Idaho committee declines to advance bill that would record students’ immigration status after close votes

Representative Steve Tanner (R-District 13) introduced RS 32-405 to the House Education Committee, a proposal that would add a new chapter to Idaho’s education code requiring any school or district that receives state funds to record students’ immigration status and nationality and to aggregate and make that information public.

The bill’s sponsor said the measure would define elementary and secondary schools, accredited higher‑education institutions and five immigration‑status categories aligned with the Immigration and Nationality Act, and would require schools to record status information at enrollment. "No, that's not the intention," Tanner said when asked whether the bill aimed to deny services to undocumented students, adding the bill was intended to measure what the sponsor described as new burdens on public instruction.

Committee members pressed Tanner on practical and legal questions. Representative Mathias asked how the fiscal note concluded there would be no new cost to collect immigration status for “probably just over 400,000” students. Tanner responded that he expected existing school staff would handle intake and recordkeeping and that the reporting method could vary. Representative Mathias: "I'm looking at the fiscal note and then I'm looking at sections 2 and 3...how did you arrive at the conclusion that collecting...and record the immigration status and nationality of probably just over 400,000 people won't cost any money." Tanner said he anticipated existing internal procedures would be used.

Lawmakers questioned what proof would be required to establish nationality. Representative Clough 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 could provide birth certificates for citizens or other immigration paperwork for noncitizens. Representative Plummer noted birth certificates "are very poor identification" and asked how nationality would be recorded for children of undocumented parents; Tanner said children without verifiable documents would be designated as undocumented according to the bill as presented.

Several members raised constitutional and privacy concerns. Representative Clow said he had "some questions about the constitutionality" of singling out a population for reporting and warned against creating public records that could stigmatize people. Representative Thijs said the state would have to show a "compelling state interest" to justify collecting such data. Representative Church asked for clarification about what "made public" would mean in practice and whether online publication or paper reports would be required.

Committee members also proposed and debated an amendment to the RS that would change the publication requirement. One amendment would remove the phrase "in a publicly accessible location" and instead require aggregated reports "each year and recorded to the superintendent of public instruction and made public." The amendment text (as read into the record) began at the words "each year" and would read: "each year and recorded to the superintendent of public instruction and made public."

Two separate motions on RS 32-405 were considered by the committee: a motion to return the RS to the sponsor, and a motion to introduce the RS with the amendment described above. Both motions were decided by roll call and resulted in tie votes. The first motion (to return the RS to the sponsor) failed on a 7–7 tie. The subsequent motion to introduce RS 32-405 with the amendment likewise failed on a 7–7 vote. The committee therefore did not advance RS 32-405 at this meeting.

Committee members who spoke in opposition cited possible litigation costs, insufficient analysis of whether the data would demonstrably help the state, the potential for discrimination, and uncertainty about implementation and privacy safeguards. Representative Mathias warned that printing and pursuing the measure without analysis could "cost the taxpayers about a quarter million dollars to litigate" if the law were challenged.

No formal vote on a final bill text occurred because the RS did not advance; the committee moved on to other business. The record shows the measure generated extensive questions about implementation, required documentation, privacy, and constitutional limits on state action toward individuals based on immigration status.

Ending: The committee moved next to RS 32-458; Representative Tanner may return the RS to the sponsor for revision and potential reintroduction at a later date.