Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Immigration Reporting topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee votes to block bill requiring quarterly immigration‑related reports from counties

House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee · February 19, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Lawmakers voted 7‑5 to find House Bill 13‑64 inexpedient to legislate after debate on whether statutory reporting is necessary beyond existing FOIA procedures and concerns it would politicize county cooperation with immigration enforcement.

The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee on Thursday voted 7‑5 to recommend that House Bill 13‑64 be found "inexpedient to legislate," effectively blocking a proposal that would have required quarterly reporting from counties and municipalities on certain immigration‑related agreements.

Chair voiced skepticism about the bill’s purpose, calling it "politically motivated" and saying the information sought is already accessible via freedom‑of‑information processes. "I don't know what we would do with this information," the chair said during debate, adding concern the requirement could undermine county cooperation with immigration enforcement arrangements.

Representative Murray, who opposed the ITL motion, said the issue is practical: statutory reporting would ensure the committee and lawmakers had timely, comparable data to inform budgeting and program decisions. Murray said some counties have declined to provide similar information when requested and that relying on FOIA after votes is untimely for budget deliberations.

Representative Sherr described similar difficulties obtaining information from Rockingham County and said FOIA requests had been unsuccessful. In the committee vote, sponsors’ desire for more timely data was weighed against concerns about the bill’s purpose; the ITL recommendation carried 7‑5. The chair instructed staff to follow up with members who opposed ITL about specific data needs.

Next steps: the committee action will be reflected in the committee report and the bill will not advance from this committee as written unless rescinded or reconsidered.