House committee debates H.169 language on immigration status, IDs and rental applications

The House General & Housing Committee reviewed draft 2.1 of H.169 on Tuesday, a proposal that would add protections against discrimination in housing on the basis of citizenship and immigration status and require residential rental applications to accept specified forms of identification.

Why it matters: The draft aims to make clear what forms of identification landlords must accept when conducting background or credit checks, and to protect landlords from conflicts between state nondiscrimination rules and any future federal requirements.

Cameron Wood of the Office of Legislative Council presented the revisions. He said the draft reorders what landlords must accept when conducting background checks and adds language intended to shield landlords from conflict if federal law were to require verification or differential treatment on the basis of immigration status. "If required by federal law, the verification of immigration status or differential treatment on the basis of citizenship or immigration status shall not constitute a violation of subsection A," Wood read from the draft.

The measure would require residential rental application forms to inform applicants that they may provide an unexpired government‑issued photo ID, an original or copy of other acceptable identification, or alternative documentation instead of a Social Security number. Counsel said the list was intended to help landlords who want to rent to people who do not have U.S. Social Security numbers and to reduce confusion about accepted documentation.

Committee members and witnesses raised practical questions about background checks and enforcement. Several members noted that national property managers and tenant‑screening services can run credit and eviction checks using name, date of birth and address, though some checks may take longer or cost more without a Social Security number. Members also discussed the potential burden on small, often older, individual landlords who may be less connected to online screening services and expressed concern about outreach and education if the law changes.

The committee discussed how to reconcile state nondiscrimination protections with federal obligations tied to some federal rental subsidies. Wood noted that federal funding rules sometimes require recipients of certain federal subsidies to verify lawful status. The draft attempt to address that concern by stating that if federal law requires verification or differential treatment, that act would not be treated as a violation of the state nondiscrimination subsection.

Several members asked for more information and outreach before a final vote. The committee conducted informal straw polls on whether to keep H.169 separate or incorporate comparable language into the larger housing bill S.127 and on support for the current draft language. Members' positions were mixed; some favored dropping the language into S.127, others preferred leaving H.169 separate, and several members asked for more time to review the draft and compare other states' approaches. Counsel noted that the last time the state's unfair housing statute was amended to add a protected subset of individuals was February 2019 (victims of abuse, sexual assault or stalking).

No final committee vote to adopt statutory language was recorded in the hearing. Counsel said that if the committee wants a long form amendment it can prepare one; members discussed timelines tied to the legislative calendar for housing bills.