Local control or state mandate: Colorado bill would override city prostitution laws

By Scott K. James | Commentary, ScottKJames.com

The Colorado General Assembly wants to decriminalize commercial sex and block every city and county from prohibiting it. That is not reform. It is a statewide power grab dressed up as enlightenment.

There are bad bills. There are misguided bills. And then there are bills that crawl out of the Capitol smelling like moral decay wrapped in legislative arrogance.

This one is the latter.

Under the gleaming gold dome of the Colorado State Capitol, Democrats in the Colorado General Assembly have decided that commercial sex is now so enlightened, so elevated, so philosophically superior that no city, no county, no community in the entire state of Colorado may forbid it. SB26-097 not only decriminalizes consensual commercial sexual activity, but it explicitly preempts local governments from criminalizing it.

That’s not reform. That’s a power grab.

For decades, politicians in this state have worshiped at the altar of “local control.” School boards? Local control. Land use? Local control. Energy policy? Local control – until it wasn’t convenient. Now suddenly, when it comes to prostitution, the message is: sit down and shut up.

This bill doesn’t merely change state law. It reaches down into cities and counties and strips away their authority to respond to what their own residents experience. It tells neighborhoods that their concerns about nuisance properties, about activity near schools and parks, about repeat calls for service – none of that matters. The Capitol has spoken.

And then comes the insult layered on top of the injury: the bill declares this to be a “matter of statewide concern.”

No. That’s not how this works.

Legislators do not get to anoint something as “statewide concern” by typing it into a paragraph. That determination ultimately belongs to the courts. You don’t declare constitutional reality by legislative wishful thinking. You pass a law, and then the judiciary decides whether it intrudes on local authority. The General Assembly cannot crown itself the final arbiter of constitutional boundaries.

Calling something “statewide concern” doesn’t make it so. It’s not Beetlejuice. You don’t say it three times and watch local control disappear.

And let’s talk about morality, since everyone’s dancing around it.

We have watched this state sprint down a cultural waterslide for a decade. Marijuana? Legal. Psychedelics? Legal. Now commercial sex, statewide, no opt-out for communities that don’t want it. At some point, it stops being “liberty” and starts looking like a sustained experiment in eroding the standards that hold communities together.

You can argue policy all day long. You can make the case that decriminalization helps reduce stigma. You can claim it lets law enforcement focus on force, fraud, and coercion. Fine. Have that debate honestly.

But don’t pretend this is morally neutral.

Prostitution is not just an abstract transaction between consenting adults floating in a vacuum. It happens somewhere. On streets. In neighborhoods. In proximity to schools, parks, churches, and family homes. It creates patterns of behavior, attracts criminal elements, and alters the character of places where people are trying to raise children and build stable lives.

When the state says no municipality may prohibit it, it is not simply adjusting the criminal code. It is imposing a moral judgment.

It is saying: this is acceptable everywhere.

And that is precisely what many communities would reject if given the choice.

That’s the part that should make people furious. Not because reform is inherently evil. Not because compassion for exploited individuals is wrong. But because this bill doesn’t trust voters in their own towns to make that decision. It assumes that if you gave local governments the option, too many would say no.

So the state removes the option.

That is not confidence. That is fear of losing the argument.

Meanwhile, the practical questions pile up. The bill leaves in place certain offenses like pimping and coercive pandering, and supporters insist that law enforcement can now focus cleanly on trafficking. In theory, that sounds tidy. In reality, situations are rarely that clean. Repealing offenses like “keeping a place of prostitution” eliminates early intervention tools. It narrows what local officials can do before a property becomes a chronic problem. And because local governments are preempted, they cannot craft their own targeted criminal responses.

The consequences will not land on the desks of bill sponsors. They will land in neighborhoods. They will land on local police departments already stretched thin. They will land on community members who feel their concerns were overridden by politicians operating in a very different environment.

And let’s not pretend geography doesn’t matter. Life inside the policy bubble of Denver is not the same as life in small towns, suburbs, or mountain communities. Yet this bill insists that the social vision incubated under the Gold Dome at Colfax and Grant must govern every square mile of the state.

That’s not diversity of thought. That’s uniformity by force.

Colorado can fight trafficking. It can protect victims. It can modernize laws. Nothing about that requires stripping local governments of their authority or pretending that the legislature can simply declare constitutional categories into existence.

If local control still means anything, it must mean something here.

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT SCOTTKJAMES.COM

Scott K. James is a second-term Weld County Commissioner and former Mayor of Johnstown, Colorado. A fourth-generation Colorado native and 40-year radio veteran, he’s been recognized by both the Colorado Broadcasters’ Association and Colorado Counties, Inc. for his public service and communication leadership. James is a strong advocate for individual liberty, limited government, and rural communities. He lives in Johnstown with his wife, Julie, and their son, Jack.

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.