Signature gatherers outside of grocery stores and other public spaces are a common sight in the year before an election — but can you trust what circulators tell you?
While many states have similar processes to allow citizens to propose ballot measures without the state legislature’s involvement, Colorado is one of only 16 states that allows petition-gathering firms to pay circulators per signature. Combine that financial incentive with busy holiday shoppers who might sign based solely on a circulator’s pitch, rather than reading the printed language of the initiative, and the opportunity for deception becomes clear.
Early this month, crculators outside of Boulder supermarkets who were collecting signatures for Initiative #95 described their proposal to passerbys as a way to rein in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) activity in Colorado, and “limiting deportation to violent criminals and felons only.”
“She said, ‘Would you like to help stop ICE from attacking … nonviolent criminals?’ And I said, ‘Absolutely I would,’” said Laura Kaplan, a Boulder resident who spoke with a circulator on Dec. 2, outside of a King Soopers on Table Mesa Drive in South Boulder. “So I took the clipboard, and I read it, and I said, ‘Well, hang on a second, this doesn’t actually stop ICE from doing anything, all this does is make the local police call ICE on people who are charged with certain things.’”
As is stated in its official text, Initiative #95 would force local law enforcement to determine the immigration status of any person charged with a violent crime or who has a prior felony conviction, and to notify the Department of Homeland Security then if they are in the country illegally, or their status is unknown.
Along with another verified first-hand account, a Colorado Times Recorder reporter recorded two other signature gatherers in Boulder, at the King Soopers on Table Mesa Dr., as well as its 30th St. location, using similarly deceptive language to describe the initiative.
The two designated representatives of Initiative #95 are Michael Fields and Suzanne Taheri. Fields runs the conservative dark money group Advance Colorado, which has backed more than 60 other right-wing initiatives for 2026. Advance has faced criticism, like many other large conservative political organizations, for not disclosing its deep-pocketed donors. Taheri is a longtime Republican attorney who has joined Fields on numerous other conservative ballot initiatives over the years.
Initiative #95 would require additional language to be added to the state Constitution, and as such, it needs 125,000 signatures in total and at least 2% of the registered voters in each of the 35 state Senate districts.
While some citizen initiatives utilize volunteers to collect signatures, others contract with canvassing firms, with a price tag that typically runs into the millions. Three separate firms have been contracted for Initiative #95, according to a list of officially licensed petition entities in Colorado; however, both of the circulators that the Colorado Times Recorder spoke to were employed by Victor’s Canvassing.
Victor’s has previously collected signatures for other conservative initiatives, done outreach for Republican candidates in past elections, and has close ties to the conservative political apparatus in Colorado.
This isn’t the first time Victor’s circulators have been caught saying one thing to get voters to put something very different on the ballot. In 2023, the Aurora Sentinel busted Victor’s for asking city residents to sign a petition for “term limits” that instead would have transferred nearly all of the city government’s power to conservative Mayor Mike Coffman. The lawyer representing that failed initiative? The same Suzanne Taheri who is backing Initiative #95.
Neither Advance Colorado nor Victor’s Canvassing responded to CTR’s request for comment.
“This is a problem with certain paid signature gatherers, as they are paid by the signature that they collect. They are incentivized to just get as many signatures as possible without regard for any of the [rules and regulations],” said Joshua Mantell, director of government affairs for the Bell Policy Center, who has experience with citizen initiatives. “When you’re trying to get really regressive, unpopular policy [on the ballot], you’re not gonna get the enthusiasm from the people, and so you’re gonna need to rely on people who are doing it for the money and not for trying to make Colorado a better place.”
Mantell is currently involved in getting a separate citizen initiative, #185, onto the 2026 ballot, which would implement a graduated income tax in Colorado. While it has not yet reached the signature-gathering stage, he hopes not to use paid circulators in the way Advance has, as he believes the policy is much more popular with voters than an initiative like #95.
The circulation of citizen initiatives is regulated by Colorado election law; however, these rules are primarily focused on the registration and training of circulators, how the authenticity of signatures is verified after submission, and ensuring that the circulator was present for all signatures. There are relatively few restrictions on how an initiative should be presented by gatherers, other than that the text of it must be clearly printed on the signature sheet.
Ed Ramey, a Denver attorney with decades of experience in election and campaign finance law, did not see many avenues for recourse beyond individual actions when asked what legal consequences these deceptive statements could have for Initiative #95 or Victor’s Canvassing.
“If these statements by circulators rose to the level of fraudulent statements – i.e., more than merely misleading or exaggerated statements – I suppose someone who signed a petition could ask the [Colorado] Secretary of State to have their individual signature removed,” said Ramey in a written reply to our question.
While one of the individuals who interacted with circulators told CTR they had contacted the Secretary of State’s (SOS) office to have their signature removed, this process can be time-consuming, and it places the burden on the individual who was misled by the signature gatherer, rather than the ones misleading them. The SOS’s office offers a form with which to make a complaint against a petition, including a box to specify if the circulator “lied about the issues or tried to confuse an elector into signing the petition.”
CTR reached out to Jack Todd, communications director for the Colorado SoS’s office, to ask about the deceptive tactics and received the following response: “At this time, the Department of State cannot comment on potential complaints before our office against petition circulators. Any member of the public may submit a complaint about conduct by a petition circulator to our office if they believe the law has been violated.”
Initiative #95 reached 75% of its required signatures in early October, and the deadline for its organizers to submit a complete petition is Dec. 26.
The legality of the tactics employed by petition circulators for Victor’s Canvassing and Advance Colorado is murky, but for folks like Mantell, it is another clear indication of how money is corrupting Colorado politics.
“There are important rules and regulations that govern how you collect signatures, but for folks like Advance Colorado, who seem to have endless sums of money from their dark money millionaire and billionaire donors, they are able to pay however much it costs to get these signatures,” said Mantell.
