Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment Verification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
E‑Verify bill draws sharp division; business groups warn of enforcement and anonymous tips, advocates call for stronger verification
Summary
Senate Bill 329 would require employers with more than 50 employees to use E‑Verify for new hires and assign investigatory enforcement to the attorney general; proponents said the system curbs illegal hiring while business groups warned of burdens and potential abuse of anonymous complaints.
Senator Forrest Mandeville opened the hearing on Senate Bill 329, which would require employers with more than 50 employees to use the federal E‑Verify system to confirm new hires’ employment eligibility and would direct the attorney general to investigate complaints and maintain a list of violators that could bar state contracting.
Proponents said mandatory E‑Verify is an effective tool to reduce illegal hiring. Andrew Goode, a national advocate for verification policies, told the committee that E‑Verify is free, widely used and in some studies associated with sharp declines in unauthorised presence where states adopted mandates. "E Verify is an excellent system. It gets excellent reviews from employers that use it," he said.
Business groups—including the Montana Retail Association, Montana Restaurant Association and Montana Chamber of Commerce—opposed the bill. Brad Griffin, who represents multiple trade associations, said mandatory E‑Verify is a heavy lift for many members and criticized the bill’s anonymous complaint mechanism. "For smaller businesses, the time, training, and resources needed to use E Verify can feel like an unnecessary hassle," Griffin said.
Kerry Hegreberg of the Montana Chamber and other opponents warned the attorney general’s investigatory mandate and the bill’s right‑of‑entry language could amount to significant government intrusion on private employers and could enable harassment through repeated anonymous tips. Campgrounds of America also opposed the bill for forcing exclusive use of E‑Verify rather than allowing employers to choose compliance paths the federal government permits.
Informational witnesses from state agencies explained how enforcement and coordination could work. Alex Sturhan (Montana Department of Justice) said DOJ would perform whatever enforcement the Legislature assigns but noted the office would likely need hiring resources for a new investigatory role. Sarah Swanson, Commissioner at the Department of Labor and Industry, and Dean Mack from State Human Resources explained DLI already conducts on‑site inspections for prevailing wage and other compliance and could coordinate with DOJ; they said DLI believed it could absorb additional duties but that parallel tracks could be clunky without clear coordination.
Committee members asked about the threshold (50 employees), whether a carve‑out for small employers should stay, how state enforcement should be split between agencies, and whether a House bill (HB226) that takes a different enforcement path might be preferable. The sponsor said the 50‑employee threshold was chosen in the Senate as a pragmatic carve‑out for small employers and that he would consider coordination language and fixes to the anonymous‑complaint provision. The sponsor also said the bill includes a good‑faith defense intended to protect employers acting honestly.
No final committee vote occurred during the hearing. The committee will likely consider amendments addressing the anonymous‑complaint language, enforcement assignment and the employer‑size threshold before any floor action.
