The E-Verify Program continues to pick up steam nationwide. We keep track of legislation as it develops so that we can update our E-Verify Legislation Map regularly for our subscribers. Today, we bring you a few nuggets of E-Verify related news updates.
Colorado: The Centennial State
Last month House Bill 12-1309, which would mandate E-Verify for all state employers, was introduced to the State General Assembly. Sponsored by both House and Senate Representatives, the Colorado Mandatory E-verify Act (HB12-1309), if passed, would go into effect January 1, 2013. The bill provides this summary:
Under current law, employers are required to examine, and retain records of examining, the legal work status of new employees. The bill enacts the “Colorado Mandatory E-verify Act”, which requires all employers in the state, by January 1, 2013, to instead participate in the federal electronic verification program (e-verify program) for purposes of verifying the work eligibility status of all new employees hired by an employer. Employers are subject to fines of up to $5,000 for a first offense and up to $25,000 for a second offense for failing to participate in the e-verify program. For subsequent offenses, an employer is subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and a 6-month suspension of the employer’s business licenses. The department of labor and employment (department) must notify employers via quarterly electronic publications and post a notice on its web site explaining the requirements of the act to employers. Additionally, the bill requires the secretary of state, in consultation with the department, to include information about the requirements of the act on its web site.
In its initial draft, the bill proposes a separate, segregated “employment verification fund” to house all the penalties the state would collect from violating employers. The monies would help fund the “purpose of implementing, administering, and enforce[ment of] this law” (if passed). If the bill is passed into law unrevised though, how would the state initially fund the law? There seems to be no mention of the initial funding at all.
As written, the bill incorporates a deferential tone to the federal government. For now, the bill resides with the Economics and Business Development Committee for review. Check back later for more updates on the Centennial State.
New Hampshire: The Granite State
A couple of weeks ago I wrote about New Hampshire. (How often are they in the news?) House Bill 1549 was indeed passed by and is currently working its way up through the legislature. We’ll have more when the updates roll in!
Ohio: The Buckeye State
For the curious, House Bill 286 which was introduced to the State General Assembly back in June of last year is still under review with the Transportation, Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, according to its online website. The bill would require all employers in the state of Ohio to enroll and use E-Verify. Since its introduction over eight months ago, I wonder if the bill has lost its luster. The state legislature is still in session….
E-Verify Self-Check Program
We’ve written about the expansion of the E-Verify Program many times, including here, and here, and also here. Today,yours truly actually used the self-check program. As described by the icons on its homepage, the Self-Check Program as I experienced it was a painless four-step process.
Though… we are curious about the security aspect of this program. USCIS’ website states, “Self Check works with an independent, secure, identify assurance service. This allows Self Check to be confident in the security of the service.” My information is stored for up to one year, as required by federal law but as for the security of that vendor, there isn’t much detail on the government’s site.
It would be helpful if the government would shed some more light on the security best practices of these vendors and their track records. Being in the software business, the protocols for security are very important and I’ve since turned my attention to much of these details, particularly with data security.
What about our readers? I’m curious what your thoughts are on this?
Originally published by LawLogix Group Inc Reprinted by permission
Ann Cun is a U.S. based immigration attorney who has helped companies in the technology, science, business, sports, entertainment and arts fields secure complex work visas for their employees. With more than a decade of experience as a paralegal and attorney, Ms. Cun possesses a stellar record of success. Her legal expertise also includes conducting internal I-9 audits for companies and developing I-9 compliant strategies and solutions. She is a graduate of UCLA and UC Hastings School of Law and has been invited to speak by the Bar Association of San Francisco and the American Immigration Lawyers Association on U.S. immigration related topics, as well as other international conferences. Ms. Cun is a contributing author and currently serves as Counsel and Principal Editor for LawLogix Group.