Council’s 3-2 vote on ICE resolution sparks heated exchanges, emotional public comment, and disagreement over the county’s role
The Clark County Council voted 3-2 to move forward with a modified resolution addressing federal immigration enforcement activities, but not before more than an hour of intense public comment and a lengthy debate among councilors. Some anti-ICE activists said the language did not go far enough, while several law enforcement supporters argued the resolution risks dividing the community. Councilors also clashed over jurisdiction, racial profiling language, support for local law enforcement, and whether the county should “condemn” or simply say it is “alarmed” by reported ICE tactics. As the resolution heads toward a formal reading at the Feb. 17 meeting, we want to know: Did this debate and decision help unite Clark County — or deepen divisions?
More info:
Clark County Council modifies language on its resolution on ICE activities in the region
- Camas School District Legislative Advocacy Committee to host Candidate Forum
Six candidates from two federal and state districts will answer education questions at Discovery High School on Oct. 5. - Opinion: Why lawmakers are going after your pension
Ryan Frost argues lawmakers included public pensions in the income tax law in preparation for lowering the $1 million deduction. - Opinion: Washington has an income tax – why won’t the media call it one?
Cargill argues the media is using supporters’ preferred label “millionaires tax” instead of the legally accurate term “income tax.” - POLL: How do you think higher impact fees for school districts affect housing affordability in Clark County?
Clark County Council raised impact fees for La Center, Hockinson, and Woodland school districts, drawing pushback from the Building Industry Association. - WA high court tosses natural gas measure approved by voters
The WA Supreme Court struck down I-2066 in a 6-3 ruling, finding it covered four distinct subjects in violation of the single-subject rule.
