Rob Anderson says Clark County residents should be paying close attention to the County Council agenda this Wednesday at 1 p.m.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the author alone and may not reflect the editorial position of ClarkCountyToday.com
Clark County residents should be paying close attention to the County Council agenda this Wednesday at 1 p.m.
Among the items moving forward is the early discussion of what appears to be an anti-ICE resolution. I doubt Sue Marshall — the councilor who instigated adding it to this week’s agenda — will label it that way publicly, but that is most likely the intent. It will almost certainly be carefully framed, following a growing pattern seen in the City of Vancouver and elsewhere in Washington state.
The resolution is expected to be discussed and shaped beginning with this Wednesday’s meeting, and will most likely move quickly toward finalization before a regular Council vote.
We’ve already seen the consequences of this type of political signaling. Just days after Vancouver passed its own “immigration” resolution, the city’s police chief posted a public video pleading with residents to stop interfering with special unit officers. Anti-ICE activists were reportedly mistaking them for ICE agents — following them, interfering with operations, and hindering their ability to carry out actions against violent and dangerous criminals. That is not hypothetical. That is a real-world outcome.
This development, along with several others, was highlighted in Episode 3 of ReformCast, my local video podcast that reviews county actions using public meetings, public comments, and public records (you can watch Reformcast here).
Equally concerning is a proposed change to the council’s rules and procedures that would formally grant the Council the power to remove councilors from committee assignments. This proposal does not arise in a vacuum. It follows the highly controversial removal of Councilor Michelle Belkot last year — an action now tied up in ongoing litigation.
Recently, Clark County filed in federal court that it already possessed the authority to take such action. Yet now, in January 2026, the council is moving to explicitly write those powers into its rules. Reasonable people can — and should — ask why this is necessary now, and what future dissenting voices might be targeted if such authority is formally codified.
During public comment at this same meeting, I suggested adding language requiring councilors and county officials to cooperate with law enforcement investigations. That suggestion prompted an unusually defensive response of denial by Sue Marshall. Yet public records and the Skamania County Sheriff’s report document extended delays and non-responsiveness that ultimately caused the investigation to stall. Accountability should not be optional for those in positions of public trust.
Taken together, these issues reflect a broader pattern: controversial proposals advanced quietly, procedural power consolidated internally, and minimal public engagement until decisions are effectively settled.
That is why Wednesday’s meeting matters.
Local government has the most direct impact on residents’ daily lives, yet it often receives the least scrutiny. When citizens sit back, proposals float through. When citizens show up, speak out, and pay attention, respectfully and civilly, outcomes change. These decisions deserve daylight, debate, and active public participation — before they become permanent fixtures of county policy.
The Wednesday Council Time meeting begins at 1 p.m.
Agenda: https://clark.wa.gov/sites/default/files/media/document/2026-01/01282026-ct-agenda_0.pdf
Rob Anderson
Founder, Reform Clark County
Host, ReformCast
Also read:
- Washington governor talks potential return of SuperSonics with NBA commissioner
Gov. Bob Ferguson spoke with NBA Commissioner Adam Silver about the possibility of bringing the Seattle SuperSonics back as the league weighs future expansion decisions. - Opinion: The income tax proposal has arrived
Ryan Frost of the Washington Policy Center argues that a proposed Washington income tax creates a new revenue stream rather than delivering tax reform or relief. - Is it time to lower the legal limit for blood alcohol content to 0.05 in the state of Washington?
Mothers Against Drunk Driving and families affected by impaired driving are urging Washington lawmakers to lower the legal BAC limit to 0.05, citing prevention data and personal testimony from Clark County residents. - Expert in homebuilding has several tips on how to make housing affordable
Veteran homebuilder Tracy Doriot shares his perspective on why regulations, taxes, labor shortages, and permitting delays are driving housing costs higher in Clark County and across Washington. - POLL: If a sub-district is created, what area should it include?
Clark County residents are asked where a potential C-TRAN sub-district should be drawn if voters are asked to fund light rail operations and maintenance costs.
Do we have the verbiage for this immigration statement? It would be helpful to have a document in order to address our concerns via email.
They haven’t released anything yet, but this is a good time to give input as it’s being considered. However, it’s most likely that the City of Vancouver’s recent resolution will be the template. Here’s what Vancouver put out on 1/20:
The City of Vancouver issues this declaration to formally denounce the actions of federal immigration enforcement agencies and affiliated federal law enforcement operating under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), whose conduct within and around our community has caused demonstrable harm and destabilization.
These actions have generated widespread fear and a pervasive sense of terror among residents; fractured trust between community members and law enforcement; contributed to significant declines in mental and emotional well-being; disrupted families and educational stability; and produced negative economic consequences for workers, businesses, and essential services.
These harms reflect patterns of enforcement activity that include brutal reports of physical force and intimidation, lack of clear identification of federal law enforcement officers, limited or absence of transparency or due process, and actions that disproportionately impact individuals based on perceived race, language, occupation, or presence in certain public spaces.
Public safety depends on trust. When residents are afraid to leave their homes, attend school, seek medical care, report crimes, or go to work, public safety is actively undermined. Actions that blur authority, rely on intimidation and physical harm, or disregard collateral impacts on children, families and neighborhoods do not enhance safety, they erode it.
The City of Vancouver’s position is grounded in constitutional principles, including the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Tenth Amendment’s prohibition against federal commandeering of local governments. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. Local government exists to protect the health, safety, and dignity of the people who live and work here. We remain committed to our responsibility to provide a safe and welcoming community for our residents.
The City of Vancouver reaffirms full adherence to the Keep Washington Working Act and its clear limits on local participation in federal immigration enforcement. Absent a judicial criminal warrant, or as otherwise required by law, City personnel will not provide access to non-public spaces, data, or facilities for civil immigration enforcement, nor will City property be used for federal enforcement staging or operations. At the same time, the City acknowledges gaps in existing law: the absence of direct accountability for federal actions that cause community-wide harm, the lack of remedies for destabilized families and businesses, and insufficient mechanisms to address trauma and economic disruption.
The City of Vancouver’s response is guided by its adopted resolution on Equity and Inclusion, which recognizes the responsibility to address structural inequities, historical harms, and ongoing disparities affecting vulnerable and marginalized communities. Consistent with trauma-informed governance, the City of Vancouver recognizes that fear-based enforcement practices inflict lasting harm on mental health, family stability, educational access, and community well-being.
The impacts on this community are real and ongoing. Local businesses depend on a reliable workforce. Schools rely on consistent student attendance. Families rely on safety, routine, and predictability. Immigration is a source of labor, entrepreneurship, and community contribution that sustains the local economy. Policies that create fear and instability undermine these foundations and inflict avoidable economic harm on the entire community.
The City of Vancouver will continue to lead with clear boundaries between local services and federal immigration enforcement; community-led strategies for accountability, and transparency through regular public reporting on federal enforcement impacts within the City.
We reject actions that cause fear and harm. We reject practices that fracture families and communities. We will act to support our community with clarity, resolve, and partnership.
The circumstances facing Vancouver have developed into a serious and ongoing crisis affecting the health, safety, education, and economic stability of our city. Everyone, regardless of immigration status, is encouraged to contact 911 for life-threatening emergencies or to report a crime.
The City of Vancouver will continue to respond to this crisis with the full force of our legal authority.
I think that we should propose a counter resolution stating that the Clark County Council respectfully advises our neighbors that violated federal immigration law come here illegally to avail themselves of the Trump Administration’s self-deportation incentives. And, the Clark County Council will be happy to write letters of recommendation to assist, otherwise law abiding illegal immigrants who self deport, with the legal immigration process. We welcome legal immigrants who respect our laws, assimilate, and become productive members of our community.
So the Clark County Council members are apparently ignorant of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution? Immigration is subject to Federal Law not State or local law. I do not believe that this represents the majority of the people living in Clark County, and it should not pass.
I brought that up today in my public comments