate more inmates.
3. Budgetary Impact
The cost of implementing Proposition 128 is estimated at $12 million to $40 million annually. This will spark debates during state budget planning, with potential measures including:
- Increased taxpayer funding for the CDOC.
- Expanding cost-saving options, such as utilizing privately operated facilities.
4. Potential Legal Challenges
Advocacy groups opposing the measure may pursue legal action, arguing that it:
- Violates constitutional principles, such as cruel and unusual punishment.
- Disproportionately impacts marginalized communities.
If lawsuits succeed, they could delay or even alter the proposition’s implementation.
5. Monitoring and Reporting
The CDOC, along with independent researchers, will likely monitor Proposition 128’s effects. Reports on metrics such as prison population, recidivism rates, and taxpayer costs will help evaluate the measure’s success and inform future reforms.
The Governor’s Role Post-Passage
While the governor does not sign or veto voter-approved propositions, they retain significant influence over its implementation:
- Budget Proposals: The governor can propose budget adjustments to address the increased costs of the measure.
- Advocacy for Reforms: If negative consequences emerge, the governor can call for legislative fixes or alternative policies.
- Agency Oversight: Working with the CDOC and other agencies, the governor can ensure the measure is implemented fairly and efficiently.
Long-Term Outlook
Proposition 128 represents a seismic shift in Colorado’s approach to criminal sentencing. While supporters argue it will enhance public safety and rebuild trust in the justice system, critics warn of overcrowded prisons, rising costs, and disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities.
The full effects of Proposition 128 will take years to assess, and its passage marks only the beginning of a broader conversation on criminal justice reform. Colorado’s lawmakers, agencies, and voters must remain engaged to ensure the state achieves justice that is both effective and equitable.
Conclusion: The Road Ahead for Proposition 128
Proposition 128’s passage marks a pivotal moment for Colorado’s criminal justice system, reflecting the voters’ demand for transparency and accountability in sentencing. While its implementation promises to address concerns about fairness and public safety, it also raises significant challenges, including financial strain, potential overcrowding, and the risk of disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities.
The success of Proposition 128 will depend on effective implementation, ongoing legislative adjustments, and a commitment to monitoring its outcomes. Stakeholders across the board—lawmakers, advocacy groups, and state agencies—must work together to ensure the measure achieves its intended goals while mitigating unintended consequences.
As Colorado embarks on this new chapter, Proposition 128 underscores the complexity of criminal justice reform. It is not the final word but a starting point for a broader conversation about how to create a system that is fair, just, and sustainable for all.
This should serve as a significant lesson for all nonprofit and reentry organizations that rely on donations and grants to assist individuals facing sentencing or reintegrating after incarceration. The impact of such measures extends not only to the individuals but also to their families. It’s a wake-up call for us all—stop supporting organizations that fail to deliver on their promises. Likewise, state and federal governments should reconsider granting funds to these groups if they cannot demonstrate meaningful outcomes. This highlights the hollow promises made by organizations like CCJRC and others. Let this serve as a fair warning moving forward.
Justice Unlocked. 
Leave a comment