California Becomes First State to Prohibit Landlords From Asking About Tenants' Immigration Status

October 12, 2007.

By Frank D. Russo

Governor Schwarzenegger has just signed into law AB 976 by Assemblymember Charles Calderon that will prohibit cities and counties in California from enacting any local ordinances that compels a landlord to inquire, compile, report, or disclose any information about the citizenship or immigration status of a tenant or prospective tenant..

The bill also makes it illegal for any landlord under California state law to "Make any inquiry regarding or based on the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant, prospective tenant, occupant, or prospective occupant of residential rental property." California is the first in the nation to enact such a law.

“Cities do not have the authority to form their own foreign policy. Only the federal government can determine the legal status of any citizen,” Calderon stated. “Local ordinances like the one adopted by the City of Escondido place landlords under serious liability whether they comply with the ordinance or fail to comply with the ordinance. Landlords do not want to be immigration officers; they simply want to make a living.”

Calderon’s measure came in the wake of ordinances passed by cities in California and around the Untied States. The ordinances would have forced landlords to determine the citizenship status of their tenants and evict any tenant who is not a legal resident, or face fines and possible revocation of their business license. Such laws placed landlords in an impossible dilemma: comply with the city ordinance, while violating state and federal law or uphold state and federal law, facing sanctions from the cities. In every instance, however, Federal Judges issued restraining orders against the ordinances on the grounds that they violated constitutional due process and supremacy clauses.

The most recent instance of a court making a finding against these types of ordinances was on July 26th when a U.S. District Court Judge in Pennsylvania issued a decision finding Hazleton, Pennsylvania’s ordinance unconstitutional.

Last year, the City of Escondido adopted an ordinance that would have barred landlords from renting to undocumented immigrants and would have severely penalized landlords who failed to determine the immigration status of tenants and prospective tenants with fines and suspension of business licenses. The ordinance was immediately challenged in federal court by a coalition of civil rights groups on several constitutional grounds, as well as the federal preemption of immigration law, and enforcement of that law. On November 20, 2006, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was obtained against the Escondido ordinance from US District Judge Houston. Following the issuance of the TRO the City and plaintiffs entered into agreement that the ordinance would be rescinded and the city would pay $90,000 to those who brought suit to partially pay for their attorney fees.

Calderon told the committee, "Ordinances like Escondido City unfairly targets people of color. Landlords would target certain individuals that look like or talk like or conduct themselves in a manner that violates law and reason. The bill would clearly define the role of local government in this regard."

AB 976 had the support of a number of progressive groups and those concerned with protecting the rights of immigrants, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the California Labor Federation, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

But it was sponsored by the Apartment Association of California Southern Cities (AACSC) and a number of other apartment owner groups lobbied for its passage and for the Governor to sign it. Landlords fearing potential liability for racial discrimination and other parts of playing the role of border agents, were the major backers of the bill.

Nevertheless, the measure passed the California State Assembly without a vote to spare, 41-25, and the State Senate 22-13 on straight party line votes with only Democrats in support and all votes against it by Republicans. In light of the court decisions, the absence of any major opposition, and the unity of the apartment owners and immigrant groups in support of AB 976, the lack of a single Republican vote for this measure shows how hard the immigration card is played in Republican politics in California, and Governor Schwarzenegger's break from his own party members on this bill.

SOURCE:

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/10/california_beco.html