ESSB 5906
In CommitteeSenate
Data and personal safety
Establishing data and personal safety protections within areas of public accommodation for all Washington residents.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill establishes protections to limit immigration enforcement activities in public spaces like schools, child care centers, health care facilities, colleges, and election sites—focusing on privacy, access restrictions, and support for vulnerable individuals. It bars most collection of immigration status, restricts law enforcement access to private areas without court orders, and requires reporting and training to ensure compliance.
- Prohibits early learning providers, schools, health care facilities, institutions of higher education, and election offices from collecting or using immigration or citizenship status information for program eligibility, unless required by federal or state law.
- Bars immigration enforcement officers from entering nonpublic areas (e.g., classrooms, treatment rooms, ballot counting rooms) without a valid judicial warrant, court order, or subpoena—and requires staff to request identification and document denials of access.
- Requires early learning providers, schools, health care facilities, colleges, and election offices to report immigration enforcement requests to supervisors or governing bodies while protecting privacy.
- Mandates that schools and colleges provide 'know your rights' immigration information to families and students, and colleges must maintain and distribute legal service contact lists for immigration support.
- Requires colleges to support undocumented students’ continued enrollment and financial aid eligibility if they are detained or deported due to immigration enforcement, and to notify campus communities when immigration enforcement occurs—without sharing personally identifiable information.
Who is affected
- Early learning providers — Early learning providers (e.g., child care centers, family home providers, Head Start programs) must not collect immigration or citizenship status information from students or families, must deny immigration enforcement officers access to nonpublic areas without a valid court order, and must report such requests to the state department while protecting privacy.
- Public school districts and employees — School districts and their employees must not collect immigration or citizenship status information, must deny immigration enforcement officers access to nonpublic areas without a court order, must protect student education records from disclosure without consent or court order, and must adopt and maintain policies limiting immigration enforcement on school grounds.
- Health care providers and facilities — Health care providers, facilities, and staff must not disclose medical information for immigration enforcement, must restrict access to nonpublic areas (e.g., treatment rooms) without a valid court order, and must train staff on responding to immigration enforcement requests.
- Institutions of higher education (colleges and universities) — Colleges and universities must protect student and employee personal information, notify individuals when immigration enforcement occurs on campus (without identifying individuals), provide legal service contact lists, and support undocumented students’ continued enrollment and benefits if affected by immigration enforcement.
- County election offices and auditors — County auditors must designate ballot processing areas as nonpublic, deny immigration enforcement officers access to those areas without a court order, and train election staff on responding to such requests.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Prohibits collection of immigration status and restricts enforcement access to private areas without judicial warrants—protecting vulnerable individuals (including undocumented families and students) from intimidation, fear-based avoidance of services, and unlawful detention or separation.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 2(1), Sec. 3(1), Sec. 4(2), Sec. 5(1)(d)Requires schools and colleges to provide 'know your rights' information and legal service contact lists—empowering students and families with knowledge of their legal rights and access to counsel, especially for non-English speakers and undocumented individuals.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4), Sec. 2(5), Sec. 5(1)(g), Sec. 5(1)(h)Requires institutions to support undocumented students’ continued enrollment and financial aid eligibility if detained or deported—helping prevent academic disruption and loss of investment for students who are U.S.-raised and culturally integrated.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 5(1)(i)Designates treatment rooms and ballot processing areas as nonpublic—enhancing privacy and safety for patients and voters by preventing immigration enforcement presence in spaces where trust and civic participation are essential.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 4(1), Sec. 6(1)Bars disclosure of student education records and personal information to immigration enforcement without consent or court order—reinforcing privacy protections that encourage families to access school and health services without fear of exposure.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(2), Sec. 5(1)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandates reporting of immigration enforcement requests to supervisors/governing bodies and documentation of access denials, increasing administrative burden and potential liability exposure for local officials and staff.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(3), Sec. 3(2), Sec. 4(3), Sec. 5(1)(b), Sec. 5(2), Sec. 6(3)Requires school districts to adopt and maintain policies, submit them to the OSPI upon request, and be subject to monitoring and auditing—adding compliance oversight and potential legal risk for districts.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(8)(a), Sec. 2(8)(b), Sec. 2(9)Requires institutions of higher education to notify campus communities when immigration enforcement is confirmed, potentially triggering anxiety, fear, and disruption of academic operations—even among U.S. citizens and documented residents.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 5(1)(i)(iii), Sec. 5(2)Requires schools and colleges to coordinate emergency childcare or support for students whose caregivers are detained or deported—shifting responsibility for child welfare from families and state child welfare agencies to educational institutions.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(3), Sec. 2(4), Sec. 5(1)(c)Imposes unfunded mandates on school districts and institutions of higher education to adopt policies, provide training, and maintain legal service lists—costs likely borne by districts through staff time, legal counsel, and administrative overhead, with no identified state funding.
FinancialPeopleRef: Fiscal Impact section
Who Is Most Affected
Undocumented families and students benefit significantly: reduced fear of accessing early learning, K–12, and higher education services; protection from family separation during school hours; and access to legal resources. However, some may still face indirect risks if schools report requests (even without disclosure) or if enforcement occurs off-campus, potentially affecting household stability.
School districts and colleges face increased administrative, legal, and training costs, plus potential liability if policies are misapplied. However, they gain legal clarity, protection from unfettered enforcement access, and tools to support vulnerable students—reducing crisis response burden in many cases.
Healthcare providers gain legal protection against immigration enforcement entry into clinical spaces, supporting patient trust and care continuity. However, they must invest in staff training and documentation protocols, and may face legal uncertainty if warrants are challenged or invalidated.
County election offices gain authority to deny immigration enforcement access to ballot processing areas, protecting election integrity and voter privacy. However, they must train staff, document denials, and manage requests—adding procedural complexity to election operations.
Law enforcement and federal immigration agencies face restricted access to sensitive public spaces without court orders, limiting their ability to conduct immigration enforcement in these venues. This may reduce opportunities for enforcement but does not prohibit enforcement elsewhere or via lawful process.