Senate Judiciary Committee debates limits on executive, local authority in discussion of S.44

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 13 discussed S.44, an immigration bill that members said raises constitutional questions about the legislatures ability to restrict the governors authority to enter agreements with federal authorities and whether oversight of local towns and police departments might be a more realistic approach.

Committee member 1, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said: "I think there are 2 challenges, regarding specifically what we can and can't do when it comes to the executive branch. They do have some constitutional concerns as to whether or not having control over what the executive branch can do when it comes to entering into agreements with the federal government." The member said a separate concern is whether the governor would sign the bill if it were written as proposed.

"We did have some witnesses lined up, but due to the weather, I believe, the number of them or all of them had to cancel," Committee member 1 added, asking for input from colleagues and noting that several outside groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, had views on the bill.

Committee member 2, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it would be useful to hear from those witnesses before taking a position. "It would be great to hear from the list of witnesses that all canceled... I know the ACLU has thoughts, on this bill. I imagine the administration does. So it's it's not for me to opine without information," the member said.

Discussion among members focused on two recurring points: the legal limits of the legislatures power over executive branch agreements and whether the legislature should target local governments instead. Committee member 1 suggested an alternative that would change what types of agreements towns, police departments and sheriffs offices can enter into and require some form of approval or oversight before those local contracts with federal immigration authorities proceed.

"Any general thoughts on the idea of shifting from trying to constrain what the governor can do versus trying to constrain what towns, police departments can do when it comes to entering into agreements with federal authorities?" Committee member 1 asked. The member added that under current practice both the governor and local law enforcement entities can enter into contracts with federal partners, and said the committee should ask the League of Cities and Towns about local practice.

Committee member 3, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emphasized the limits of available information and the need for the administrations perspective. "I still wanna spend a whole lot of time on a bill that made some individuals appear to be knee jerk reaction as to what's going on nationally, when in essence, we don't have the support if we don't have the support of the administration," the member said.

Members also referenced the federal 287(g) program during the discussion. Committee member 3 described 287(g) as "cumbersome" and said no one at the meeting had laid out the programs practical effects in detail.

No formal motions or votes were taken during the discussion. Members said they want additional testimony, including from the ACLU, the administration and the League of Cities and Towns, before deciding whether to pursue changes that would limit the governor's authority or instead impose requirements on local governments. Several members noted uncertainty about whether the governor would sign legislation that constrained executive agreements.

The committee did not set a date for further action on S.44 during the portion of the transcript provided.