Springfield’s E-verify law nullified

Saturday, September 22, 2012

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) — Springfield officials say legal action between the city and four local businesses has nullified a new city ordinance that required businesses to use the federal E-Verify system to check employees’ immigration status.

The city said in a release Friday that the lawsuit filed by four local businesses against the E-Verify ordinance was settled after the city agreed to remove several tenets of the law.

The law, approved by voters in February, went beyond state and federal laws to require the use of E-Verify when hiring and included fines for employing unlawful workers.

City leaders said the ordinance had illegal language, and they’re pleased the issue is over.

The Ozarks Minutemen spearheaded the voter initiative and says the city didn’t try to defend the ordinance.

———

Information from: Springfield News-Leader, http://www.news-leader.com

More like this story

Graceful 8 months, 4 weeks ago

I would like to know how the city "settled" it. The article says the law was approved by the voters. It seems to me that to determine whether the law was valid or not requires the courts to review it rahter than haveing local government, which appears to oppose the law it citizens appoved, run and hide. The Ozark Minutemen are right the local government did not defend the voter approved law. So much for democracy. We might as well shut it all down.

bluesfan13 8 months, 4 weeks ago

From the Springfield city website: City attorney Dan Wichmer said his office defended what they thought were legal portions of the ordinance. “There were many areas where the legal analysis between the City and plaintiffs reached the same conclusion as to the unenforceable provisions,” he said. To avoid waste of money and resources, the City made what is known as an “offer of judgment” after discussions with plaintiff’s counsel, he explained. It was this judgment that was entered by the Federal Court Clerk.

-Basically, the ordinance was written mandating fees that were counter to federal legislation on the matter and leaving enforcement in the hands of the City Finance Director rather than the court system, so there was way to defend yourself against the ordinace.

asb 8 months, 4 weeks ago

Sigh, Grace you started to make a good point about the City of Springfield not having the right to change the citizen-passed law, about the OM's claim that Springfield has failed it's Missouri constitutional duty to defend its laws to a reasonable level, and that the courts will have to decide this, not a city clearly beholden to a few well-connected businesses . . . then you run it into a tree with your all-is-lost finale. It's a legal tussle, not a battle of angels and demons, and if seems like on to you, consider joining the Minutemen, teaching them to read, and go for it. But your credibility suffers every time you turn a civil matter into an apocolypse.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune