11 lawmakers back bid for review of ruling on HB 1804

Tulsa World (Oklahoma)
March 19, 2010
By ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ
DENVER, CO

Opponents of illegal immigration have joined the state of Oklahoma in asking an appeals court to reverse its decision barring enforcement of employment provisions in the state's immigration-control law.

Eleven Oklahoma lawmakers and the group "Immigration Reform for Oklahoma Now" officially filed arguments this last week in support of the state's request for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision.

A three-judge panel of the Denver-based appellate court ruled unanimously on Feb. 2 that the state cannot enforce two provisions in House Bill 1804 because they are pre-empted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

One provision prohibits the firing of workers who are in the U.S. legally while retaining workers who are in the country illegally.

The other provision requires all businesses to verify that their independent contractors are not hiring illegal immigrants, or, lacking such verification documentation, to withhold state income tax for them at the top rate.

The 11 lawmakers, all Republicans, support those parts of the legislation, known as the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007.

They are Reps. Randy Terrill of Moore, the principal sponsor of the bill; and Rex Duncan of Sand Springs; Steve Martin of Bartlesville; Daniel Sullivan of Tulsa; Sally Kern of Oklahoma City; Mike Sanders of Kingfisher; Jason Murphey of Guthrie; Mike Christian of Oklahoma City; Mike Reynolds of Oklahoma City; Colby Schwartz of Yukon; and John Enns of Enid.

The state asked the full 11-judge appeals court March 2 to reconsider those parts of the Feb. 2 decision.

The panel ruled 2-1 in favor of a third part of the law, which requires employers to use a federal computer system called E-Verify to check the eligibility of job seekers.

The state, the lawmakers and Immigration Reform for Oklahoma Now contend the panel ignored precedent from other cases in concluding that the two provisions that were struck down are pre-empted by federal law.

The Immigration Reform Law Institute Inc. of Washington, D.C., wrote the arguments for the group.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington took the lead in opposing the employment provisions in the law.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/En ... 93&start=6