Committee declines to advance bill that would require schools to record students' immigration status and nationality

Representative Steve Tanner of District 13 told the Idaho House Education Committee he was carrying RS 32‑405, a proposed change to the state education code that would require any school or district receiving state funds to record students' immigration status and nationality and to aggregate and make that information public. "It requires any school or district that receives state money to record the immigration status and nationality of the students and then this legislation also requires schools and or district to make the information, to aggregate it and make it publicly available," Tanner said on the record.

The measure would create a new chapter in title 33 of Idaho's education code and would define elementary and secondary grades, accredited higher‑education institutions and five immigration‑status categories (citizens, permanent residents, non‑immigrants, undocumented immigrants and refugees), with status definitions aligned to the Immigration and Nationality Act, the sponsor said.

Committee members raised questions about how the data would be collected, verified and published. Representative Mathias asked how the fiscal note could be zero if the change required districts to collect and publish potentially hundreds of thousands of student records; he noted "probably just over 400,000 people" when discussing the scale. Tanner said he expected schools would use existing enrollment procedures and staff to capture the information and that proof would be provided at intake in the same way documents are presented now.

Several members pressed how nationality would be proved and how children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents would be recorded. Representative Clow asked, "If there is an undocumented parent, but the child has a birth certificate, what nationality are they going to be recorded as?" Tanner replied that birth certificates typically show place of birth and that children without birth certificates would be designated as undocumented under the bill's framework.

Other lawmakers said collecting the information raised privacy and constitutional concerns. Representative Church asked whether "nationality" would be equated to state of birth. Representative Thijs and Representative Clow said the committee would need to see a compelling state interest before singling out a population for data collection; Clow warned, "I just don't hope we don't end up putting yellow stars on a group of people." Representative Mathias cautioned that the legislation could be costly to litigate if it were found discriminatory.

Sponsors and supporters proposed an amendment that would require districts to report aggregated data "each year and [record it] to the superintendent of public instruction and made public," instead of the original language that said publication in a "publicly accessible location." The committee considered two motions: one to return the RS to the sponsor and one to introduce the RS with the amendment. Both motions failed on recorded roll calls, each vote ending in a 7‑7 tie, and the RS did not advance.

The committee discussion moved on after the failed motions. The record shows extended questioning across multiple members about verification methods, fiscal impacts and legal risk; no formal direction to staff or referral to a hearing was adopted.

Notes: the transcript records discussion of definitions tied to the Immigration and Nationality Act and repeated questions about proof and publication methods; the committee did not adopt the RS or any amendment.