[BLANK-AUDIO] [SOUND] Will try to get started everybody get settled. First I wanna thank our two pages that have hang around for an extra day. I think they are really getting a good lesson. Lexy Ray and Genar Wegan both from Nightalel senator Ford is their sponsor. Thanks for being here. I hope you'll learn a little bit in this. Our sergeant arms, Becky, Matt and Steve thanks a lot for all you guys do. We got one bill. That's house bill 100 local government immigration compliant and senator Sanderson I think you are gonna handle the bill. And this deals with the appropriation piece of the bill. It has already been through JII. So what we're gonna try to do in this committee is handle the appropriations piece of it. >>Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee. Thanks for allowing me to present this important piece of legislation today. This legislation is doing exactly what I hoped it would do, and that is it is making people come to the table and sit down and come up with some solutions of how we can handle what I see as a potential bad problem. As we talk about this bill or the appropriations part of it Mr. Chairman, if you would, I would ask if staff would walk us through that portion of it. >> Hey Ben, you're gonna take care of that for us? >> Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Good afternoon. I'm Ben Stanly with the bill drafting division. You should have both the bill and summary in front of you, and what I'm gonna do is just walk it through the summary briefly and then I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. For those of you who were in judiciary II earlier this week, the bill hasn't changed since then, so this is largely gonna be what I went over at that meeting. Before diving into the bill itself, there's a couple of points of background law that are worth mentioning. The first is the GS 15A -311, currently prohibits the acceptance by stating locals officials, forms of ID, not specifically authorized to be used for that purpose by the general assembly. There is however an exception in subsection C of that statute. That allows law enforcement to use those IDs if they're the only ID that a person possesses when they're stopped. The second point is that there are currently various state laws that restrict immigration related actions of local governments. But those laws currently do not contain any penalties. So with that I will turn to the bill itself, section one deals With juries. And it would provide that the name and address of each person who requests to be excused from jury duty due to lack of qualifying under the applicable statute that that information has to be retained by the clerk of court for two years. They will also provide that if a person is granted a request to be excused, that if the basis for that disqualification is also a basis for disqualification as a voter, that information is a public record and it has to transmitted to the state board of elections so that individual can be removed from the list of eligible voters. Section 2 of the bill would requatify the statute that I mentioned dealing with an acceptability of an authorized forms of identification. Specifically it would move that statute from the criminal procedure chapter of the general statute to the aligns chapter. Moving on to section 3 this is where most the content of the bill Were found. This would do a number of things and I'll just list them here. Section 3 would require the attorney general to develop a form that members of the public can use that a city county or local law enforcement agency is not in compliance with the state law related to immigration. And what the bill means by that is actually defined in Section 3 as follows. State law related to immigration includes GS 64 -6 that's the statute I have about a couple of time already that prohibits local governments from using an authorized forms of ID and it also includes the the two statutes that prohibits cities and counties from adopting sanctuary policy. Section 3 would require the attorney general to investigate with 45 days complaints that a city county or local law enforcement agency is violated the state law related to immigration and it would make affected local government ineligible to receive distributions from the public school building capital fund as well as power bill funds for the fiscal year following the first date if non compliance with the applicable state law
related to immigration. So that's a mouth full so I will say it one more time. If a local government a law enforcement agency is found to not be in compliance with the state law related to immigration the period of ineligibility for the funds I just mentioned would begin in the fiscal year following the first date of non compliance with whatever the statute is that is not being complied with. Additionally if the violation is note cured within 60 the effected local government would lose those sources of funding for an additional fiscal year. So the potential loss of funds would be anywhere from one to two fiscal years under section 3. The entities that could lose funding under section three, the term effective local government clarifies and it would include not only municipalities and counties found by the attorney general to not be in compliance with state law related to immigration, it would also include counties and cities where a local law enforcement agency in those counties or cities are found not to be in compliance with such a law. Additionally it would impose similar consequences or identical consequences for violations of GS143-133.3. That's the statute that prohibits political subdivisions of the state from entering into a contract unless the contractor and the contractors subcontractors comply with the states e-verify statutes. Section 3 would also require the attorney general to maintain certain information in a database and to make various reports on the implementation of the act. It would authorize appeals of attorney general determinations only where an appeal's required to be made under the US or state constitution, and it would also authorize enforcement Enforcement through the filing of actions by private parties in Way county, to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief. And finally section 4 would provide that section 1 would become effective January 1 2017. That's the jury part and the remainder would become effective August 1 2016 Mr. Chairman that concludes my summary. >> Thank you Ben. Senator Anderson, some more comments? >> Thank you Ben. I think Ben did an excellent job in explaining what the purpose and intention of this bill is, and I do want to before I'm situated through a lot of questions that, would We do want to make two statements. One, to reiterate what Vince said and that is that currently and until this law goes into effect, no municipality and no local government entity has broken any law because the part of this is that we're looking at was allowed in the last couple of Couple of days of the session last year and so up until a time when this is doesn't affect in the signing and all, they are not in violation, and the other thing that I would like to say is that to this point as far as we know about the IDP's, only a few of them in our municipalities are engaging In this practice while none of our county folks, our county sheriff's offices or county law enforcement have gone into this. With that Mr. Chairman, I would just like to answer any question. >> Okay, questions? Senator Bryant. >> This is a legal question And perhaps for the sponsor or the staff. That is what due process rights do the local governments have? I guess the school systems, I presume they are the entities that would be affected to have and maybe I guess ultimately me as a taxpayer have. If these funds are taken without a hearing or without an opportunity for kinda the standard due process requirements. >> Senator Bryant, there would be a hearing required so there would be a hearing in every case. But I suppose what you're really asking about is the appeal process If at that hearing. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. >> I wasn't clear there was a hearing. Can you say when and where that hearing would be and is that in here? >> Let me make sure it is before I answer that. >> Many meetings today I could have missed it now. So if you'll turn to page three, what's required is on lines 27 through 29 on investigation. >> That would meet due process. An investigation is generally not considered due process. That is the opportunity to be heard by. >> So I supposed what you're asking about is the appeal process. If after that investigation there's a determination that the local
government does not abide by it. The language regarding appeals is found on page five lines six through 13 And what it says is that the form and the existence or not of an appeal is only there when there is a constitutional requirement that it be there. >> The follow up Mr. Chair. >> Follow up. >> That wasn't my question. So what are the due process rights in your opinion if you have one or is there somebody on staff who has one, who could advise me. What are the due process rights of these governmental entities who would be losing perhaps their appropriations, and after this investigation or to a tax payer, who will lose whatever the services are [CROSS-TALK] >> The shore sort of answered to that is just whatever the constitution requires and that's not written in this Bill and it's not written anywhere else that I'm aware of. So you'll often hear folks say that local governments are created by the state and so the state has Lots of power with respect to local government, but what that exactly means in terms of what an appeal would look like or what rights a local government would or would not have, I can't tell you that. >> Okay, one more follow up. >> Follow up. >> It seems to me this would be germane to the appropriations issues. So are you saying that our staff has done no research on what the due process rights are, in this manner would take appropriations away from someone because of some allegations or something. >> I can not speak for what other staff have or haven't researched, but I have not researched that issue. Okay, other questions? [BLANK_AUDIO]. Senator Davis. >> Thanks Mr. Chair. I just wanna seek clarity in terms of when you're exercising in terms Terms of the penalty on a political subdivision. Did I understand correctly that you said the political subdivision could be penalized even if it was a result for example of the police department. >> That's correct. >> Okay follow up. >> Follow up. >>. So I'm just trying to be clear here That a county and the way this is written, could be penalized as a result of a police department. Okay ,and I'm going to ask it one other way, follow up. >> Follow up. >> A city could then be penalized as a result of a sheriff department I don't believe that's correct, but let me look at the appropriate language. [BLANK-AUDIO]. So the appropriate language is actually on page two and page three and the definition of effective local government. So you'll see that there's four types of entities that could be penalized The municipalities and counties that violate the law, but you're asking, I think, about B and D. So you'll see that a municipality is only going to be considered an effective local government under this act. If it's a municipal law enforcement agency, that That has committed the non compliance. So in other words a city can be affected by this, can be considered an affected local government and lose funding. If a municipal law enforcement violates the provisions of this act but not if a county law enforcement does. A a county can be an affected local government and therefore lose funds if a county law enforcement agency including the Sheriff is found to be not to be in compliance with one of these statutes. >> Followup. >> Yes followup. Okay, let me go back to the original scenario then, and I just want to make sure I'm clearer. So a county then could not be penalized if it's the result of a police department. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Unless there are county police departments then I don't know whether there are or not. It's the county law enforcement agencies can affect the ability of counties to receive funds. >> Senator Robinson. >> Thank you Mr. Chair and just a followup on the same thought because I had kinda circled that and just to be more specific. The Greensboro Police has used other documentation in terms of working with the immigrants nd I've supported that because it helps with protection, it helps
with a lot of things but it is municipal, under municipal governments. So funds come to the county for the school system, so am I to understand then that if the practice is enforced by the Greensboro police in Guildford County, then the county is not impacted? Am I right? >> That's my understanding. Correct. Senator Earline. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm gonna go back to the question regarding the appeal process and when I look at the entirety of the bill on page five at line six, the appeal is to the determination by the attorney general who has already given the notice to the affected local governmental entities and they have the 60 days to procure their non-compliance or the notice would also trigger their right to appeal [BLANK_AUDIO] >> The notice language that you're talking about on page five is what happens after there's been a determination by the Attorney gGneral that there has been non-compliance. So it's not notice in the sense that I think you're asking about which is notice of a hearing or notice so that people can prepare their arguments. It's notice to relevant parties who may want to know about the result of the Attorney General's determination. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. Yes, sir. >> So that is not exactly where I'm going. So the Attorney General's office is going to give a 60 day notice. They're gonna send a notice to these individuals or these governmental entities and they have 60 days to procure their non-compliance, right? >> The language doesn't talk about notice in that sense but they do have 60 days to procure the non-compliance. >> But then the language on page 5, that is where it says that the determination made by the Attorney General under this article may be appealed. So it is the determination that they are appealing not the fact that their moneys have been held. >> I'm not sure that the bill intended to distinguish between those two things and in all cases the Attorney General's determination that there has been non compliance is 100% determinative of the loss of funding. So really those two things are almost synonymous. I don't know if that answers your question. >> A good clerk of court would ask those questions. >> [LAUGH] >> Senator Bryant. >> One other question And I was trying to look through here and I maybe have missed it. Do the allegations at any point have to be sworn to? >> No. And there is also language that says anonymous complaints are authorized. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. >> These can be unsworn and or anonymous complaints. >> That's correct. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Any other questions? Senator Robinson. >> Just another one. And you can see I'm still reading the bill, back on my earlier train of thought. This also talks about the distribution of state funds for local road projects and that affects municipalities. I'm I correct? So that could impact Greensboro. >> That's correct. That would be our money. >> Okay. Just a statement Mr. Chair. >> Okay. You have the floor. >> I want it to be noted that both the Greensboro as a city as well as several entities within the city who have tried to their utmost to work with the police department both to make sure that people are protected, that those who come forth and volunteer feel that they want the protection, or to share information to protect their communities as well have done a good job in terms of the relationships. And that has been picked up by other municipalities as a real good model I think. I'm really disappointed that this bill impacts that kind of relationship if that's what we're about in this state in terms of protecting people, protecting us as a community. And then trying to make sure that all of our citizens abide by the law and that's what is happening in terms of faith action as well as the police department. I'm very disappointed with this bill. >> Senator Sanderson, you want to respond on that .
>> [BLANK_AUDIO]. Senator, let me just say this. The intent of this legislation is to further conversation that needs to be had because the way this has come about is not proper. Our municipalities do not have any kind of a formal agreement with this non-profit organization that is producing these IDs. And as far as I know, not even our police department have any kind of a formal agreement of the same thing. So we have a non-profit that producing photo IDs that according to some in law enforcement really give credibility to people who may not be here in a legal manner. So when we look at the way this has gone about, there is a better way to do something like this and it should come under the discretion and the oversight of the general assembly of North Carolina instead of some informal agreement between a non-profit who I have no idea how they vet these people. I look and see the requirements on their website as to what someone who is coming to apply for one of these IDs some of the things that they're supposed to bring. And some of the things they ask them to bring are illegal in North Carolina to be even used as photo ID. And so there is a lot of uncertainty as to when a person walks out of one these formats/g, one of these situations with a photo ID if that in fact isn't who that person is. And I think the last thing that you want to do is to put law enforcement In a situation where, you know as a former law enforcement officer, I had rather know from the very start that I don't know who this person is and they do not have any ID than I would to have an ID and not know whether it's valid or not. And the informal relationships between these municipalities and our police departments really concerns me. I don't know if that's an effort to not be liable for something that might happen down the road. I have no idea why it's such an informal. If they wanted to do this they should have first asked for permission from the general assembly and then entered in some kind of agreement knowing that when these IDs are produced and given out that at least there is some validity that these folks are who they say they are. Because right now we're just kinda swinging in the breeze. >> Senator Sanderson if these folks get these IDs what does that allow them to do exactly? Exactly. >>Well I will go and I'll read from their website too and this is something else that concerned me. They say on their website, this can be used by law enforcement as a helpful tool for identification and may be accepted by city agencies schools, health centers, businesses, banks, hospitals depending on the policies of each of those institutions. And so Mr. Chairman what that's is saying to me is that they're issuing these IDs and they're hoping that a lot of these other outside institutions will begin to accept these IDs. To me if I think what people are gonna say is if it's good enough for the police department, it's good enough for me. What we're gonna gave is a wholesale acceptance of these IDs that nobody knows whether they're valid or not. >> Senator Tucker. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just trying to Understand again. I've heard this before and I've read the bill. We're talking about due process and we're talking about determination by the Attorney General. We're talking about lots of Power Bill funds. We're talking about lots of funds to the LEAs and what you're asking Senator Sanderson just asking them to stop using them. It doesn't prevent them from having relationships with the individuals that have already been established in the various ethnic neighborhoods throughout our state, in community policing and thing s like that. They're just asking them to stop accepting these IDs as being valid. Is that correct? >> That's correct? >> So just stop using them in all the rest of this is a mute point. Is that correct? >> [SOUND] The intention of the bill, that is correct. We just do not want these things to be used under the way that they are currently being issued. Because like I said I said Senator Tucker we have no idea whether there is any validity to any of these IDs and I'll say something else. That if we think that, and this started out seven or eight months
ago or at some point not too long ago, where there was one municipality involved and 5 or 600 IDs, it is now spread to seven or eight Municipalities in seven or eight counties. There're 6000 or more of these IDs out here and so it is spreading very rapidly. And if we think that the vast majority of these folks are coming in to get these IDs so that they can have a better working relationship with the police department, I think we're very naive. Senator Douglas/g. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I just wanna ask you Senator, where is the law enforcement community regarding this bill? >> Well I think they're here, I think they can speak for themselves When ran this, when this ID portion was in, the bill that we ran last year, the Sanctuary Citie' Bill 318, JPS/g, The Highway Patrol, some of your statewide organizations were totally behind this. Because they did not want to go through the ordeal of trying to decide whether a municipal ID from a city in the western part of the state that they were gonna have to use it as ID in the eastern part of the state, and so they were behind it. I think the Sheriffs Association, I'd rather let them speak for themselves if they're here to speak today. >> Follow up. >> Yes Mr.Chair. I would like to hear from them if you're in agreement with that at the appropriate time. But I'm also trying to just make sure I understand too, and I might be missing something here. But you have concerns that appear, with a nonprofit organization you want to have somehow more discussion about all of this. And I think there're concerns about whether these IDs are accepted or not or used in some sort of capacity. And it appears that there may have been some level of support in the past. And we'll hear about that in a second. But at the expense, at the expense of holding our children hostage. When we hold on and withhold public school building capital fund money. >> Senator Sanderson you respond. >> I think we've lost the focus here because all of the arguments so far most of them must have been to try and validate our cities and our county governments from breaking the law. Now the easiest way not to lose any funding whatsoever It's never my intent, I hope there's not a single municipality or county government that loses one dime of funding. That's not the intent. But sometimes you have to put some penalties in a piece of legislation that's to get people's attention to either bring them to the table or to make them sit down and make a decision. It like if I go out here and speed and get a ticket running 75 mph. And I go to court and knowing that I was breaking the law and the court fines me a $100 plus court cost. Can I go back and accuse the court of taking the money out of my pocket that I used to feed my children? No. That was a decision I made to break the law. And with that breaking of the law there comes a penalty. So you can't say that the Attorney General's office or this General Assembly is taking money out of those two streams of revenue from municipalities and counties if those municipalities and counties that are deciding to not adhere to the state law of North Carolina that is causing that. >> Follow up. >> And again, okay, regardless of how we get here, there's various funds that municipalities, counties, local governments may access. But again I'm just narrowing it down at the end of the day, we're willing to allow using your comments there, the local jurisdictions to sacrifice funds for building schools for kids. >> Senator Davis that would be their choice. If they decide to break the law wanna take that chance I think that would be their choice. And I think that's what Senator Sanderson is trying to say. No one breaks the law and that doesn't happen. But if they make that decision then there is a consequence. >> Senator Wade >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Senator Sanderson to me this thing's pretty straight forward. If you're in this country legally do you not have access to valid legal IDs easily to get one?
>> That's correct, free of charge. >> Well, my follow-up- >> Follow-up. >> would be why if you're here legally would you need go to a non-profit to get an ID. Can you get it free if you're here legally from lots of sources? >> Senator Wade that's my understanding yes. >> Senator Tillman. >> Mr. Chairman I'm almost appalled at what I'm hearing. We're gonna punish schools and take away some of their capital money we're gonna punish municipalities and take away their file bill and you're saying that we ought not to do that? That we're hurting children, we're hurting the cities. Folks if you are here illegally you don't want have to worry about it . If you wanna make excuses for people who have all kinds of Ids and we got them floating around people make those things. Many times I make an arrest 14 different Ids whichever one might work Greensboro won't work in Silo city. You gotta have a standard Id folks that makes sense to everybody you got to have one standard And if you can't comply with this and you don't put any teeth now, if what you're saying senator Davis is right we need to amend all the penalties, well, take all the penalties out. And you'll have a law that nobody would obey. The people ask me when we first did the Sanctuary City that Feels no good Tillman. I said you're right, it's no good cuz there's no penalties in it. So we put penalties in it. And that's what you got to do to get compliance and if that makes the other side mad so be it. >> Senator Ives. >> Thanks Mr. Chair. Just following up to this and I just wanna to be clear to the point here Here. We're narrowing down to two precise locations for a penalty. And at the same time we are talking about how to move students along who are low performing and looking ahead and all these conversations on the other side about moving forward and whats best for kids. And I'm just saying at the end of the day and just hear this, hear what I'm saying. Regardless how this occurs, kids could be penalized because of what their elected people did. Now if you want do you have penalties? Let me ask the question this way, what other penalties were considered? >> Senator Sanders. >> Senator Davis I think that a penalty, I mean how you're going to give a municipal government a 30 day senate suspended you can't do that. This is the only penalty that we knew that will speak and speak directly and speak forcibly to this municipalities and get their attention very quickly. When you're looking at revenue these are the only two streams and we looked at many and this are the only two streams of revenue that are totally controlled by the state of North Carolina that does not co-mingle with any other kind of funding and it also every year is renewed by the state of North Carolina. This is not automatic money and those are the reasons we choose these two. One that would affect county government the other that would affect municipal government. >> Senator Brock. >> Thank you Mr Chairman senator Sanders could you repeat all the places you could get in with this ID, this municipal ID? >> Now be clear this is the what they are saying on their website [CROSSTALK] >> Is at their website yes. >> Other than the law enforcement maybe accepted by city agencies and there are many of those. Schools health centers, businesses. I've heard about banks and I have heard about hospitals that are accepting this as valid forms of forms of ID. We've heard calls about this IDs especially coming in from schools if they are valid enough for the police department to use as acceptable Id can we use them in school system to allow people to enter our schools? >> Senator Brock follow up. >> Just follow up to make comment on this. If you all remember back with the terrorist attacks in France they were four two were successful in detonating suicide mission as the worst attack on French soil since world war II before Syrian refugees that ISIS infiltrated, and as the federal government is accepting in putting here in North Carolina Syrian refugee which we don't know who, haven't been vetted we don't know if they were
infiltrated by ISIS. But if they can go and get this ID and enter into our schools, our hospitals any type of government agency we have not done our job up here to try and protect our people. [CROSSTALK] >> Support your bill. >> Thank you Mr Chairman Senator Sanderson, This is my question here. I believe you said that withholding money from the school system, going a long with these illegal IDs basically. Right now if this law went into effect today. How many counties will be affected? At this point no counties, because there are no counties that we know of that are engaging in acceptance of this ID. >> Follow up. >> Follow up. >> So the counties would know well ahead of time that this was going to happen. So there wouldn't be a county That would enter in to this type of agreement because they would know that the funding would be withheld, and at this point it wouldn't affect any county or school funding. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Senator Roberts. >> Thank you Mr. chair. Our senator of Sanderson. Are you aware of any offenses, any evidence where offences were committed or have you gathered the data by people who had these ID's issued by Faith Action or other similar entities. >> Senator Robinson I don't think that data exists, I don't think that, that data has been collected as to whether or not specific incidence can be attributed to people who are carrying this ID's. >> Follow up Mr Chair. >> Follow up. >> The staff may have to answer this, are there any other such laws that we've enacted that require penalty of taking money from local municipalities like this? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Thank you. >> Senator Heis. >> Thank you Mr Chairman I think just for comment comment there's one to point out, when the state issues a requirement of local governments or in this case requires that they don't do something, the penalty is not, it's okay to do it as long as you accept the penalty. It's not we're gonna take your power bill money and once we've taken your power bill money and then it's okay to continue This is a law and an action of the state, and we're not going to have local governments, counties or others saying, we're just going to ignore that or we're going to take funds away, not have funds because of making that choice. We're here now with this level of funding others to say that local local governments, we have not dealt with counties yet, but local governments must comply. If we come back last year and you've lost your payable money and you're still not complying there are other actions the general assembly is going to have to take. That's for coming in, how high do we wanna go with this. The point is this is the local governments must comply with the law period. We have shown what the first bit of penalties would be for failure to comply but we will not allow sanctuary cities to operate in the state on North Carolina that is the authority that's coming in and that is what local governments must hold to and not make any evaluation of is the penalty of the states of the state bad enough to determine whether or not we should comply with state law. >> Senator Tillman. >> Senator Sanderson, it might prove beneficial if you could tell us where this money goes, say the city of Greensboro, [INAUDIBLE] or Burlington losses their power bill funds Or they loose some school construction money. How about telling us where that money goes. You know. We're taking their money now, where does it go? >> Thank you senator Gilman. In both instances, whether it's the school construction money or the power bill money. That money back into the pot, would be evenly distributed to all of those municipalities and counties that are Abiding by the law. >> So follow up. >> Follow up. >> It would do the rest of them a lot of good, if a few of you don't comply. Right, your pot grows bigger. Go ahead, don't comply. >> Okay. Any other questions?. All right I'm looking for a motion For a motion. have a motion to approve, is this a PCS? No. Approve house bill 100. All those in favor say aye >> Aye.
>> Those opposed. >> No. >> The ayes have it and we stand adjourned. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO]