Idaho committee considers bill requiring schools to record student immigration status; measure fails after tie votes

The Idaho House Education Committee on an unspecified date considered RS 32-405, a proposal carried by Representative Steve Tanner that would require any school or district receiving state funds to record the immigration status and nationality of enrolled students and aggregate that information for public reporting or submission to the superintendent of public instruction.

The bill, as described by Representative Steve Tanner, would create a new chapter of the education code and "requires any school or district that receives state money to record the immigration status and nationality of the students and then ... aggregate it and make it publicly available." Tanner said the measure would define elementary and secondary schools as grades 1 through 12 and align immigration-status categories with the Immigration and Nationality Act as he cited it.

Committee members raised multiple concerns during roughly an hour of questions and discussion. Representative Mathias questioned the fiscal note and asked, "how did you arrive at the conclusion that collecting ... and record[ing] the immigration status and nationality of probably just over 400,000 people won't cost any money?" Tanner said he expected existing enrollment processes and staff to handle the work and that outside contractors would not be required.

Lawmakers also pressed how a student's nationality would be proven at enrollment. Representative Clow asked, "this says that the immigration status and nationality of all enrolled students, how do I prove the nationality of my children?" Tanner suggested parents would provide birth certificates or other immigration paperwork at intake; he also said, for those without documentation, "then they would ... designate them as undocumented." Representative Plummer and others pointed out limits of birth certificates as proof of nationality for some children and raised questions about children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents.

Representative Thijs asked whether the collected data would be used to deny undocumented students access to education. Representative Tanner replied, "No, that's not the intention." Tanner and supporters framed the request as demographic data needed to measure burdens on public instruction, including English-language instruction needs. Tanner said the data would help "assess really what is the measure of the new burden that we're trying to meet."

Opponents cited constitutional and privacy risks and potential litigation costs. Representative Mathias warned, "This smells like undue discrimination, and it will get us all in trouble, and it will cost the taxpayers about a quarter million dollars to litigate if this becomes a loss." Representative Clow expressed concern about making detailed information public and said, "I just don't hope we don't end up putting yellow stars on a group of people."

Two procedural motions were offered during the committee consideration. Representative Garner moved to return RS 32-405 to the sponsor. That motion failed on a roll-call tie of 7-7. The committee then considered the original motion to introduce RS 32-405 with an amendment directing that the aggregated information be reported "to the superintendent of public instruction and made public." That motion was also decided by roll call and resulted in a 7-7 tie, which the committee chair declared a failure of the motion. As a result, RS 32-405 did not advance out of committee on either motion.

Committee members pressed for additional detail on how "made public" would be implemented, whether reporting would be internet-based or printed, and how privacy protections for children would be handled if the measure returns for a full hearing. Multiple members said they would prefer more analysis of the asserted problem the bill purports to solve before moving forward.

Because the RS failed to pass committee motions, there was no committee direction, amendment adoption, or referral recorded for RS 32-405 during this meeting. The committee chair closed the session and noted that returning a request to sponsor does not kill it and offers an opportunity to revise the proposal for a subsequent filing or hearing.