Bill Description: Senate Bill 1247 would require government entities and most private employers who do business with government entities to implement and use the federal e-verify system.
Rating: 0
NOTE: Both House Bill 584 and Senate Bill 1247 (2026) would require the use of the federal e-verify system, but Senate Bill 1247 would limit the mandate to government entities and most private employers who do business with government entities. House Bill 584 would impose the mandate on all employers (including small businesses) and impose much harsher penalties for violations.
Does it promote the breakdown of the traditional family or the deconstruction of societal norms? Examples include promoting or incentivizing degeneracy, violating parental rights, and compromising the innocence of children. Conversely, does it protect or uphold the structure, tenets, and traditional values of Western society?
Senate Bill 1247 would create Chapter 3, Title 44, Idaho Code, titled the "Idaho E-Verify Act." The act would provide definitions, mandates, penalties, and exceptions related to the federal e-verify system.
The act would apply to “any state, county, city, school district, municipal corporation, independent public body corporate and politic, district, public health district, public benefit corporation, public authority, political subdivision, or any agency, department, bureau, commission, office, council or committee thereof, or any combination thereof.”
The act would also apply to a private employer that has (or had) more than 150 employees and that is party to a contract with any of the entities listed above. In some cases, small contracts worth less than $100,000 would be excluded.
The act would require that, starting January 1, 2027, all these defined employers enroll in the e-verify system and verify the employment eligibility of all new hires through the system.
Enforcement would be handled through civil complaints against the employer brought by the Director of the Idaho Department of Labor in the district court for the relevant county. If an employer is found to be in violation, the court shall “order the covered employer to terminate the employment of every unauthorized worker”; “subject the covered employer to a one (1) year probationary period, applicable throughout the state of Idaho, during which time the covered employer shall file quarterly reports with the director identifying each new employee who is hired by the covered employer in the state of Idaho”; and “order the covered employer to file a signed, sworn affidavit with the director within three (3) days after an order is issued by the court stating that the covered employer has terminated the employment of every unauthorized worker and that the covered employer will not thereafter knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized worker in the state of Idaho.”
In the case of a second or subsequent violation within three years, the court may find that the employer is “in breach of its contract with the applicable public agency” and “declare such contract to be terminated.”
It should be noted that the enforcement provisions in this bill are structured around probationary periods, additional reporting, and terminating contracts, none of which directly apply to governments. So, if a government hires an unauthorized alien, it would be required to terminate the employment, but that’s essentially it. If a private employer did the same thing, it would face more serious consequences.
Requiring governments to hire only American citizens and lawful immigrants is consistent with upholding traditional values.
(+1)
Does it give government any new, additional, or expanded power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate activities in the free market? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce government intervention in the market?
The "Idaho E-Verify Act" created by Senate Bill 1247 would impose additional regulations on some private employers.
The penalties contained in this bill are not as harsh as those in House Bill 584 (2026) and are more consistent with those imposed on businesses for other reporting errors or paperwork violations.
(-1)
Does it increase government redistribution of wealth? Examples include the use of tax policy or other incentives to reward specific interest groups, businesses, politicians, or government employees with special favors or perks; transfer payments; and hiring additional government employees. Conversely, does it decrease government redistribution of wealth?
Governments regulate immigration for many reasons, including its financial, political, and demographic implications. Even when undocumented immigrants work and pay taxes, their use of healthcare and education systems — federally required under EMTALA and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) — can place a strain on the taxpayers who ultimately subsidize these systems.
The state of Idaho requiring governments and employers who contract with governments to use the federal e-verify system is unlikely to meaningfully reduce overall immigration levels, but it could encourage some undocumented immigrants to choose to live in places other than Idaho.
(+1)
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the tenth amendment. Conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
One of the more concerning elements of using e-verify is the loss of state sovereignty and the broad incorporation of federal laws, rules, and definitions into Idaho code.
The entire e-verify system is controlled by the federal government, and the act explicitly says the e-verify system must be used “according to the federal statutes and regulations governing e-verify.” And, like all government registries, the e-verify system is subject to errors, inaccuracies, and manipulation. But under this act, the state has no authority to override the system in such cases.
The act defines an "unauthorized worker" as “an alien who is not authorized to work in the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3).” It also says, “In any court proceedings pursuant to this section, the determination of whether an employee is an unauthorized worker shall be made by the federal government, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1373(c). The court shall consider only the federal government's determination when deciding whether an employee is an unauthorized worker.”
And, lest there be any doubt, the act says that anything related to “immigration terminology and definitions shall be construed to have the same meanings as provided under federal immigration law.” It adds that the act “shall be construed and implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws, federal regulations, and interpretive case law.”
These definitions and references are not fixed and could be altered by the federal government at any time. Such incorporation is an incredibly broad abdication of state sovereignty.
(-1)
