Proponents present package of ballot initiatives to declare Colorado independent, replace federal references and seize U.S. property

Proponents of a large, interrelated package of ballot initiatives told legislative reviewers on April 2 that their measures are intended to make Colorado an independent nation, create a separate Colorado citizenship and systematically replace references to the United States with Colorado in law.

At a review-and-comment hearing before Legislative Council Staff and the Office of Legislative Legal Services, Emerson Sturgess, a designated representative for the proponents, summarized the core aim as "Colorado independence" and said the package (initiative Nos. 287–301) includes measures to create Colorado citizenship, adopt certain U.S. laws as Colorado law, nullify federal laws enacted after specified dates, and seize federal property located in the state. Mary Lee Sturgess, another designated representative, joined the proponents’ presentation.

The hearing was procedural: staff explained their role under Colorado law to review and identify drafting and substantive questions for proponents and the Title Board rather than to opine on the merits. Jose, identified as Legislative Council Staff, read the statutory basis for the review-and-comment process and walked through written memos for each initiative. Stephanie Schraub and Sam Anderson of the Office of Legislative Legal Services provided technical drafting guidance and substantive questions.

Why it matters: The measures, if adopted as written, would raise immediate constitutional and implementation questions at the state and federal levels. Staff repeatedly pressed proponents on single-subject compliance, how Colorado courts and agencies would apply or reconcile large volumes of adopted federal law, the Supremacy Clause tensions, and the logistics and costs of assuming federal programs and property.

Key proposals and staff concerns

- Declaration of independence and replacement of federal terminology: Several measures would declare Colorado an independent nation or direct that instances of "United States" or "federal" in Colorado law be read or replaced with "Colorado" or "State of Colorado." Proponents said some initiatives are interdependent and that certain provisions would have effect only if multiple measures pass. Staff warned that global replacements can render statutes unintelligible and advised showing stricken text or using the statutory reviser process to implement changes.

- Colorado citizenship (Initiative 288): The proposal would create a new form of "Colorado citizenship" with criteria that include being born in Colorado, parentage, adoption by Colorado citizens, marriage to a Colorado citizen, or having lived in Colorado "for the last year." Staff asked whether temporary residents (students, tourists) would be covered and how the "last year" would be measured; proponents said "the last year" was intended to be a calendar year and that the initiative’s phrasing of "automatic and necessarily" citizenship would override permissive language such as "may." Staff also asked about appeals from denied citizenship applications; proponents replied that appeals would lie to the Colorado Court of Appeals.

- Immigration and residency rules (Initiative 289): One measure would allow anyone to enter and stay in Colorado without a visa, prohibit employment denial based on citizenship or visa status, and bar discrimination on those bases. Staff asked how state open-entry rules would be reconciled with federal immigration law; proponents responded the provisions depend on the larger independence package.

- Adoption and nullification of federal law (Initiatives 293, 295): One proposal would adopt all U.S. laws, regulations and executive orders in effect on 01/19/2025 as Colorado law; another would render U.S. laws and rulings issued on or after 01/20/2025 null in Colorado. Staff asked how courts and agencies would interpret and enforce the mass adoption or selective nullification and whether adopting federal law would create statutory conflicts; proponents acknowledged that some adopted provisions could be ``unintelligible'' and stated they would be given no effect.

- State takeover of federal programs and seizure of federal property (Initiatives 291 and 294): Proposals would direct Colorado to take administrative control of programs funded by the United States as of 01/19/2025, increase taxes and spending limits to replace displaced federal funding, and seize U.S. government property located in Colorado, transferring ownership and jurisdiction to the state. Staff questioned whether the state has the administrative infrastructure to operate functions such as air traffic control, nuclear security or Social Security. Proponents said the state would assume administrative infrastructure from the United States and that companion measures would address property and institutional transitions.

Technical drafting issues and procedural next steps

Office of Legislative Legal Services and Legislative Council Staff flagged numerous technical items: conforming amendatory clauses and sequential section numbering for added constitutional sections; showing deletions and insertions in strike-and-add format where text is changed; headnote capitalization inconsistencies between constitutional text and the Colorado Revised Statutes; list and punctuation formatting; and clarifying vague terms (for example, defining "treaty," "ambassador," and how citizenship application reviews would be handled). Staff recommended renumbering new section provisions (for example, adding section 17 to Article 18 instead of a nonsequential section number).

No votes were taken at the hearing. Staff reminded proponents that they may amend proposals after the review-and-comment hearing and that substantial amendments may require resubmission to council staff; if amendments directly respond to substantive comments, proponents may not need to resubmit. Proponents indicated they would revise drafts before submitting to the Title Board.

Claims, disputes and legal uncertainty

Proponents repeatedly said many proposed effects would only arise if Colorado were independent, and they argued that replacing federal references would not conflict with federal law in that scenario. Staff repeatedly highlighted the Supremacy Clause and asked proponents to explain how state action would interact with federally controlled matters. Those constitutional and practical tensions — including questions about taxation, appropriations embedded within adopted federal laws, administrative capacity, and possible litigation — were central themes of the hearing.

What’s next: The hearing closed with staff guidance on amendment opportunities and the Title Board process. Proponents may amend their drafts in response to the technical and substantive comments; the Title Board will review titles and single-subject compliance when measures are filed for signature gathering.