The Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday reaffirmed a decision to decline to sign an agreement with the state of Colorado that would protect immigrants’ personal identifying information.
Montezuma and Weld Counties are the only two in the state to not sign it.
The bill, Senate Bill 21-131, arose among concern that state agencies including the Division of Motor Vehicles, would share immigrants’ personal information without proper authority or documentations. Signed by Gov. Jared Polis on June 25, the law prevents agencies from sharing nonpublic personal identifying information without a court order.
The law requires counties to sign an agreement, under the penalty of perjury, that says it will not share personal identifying information unless there’s a subpoena or court-issued warrant for it.
It was sponsored by two Denver Democrats, Sen. Julie Gonzales and Rep. Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez.
According to Montezuma County Attorney Stephen Tarnowski, the law is more of a formality than a game changer. However, funding can be tied to the law.
“Whether or not it’s signed, it doesn’t change obligations” the county has always had as far as protecting – and when necessary, sharing – personal information goes, Tarnowski said at the meeting.
“The risk the county is engaging in by not signing this agreement is that … anyone who wants to access databases that are created or maintained by the state that include personal identifying information, they’re going to have to sign one of these letters on an annual basis,” Tarnowski said.
In extension, the refusal to sign threatens funding, since existing programs within county departments – namely the Public Health department – would be impacted and could possibly not continue if it no longer had access to such databases.
“I just hate being held hostage under the threat that we are going to lose our funding,” Commissioner Jim Candelaria said.
At the meeting, county Public Health Director Bobbi Lock said the department “absolutely” needs access to those databases to do their jobs, especially when it comes to the Colorado Immunization Information System and the WIC Program, which, according to its website, is “the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.”
“Is there funding attached for us to do those programs? Absolutely. Has there been any mention of that going away without us operating in 2024 without signing this? No,” Lock said.
Lock said she stands behind the commissioners’ decision.
Public Health “is funded primarily by grants for the various projects they take on,” according to county spokesperson Vicki Shaffer.
Lock called the wording of the state law “very poor” and didn’t like how it specifically mentioned sharing information with federal immigration officials.
“Why are we singling out that population?” Lock said.
That population is singled out because the state broke their trust, “and it’s on us to make it right,” said bill sponsor Gonzales.
Essentially, a 2013 law allowed “Colorado residents who were not lawfully present in the United States, as well as people with temporary permission to live in the country, to apply for and receive driver’s licenses through the Division of Motor Vehicles,” according to an article by Colorado Newsline.
Roughly 150,000 undocumented people applied, and it was revealed that the DMV had “consistent and deliberate communication” with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
The Colorado Immigrants Rights Coalition said that “confirmed the worst fears of the immigrant community, who placed trust in government services.”
And that’s where the increased protection comes in.
The bill was just one of many during Colorado’s 2021 legislative session that addressed “services, benefits, and protections” for immigrants, according to a summary of such legislation.
The bill offers greater protections to the immigrant population.
“State employees are prohibited from disclosing PII for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement,” the bill reads.
It adds that “state employees cannot request information or documents to determine a person’s immigration status or compliance with federal immigration laws.”
Discussion Tuesday focused on access to databases and funding with little mention of what the bill means for immigrants.
“Let’s see what happens,” said Lock. “Sometimes you do have to take a stand on things and let the chips fall as they may.”
Candelaria shared this view at the Sept. 24 board meeting when he and fellow Republican Commissioners Kent Lindsay and Gerald Koppenhafer first refused to sign the agreement.
“It’s just another way for us to fight back to the state,” Candelaria said at the September meeting. “Everything that they send us doesn’t mean we have to comply with it.”
The commissioners revisited the conversation Tuesday because Lock received an email from the state asking why Montezuma County declined to sign it.
“We denied it, that’s the explanation. We don’t want it, we don’t care about it, so just quit sending it to me,” Candelaria said.
“We do exactly what this says already,” said Lock. “Every client we see, no matter where they come from, who they are, we protect their personal identifying information and health information.”
“That doesn’t surprise me; that’s what’s required under law, so it makes sense,” Tarnowski said.
“I get the sense that they’re (the state) probably interested in whether or not the county intends to violate the law and share PII,” he said of the state’s email.
The commissioners agreed to allow Tarnowski and Lock to reply to the email and relay their intent to follow the law without signing the state’s form.
Candelaria said they ought to reply and ask the state to answer their initial question on whether their failure to comply impacts funding or database access.
“This is ridiculous, they’re going to pull the funding anyway,” said Candelaria. “If they want to pull it, they can pull it.”