OPPOSE

SB 1247 — Idaho E-Verify Act

Expands E-Verify in name only and leaves illegal hiring untouched.

What the Bill Claims

Expands E-Verify
Protects American workers
Holds employers accountable

What it actually does

❌ No real penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal labor
❌ Big Ag & contractor loopholes remain
❌ Political cover, not enforcement

Visual Bill Tracker

Introduced by Senator Mark Harris

Passed Senate State Affairs (6–3)
Referred to Senate Floor

Passes the Senate Floor
(27-7-1)

Bill Summary

SB 1247 is presented as an E-Verify enforcement bill, but it does not meaningfully reduce illegal hiring in Idaho. The bill is narrowly written, largely preserves existing practices, and avoids the labor structures where illegal hiring actually occurs.

SB 1247 requires E-Verify use only for:

  • Public agencies, and

  • Certain large state contractors meeting high employee and contract thresholds.

  • Most private employers are excluded.

Concerns

  1. Does not apply to the broader private labor market

  2. Exempts subcontractors and independent contractors

  3. Imposes no civil fines or license consequences

  4. Makes enforcement largely discretionary

  5. These limitations prevent the bill from changing employer behavior or reducing illegal hiring.

Position

Secure Idaho opposes SB 1247.

While marketed as enforcement, SB 1247 functions primarily as political cover for politicians who wish to claim they support enforcement while protecting the status quo. Real enforcement requires broad employer coverage, accountability for labor brokers, and penalties that deter illegal hiring - none of which are included in this bill.

SB 1247: Idaho E-Verify Act

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Sixty-eighth Legislature, Second Regular Session – 2026

IN THE SENATE
SENATE BILL NO. 1247
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

AN ACT

RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT; AMENDING TITLE 44, IDAHO CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 3, TITLE 44, IDAHO CODE, TO PROVIDE A SHORT TITLE, TO DEFINE TERMS, TO REQUIRE COVERED EMPLOYERS TO USE THE E-VERIFY PROGRAM, TO PROVIDE FOR ENFORCEMENT AND VIOLATIONS, TO ESTABLISH DEFENSES, TO PROVIDE FOR EXCLUSIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR INTERPRETATION, AND TO PROVIDE RULEMAKING AUTHORITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

SECTION 1.

That Title 44, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a new chapter, to be known and designated as Chapter 3, Title 44, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:

CHAPTER 3 — IDAHO E-VERIFY ACT

44-301. SHORT TITLE.

This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the “Idaho E-Verify Act.”

44-302. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this chapter:

  1. “Alien” means any person who is not a citizen or national of the United States as described in 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.

  2. “Covered employer” means:
    a. Every public agency;
    b. Every employer that employs, or has employed, more than one hundred fifty (150) employees during more than twenty-six (26) consecutive weeks over the immediate past twenty-four (24) month period and that is party to a contract with a public agency subject to chapter 28, title 67, Idaho Code; and
    c. Every employer that employs, or has employed, more than one hundred fifty (150) employees during more than twenty-six (26) consecutive weeks over the immediate past twenty-four (24) month period and that is party to a contract with an agency, as defined in section 67-9203(3), Idaho Code, if such contract:
    i. Has a value equal to or greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000); and
    ii. Is paid wholly or in part with public funds.

  3. “Director” means the director of the Idaho Department of Labor.

  4. “E-Verify” or “E-Verify program” means the electronic verification of federal employment authorization program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1324a.

  5. “Employee” means any person directed, allowed, or permitted to perform labor or service of any kind in the state of Idaho by an employer.
    For purposes of this chapter, the employees of an independent contractor working for a business entity shall not be regarded as the employees of the business entity.

  6. “Employer” means any individual, person, corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business entity that has employees.

  7. “Federal work authorization program” means any electronic verification program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security to verify employment eligibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1324a.

  8. “Knowingly” means being aware, by documentation or action, that conduct is of a prohibited nature or that a circumstance exists. Failure to request or review documentation of federal work authorization constitutes knowledge. The following documentation creates a presumption that a person is not an unauthorized worker:
    a. A valid Idaho driver’s license;
    b. A valid Idaho identification card;
    c. A valid tribal enrollment card or similar identification;
    d. Any valid federal or state government-issued identification requiring proof of lawful presence;
    e. A foreign passport with an unexpired United States visa and DHS admission stamp; or
    f. A foreign passport issued by a visa-waiver country with proper DHS documentation.

  9. “Public agency” means any state or local governmental entity or political subdivision.

  10. “Unauthorized worker” means an alien not authorized to work in the United States pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3).

44-303. COVERED EMPLOYERS REQUIRED TO USE E-VERIFY PROGRAM.

  1. On and after January 1, 2027, every covered employer shall enroll in and use the E-Verify program to verify the employment eligibility of newly hired employees.

  2. It shall be unlawful for any covered employer to knowingly hire, recruit, or refer for employment any individual whose work authorization has not been verified through E-Verify.

  3. Verification must occur within three (3) business days after the employee’s first day of work for pay, or by the first day of work if employment will last fewer than three days.

44-304. ENFORCEMENT — VIOLATIONS.

  1. If the director determines noncompliance, the director shall provide written notice and allow at least thirty (30) days for the employer to come into compliance.

  2. If compliance is not achieved, the director may bring a civil enforcement action in district court.

  3. Determination of work authorization status shall be made exclusively by the federal government.

  4. Upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence of a knowing violation, a court shall:
    a. Order termination of unauthorized workers;
    b. Impose a one-year probationary period with quarterly reporting; and
    c. Require a sworn affidavit of compliance.

  5. Upon a second or subsequent violation within three years, a court may declare a covered employer in breach of a public contract and may terminate the contract.

44-305. DEFENSES.

  1. Compliance or attempted compliance constitutes an affirmative defense.

  2. Entrapment is an affirmative defense under specified conditions.

44-306. EXCLUSIONS.

  1. Contractors are not liable for violations committed by subcontractors.

  2. This chapter does not apply to employees of independent contractors.

44-307. INTERPRETATION.

This chapter shall be construed consistently with federal immigration law and civil rights protections.

44-308. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.

The director may promulgate rules subject to legislative approval.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This act shall be in full force and effect on and after January 1, 2027.

How Secure Idaho Scored this Bill

We created a scorecard to quickly show how well each bill protects Idaho's sovereignty, jobs, families, limited government, and the freedom of Idaho citizens -priorities that match what 80% of Idahoans tell us in surveys: unchecked immigration threatens our resources, wages, and values. Yet, special interests like BigAg and the Idaho Association of Commerce & Industry (IACI) often block enforcement to prioritize cheap labor over voter priorities. Our scoring flips this by building pressure through data, tracking, and county-level mobilization ahead of the 2026 session. Here's the basic system in plain English:

1) Category Criteria and Scores: Alignment with Secure Idaho's Vision

We evaluate bills against 9 key categories that embody Idaho's core values: State Sovereignty (securing independence from federal encroachment), State Culture (protecting moral values and community cohesion), Constitutional Principles (upholding separation of powers), Government Accountability (ensuring transparency), Government Size (limiting government), Government Efficiency (fighting waste), Family Success (prioritizing families), Small Business Success (supporting the American Dream), and Individual Liberty (safeguarding personal freedoms).

For each category, we ask targeted sub-questions based on bill text, data, and potential impacts:

  • Does it strengthen/enhance/improve the goal? → +1 point

  • Does it diminish/undermine/hurt the goal? → -1 point

  • Neutral or no effect? → 0 points

We average the sub-questions per category (equal weighting), then sum the 9 averages for an Overall Raw score (-9 to +9). This is converted to a 0–100 Secure Idaho Alignment Score: (Raw + 9) ÷ 18 × 100. Higher scores mean stronger alignment with protecting Idaho from unchecked immigration strains.

2) Impact Rating: The 5 Levels of Real-World Effect

Beyond alignment, we rate the bill's potential impact on a 1–5 scale, considering scope (statewide vs. limited), enforcement (penalties vs. voluntary), projected effects (e.g., reducing job/housing/welfare strains per data), blockability (vulnerable to BigAg amendments/exemptions), and precedent.

  • 1: Symbolic/Minimal (e.g., resolutions, studies - no enforcement; limited to one program/county; no teeth; easily blocked; minimal precedent). Low pressure on special interests.

  • 2: Narrow/Limited (e.g., one-sector restrictions; easy exemptions; voluntary compliance; some data tracking but weak follow-through; moderate block risk). Incremental but not transformative.

  • 3: Moderate (e.g., partial mandates with penalties; metrics for review; affects multiple sectors but with gaps; builds some precedent; medium risk of weakening). Builds momentum for county mobilization.

  • 4: Significant (e.g., statewide mandates with real penalties; direct protections for jobs/resources; hard to exempt; strong data-driven effects; counters BigAg influence). High advocacy value.

  • 5: Transformative (e.g., full E-Verify/sanctuary bans; blocks federal/H-2A overreach systemically; robust enforcement; statewide scope; sets major precedent for 2026 flips). Game-changer for sovereignty.

This rating ensures we prioritize bills with teeth over feel-good measures.

3) Bill Tier: How Alignment + Impact Determine Priority and Legislator Impact

We combine the Alignment Score (0–100) and Impact Rating (1–5) to assign a Tier (1–3), which sets a multiplier for how much the bill affects legislator scores on our dashboard. Higher alignment + higher impact = higher tier. For example: Strong alignment (80+) with transformative impact (5) might earn Tier 1; moderate alignment (50–69) with narrow impact (2) might be Tier 3.

  • Tier 1 (Multiplier: 4x – High Impact): Top priority—strong alignment, significant/transformative effects. These bills (e.g., mandatory E-Verify) heavily influence legislator scores; supporting them boosts a rep's grade, while blocking tanks it. We rally hard (petitions, rallies, county task force posts).

  • Tier 2 (Multiplier: 2.5x – Medium Impact): Solid alignment, moderate/significant effects. Worth backing but monitored for amendments (e.g., sanctuary bans). Medium weight on scores—encourages flips without overwhelming.

  • Tier 3 (Multiplier: 1.5x – Limited Impact): Weaker alignment or lower impact (e.g., studies or partial restrictions). Low weight on legislator scores—doesn't make or break a grade but tracks patterns (e.g., repeated BigAg ties). We watch/expose rather than lead advocacy.

  • Tier 4 (1x multiplier – Minimal Impact): Low alignment + symbolic/narrow impact. Mostly feel-good or toothless measures that don’t meaningfully protect Idahoans from immigration strains. Minimal or no weight on legislator scores - we note them for patterns but focus energy elsewhere (e.g., stronger bills).

Why tiers matter: They ensure high-stakes bills count more toward legislator accountability. A vote on a Tier 1 bill could swing a score by 40–80 points; Tier 3 by just 15–30. This pressures reps to prioritize voter demands over lobby donors (see our Follow the Money dashboard for BigAg PAC ties).

SB 1247 scores 54, poorly because it does not meaningfully expand immigration or employment enforcement beyond the existing status quo. While framed as an E-Verify enforcement measure, the bill applies only to public agencies and a narrow subset of large state contractors, leaving most private employers, including industries where illegal hiring is most prevalent, untouched. By excluding subcontractors and independent contractors and imposing no civil fines or license consequences, the bill fails to change employer behavior or reduce illegal hiring incentives.

The bill’s enforcement mechanisms are limited and discretionary, providing political cover rather than structural accountability. SB 1247 relies on probationary periods, affidavits, and optional contract termination instead of mandatory penalties, proactive audits, or broad employer coverage. It creates no independent state enforcement authority and introduces no deterrent sufficient to disrupt labor-brokered illegal hiring. As a result, while SB 1247 allows lawmakers to claim action, it lacks the scope, enforcement teeth, and market impact required for meaningful immigration or labor reform.

Impact Rating = 1 (Symbolic/minimal change). Tier = 0 (0× multiplier).

Want the full breakdown? Scroll down for the category table (every sub-question, score, average), impact notes, and tier rationale.