Committee advances E‑Verify bill for large state contractors, sending S 1247 to the Senate floor

The Senate State Affairs Committee voted to send S 1247 — the Idaho E‑Verify Act — to the full Senate with a do-pass recommendation after a 6–3 roll-call vote on Feb. 11.

Senator Harris, the bill sponsor, described the measure as an effort to implement E‑Verify for contractors doing business with the State and said it was aimed at protecting taxpayer dollars while focusing on "compliance of the employer rather than punishment." He told the committee the requirement would apply to contractors with more than 150 employees and said he chose that threshold because "small businesses often don't have the ability to easily implement a program like E‑Verify."

The bill drew opposition in testimony and in committee questioning. Michael Angiletta of Rathdrum, representing Secure Idaho, testified that the proposal "was narrow and preserved illegal labor loopholes" and argued it would not change employer behavior. Tim O'Donnell of Meridian, also representing Secure Idaho, told the committee the bill "fell short on coverage" because it would not apply to all Idaho businesses and therefore would not align with public policy changes he wants to see.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on accuracy and enforcement. Senator Den Hartog asked whether employers would be protected if an individual submitted fake documents and was later found to be working illegally; Senator Harris said he did not think "there would be a linear process for proving employer innocence," acknowledging a shortcoming in the system. Senators also questioned whether the bill's threshold and coverage matched other states; Senator Toews and others sought clarity about Utah's implementation and whether it covered the private sector.

When the committee voted, Chairman Guthrie, Vice Chairman Bernt, and Senators Ruchti, Adams, Harris and Anthon voted aye. Senators Shippy, Den Hartog and Toews voted nay. The motion carried and S 1247 will move to the Senate floor for further consideration.

The committee record shows supporters framed the bill as a step to make state contracting consistent with other states and to protect taxpayers, while opponents and some committee members warned that limited coverage, potential for fraud with falsified documents, and implementation burdens for smaller employers merited further work.

The committee also recorded testimony urging broader or alternative approaches; the next procedural step is floor consideration in the Senate.