2026 Voter Guide: This article is part of Johnstown Republic’s guide to the Nov. 3 ballot.
Colorado voters will decide Proposition 133, a citizen-initiated measure that would increase the penalty for human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude to life in prison without parole and expand the crime to include knowingly trading anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor.
The measure would change state law, not the Colorado Constitution, and requires a simple majority to pass, according to the official 2026 Colorado Blue Book.
What would Proposition 133 do?
Under current Colorado law, human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude is a class 2 felony. A conviction carries a prison sentence of 8 to 48 years, followed by a mandatory five-year parole period.
Proposition 133 would increase the offense to a class 1 felony and require a sentence of life in prison without parole or release.
The measure would also expand the definition of child sex trafficking to include a person who knowingly trades anything of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor. Under the measure, both buyers and sellers who meet the statutory requirements could be charged under the expanded offense.
Existing legal protections and defenses for trafficking victims would remain in place. The measure also explicitly preserves the governor’s constitutional authority to grant a pardon, commutation or clemency.
If approved, Proposition 133 would take effect Jan. 1, 2027, and apply to offenses committed on or after that date.
What does a YES vote mean?
A YES vote would increase the penalty for human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude from 8 to 48 years in prison to life imprisonment without parole.
It would also expand the offense to include knowingly trading something of monetary value to buy or sell sexual activity with a minor.
What does a NO vote mean?
A NO vote would leave current Colorado law in place.
Human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude would remain a class 2 felony carrying a prison sentence of 8 to 48 years, followed by a mandatory five-year parole period.
What would it cost?
Proposition 133 is expected to increase state prison costs, but those costs would not begin immediately.
Because people convicted under current law already serve lengthy prison sentences, Legislative Council Staff estimates that additional Department of Corrections costs would begin in about 14 years, when people sentenced under current law might otherwise have begun leaving prison.
State spending is projected to increase by about:
- $180,000 in fiscal year 2041-42
- $360,000 in 2042-43
- $540,000 in 2043-44
Costs are expected to continue increasing as additional people serve life sentences rather than completing fixed prison terms.
The fiscal analysis notes that actual future costs could be higher because of inflation, medical expenses for an aging prison population and the number of future convictions. Courts, public-defense agencies and county-funded district attorney offices could also see a small increase in workload because cases involving more severe penalties generally take longer to resolve.
Arguments for and against
Supporters argue that child sex trafficking causes severe and lasting harm and that people convicted of the offense should face a definitive life sentence. They contend that stronger penalties could deter trafficking, prevent convicted offenders from harming additional children and provide greater certainty to victims about the punishment imposed.
Opponents argue that harsher sentences may not deter trafficking and could unintentionally harm trafficking victims who are pressured or forced to participate in criminal activity. They also argue that mandatory life sentences would remove judicial discretion and could discourage some victims from reporting crimes or cooperating with law enforcement.
What does this mean for Johnstown?
Proposition 133 would apply statewide, including to criminal cases arising in the Johnstown area.
The measure contains no provisions specific to Johnstown. Local effects would primarily involve law enforcement, prosecutors and courts handling qualifying cases, while the long-term prison costs would fall primarily on the state.
Official information
The complete ballot analysis, fiscal-impact statement and full text of Proposition 133 are available on the Colorado General Assembly’s official Proposition 133 page.