Vote No on Prop 132:
Your Questions Answered

Proposition 132 is on Colorado's November 3, 2026 ballot. It would make possession of any amount of fentanyl a felony and require an 8-to-32-year prison sentence for sharing or selling any amount, with no exceptions for a judge to weigh. Below are straight answers about what Prop 132 does, what it would cost Colorado taxpayers, and why we're asking voters to vote No.

FAQ: The basics

Why vote No on Prop 132?

Prop 132 would send people to prison for 8 to 32 years for sharing any amount of fentanyl, treating a teenager who passes a pill to a friend the same as a major trafficker. It adds tens of millions of dollars a year in prison costs with no funding source, and research projects it would increase overdose deaths. Colorado needs to stop traffickers and get people into treatment. Prop 132 does neither.

What does Prop 132 actually do?

According to the state's official Blue Book analysis, Prop 132 would:

  • Require a mandatory 8-to-32-year prison sentence for distributing any amount of fentanyl, including sharing it.

  • Make possession of any amount of fentanyl a felony. Today, possessing less than one gram is a misdemeanor.

  • Bar judges from considering circumstances such as whether a person knew a substance contained fentanyl.

  • Remove reduced penalties for people who share a small amount, then call for help during an overdose and stay until it arrives.

The measure was placed on the ballot by citizen initiative and would take effect January 1, 2027 if passed.

When do I vote on Prop 132?

Prop 132 is on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot. Colorado mails a ballot to every registered voter in mid-October. Return it by 7 p.m. on Election Day at a drop box or voting center. Check your registration or find a drop box at GoVoteColorado.gov.

FAQ: Cost and funding

How much would Prop 132 cost Colorado taxpayers?

Up to $566 million over five years. According to the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Council Staff, Prop 132 would add about 1,024 people to Colorado’s prison population by 2031. Running those prisons would cost $143.7 million over the first five years, reaching about $68 million a year by year five, with costs continuing to grow after that. If the state builds enough prison beds to hold everyone, construction would add up to $422.5 million more, at $412,500 per bed.

Prop 132 includes no funding source. All of these costs would come out of the state’s General Fund, which could mean less money for other priorities like health care, K-12 education, and higher education.

Where do the cost figures come from?

All of these figures come from the official fiscal impact statement for Proposition 132, prepared by Colorado’s nonpartisan Legislative Council Staff (2026 Fiscal Impact Statements, Proposition 132, September 10, 2026, pp. 8–9):

  • $143.7 million: five-year prison operating costs (Table 2C)

  • $422.5 million: the cost to build state prison beds for the full increase in the prison population, estimated at $412,500 per bed

  • 1,024 people: the projected increase in Colorado’s average daily prison population by fiscal year 2030-31 (Table 2C)

Together, these add up to $566 million.

Is Prop 132 really about private prisons?

Colorado's prisons are already short on beds and staff. The state's own analysis says it may need to build or contract for more prison space. Contracting means private prison operators, and mandatory minimum sentences like these are how that industry grows, whether or not anyone is safer.

FAQ: Overdoses and public health

Overdose deaths are a crisis. Why shouldn't voters pass Prop 132?

Because research consistently shows longer prison sentences don't reduce drug use or drug sales. Prop 132 would put hundreds more Coloradans behind bars each year without funding treatment for the people arrested or disrupting the drug supply. Fear of a felony also keeps people from seeking treatment or calling for help, which is how overdoses become deaths.

What's the evidence Prop 132 would increase overdose deaths?

A January 2025 study by the Colorado Behavioral Health Administration, with the CU School of Medicine and CU School of Law, modeled the effect of making fentanyl possession a felony. It projected a 41.3% increase in overdose deaths over five years, about 1,718 additional deaths.

That finding matches a broader body of research, including from the Pew Charitable Trusts and Rice University's Baker Institute, showing longer prison sentences don't reduce substance use disorders.

How does Prop 132 affect people who call 911 during an overdose?

Today, someone who shares a small amount of fentanyl and then calls for help during an overdose, and stays until help arrives, can receive a reduced penalty under Colorado's "Good Samaritan" protections. Prop 132 eliminates that reduction for distribution cases, so that person would face the same 8-to-32-year mandatory sentence (Blue Book). When calling for help means risking prison, fewer people call, and more people die.

FAQ: Trafficking and treatment

Doesn't Colorado need to get tougher on fentanyl traffickers?

Real traffickers should face serious consequences, and current law already provides them: distributing more than 50 grams already carries a mandatory 8-to-32-year sentence. Prop 132 doesn't add new tools against major traffickers. What it changes is the low end, giving someone who shares a single pill the same mandatory sentence, with no room for a judge to tell the difference. That fills prison cells without touching the drug supply.

Supporters say Prop 132 sends lower-level offenders to treatment. Isn't that a good thing?

Prop 132 orders treatment for some possession cases but provides no money to pay for it, and treatment services are already underfunded, especially in rural Colorado. Meanwhile, anyone who shares even a small amount, including a person struggling with addiction, still faces a mandatory 8-to-32-year prison sentence. The measure does not expand access to care or get more people the help they need.

FAQ: Who's behind it, and what works instead

Who is behind Prop 132?

Prop 132 was put on the ballot by Advance Colorado, a conservative-leaning policy group (Axios). Using the citizen initiative process is their legal right. But voters deserve to know this isn't a grassroots public-safety effort. It's one of a coordinated slate of initiatives from the same group, funded by donors who don't have to disclose themselves, gathered with paid signature collectors, and backed by research the same donor network pays for.

If not longer prison sentences, what should Colorado do instead?

Fund addiction treatment, recovery services and access to overdose-reversal medication, and focus enforcement on major trafficking. This approach works: Minnesota invested in treatment and overdose prevention and cut overdose deaths by 26% in two years, without new mandatory minimum sentences (Minnesota Department of Health, "Statewide Trends in Drug Overdose: 2024 Data Update").

FAQ: Getting involved

Who is behind the No on 132 campaign?

No on Prop 132 is a coalition for example: treatment providers, public health experts, faith leaders, law enforcement and families affected by overdose working to defeat Prop 132. See the full list of coalition members on our coalition page.

How can I help defeat Prop 132?

  • Vote No on Prop 132 and return your ballot by 7 p.m. on November 3.

  • Share this page with friends and family before they vote and Join Us.

Sources