Santa Barbara supervisors approve policies to limit unauthorized immigration enforcement on county property, boost election protections and study tools to block

The Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors on April 21 approved a three-part policy directing county staff to (1) restrict unauthorized immigration enforcement on county-owned property, (2) expand county-led efforts to protect ballots and voter confidence ahead of 2026 elections, and (3) ask planning to study land-use tools that could be used if detention facilities are proposed on unincorporated county land.

Supervisors voted unanimously to approve the elections measures and requested the elections division return to the board on May 5 with details about how it secures ballots and promotes poll-worker recruitment. A subsequent motion to adopt the access and land-use components passed 4-1, with Chair Nelson recording the lone dissent.

Supporters said the policies respond to widespread fear that immigration enforcement activity near public facilities deters residents from using county services or voting. "Our public spaces are supposed to be places people can use without fear or confusion," staff presenter Chris Hinson said during an overview of the proposal. Supervisor Laura Capps said the proposal was "legally sound" and aimed at protecting access to services and civic participation; she told the board that roughly 40% of county residents rely on county services.

Supervisor Gregg Hartman, Supervisor Lavagnino and Supervisor Lee joined Capps in voting for the access and land-use items; Chair Nelson dissented on that motion. The board characterized the measures as county policy (not an ordinance) and directed staff to continue legal review and to return with implementation details.

Sheriff Bill Brown urged caution, saying federal immigration enforcement is authorized by federal law and that any local restriction will raise complex, fact-specific issues. "ICE agents are authorized by federal law to enforce immigration law," Brown told the board, warning that a local ban could prompt agents to alter tactics in ways that might pose public-safety risks.

Public testimony was extensive: about 27 speakers participated. Community groups including Unidos 805, Future Leaders of America and Buen Vecino urged adoption and recommended additional election-outreach steps, while an attorney, Maria Salguera, described an incident at a local ICE facility in which she said officers threatened to call child-protective services and questioned a young client. "When they realized that I was sort of passively sitting there with the child ... they began to act like they do with violence," Salguera said.

Opponents argued parts of the package could be largely symbolic and questioned enforceability under the Constitution's supremacy clause. One public commenter cited longstanding federal authority and said federal law would likely preempt local action.

Board members repeatedly emphasized the fact-specific nature of legal limits. County Counsel advised that applicability turns on how the federal government holds or uses land and that some federal land uses are beyond county permitting, while other uses — including leases on nonfederal property — could be subject to local review.

The board voted to have the elections division report back May 5 on how the county secures ballots, educates voters on rights and encourages poll-worker participation. For the access and land-use items, supervisors directed planning and counsel to analyze legal tools and return with options for possible ordinance or policy language, implementation steps and enforcement considerations.

The board concluded the special meeting and moved to general public comment; the next regular session on this item was scheduled for May 5.