Contra Costa County — home to roughly 275,000 immigrants and one of the last Bay Area governments without formal limits on cooperation with federal immigration agents — missed a July 7 vote on such a policy and is now pushing the decision to August or September at the earliest.

The delay stems from a collision of timing and internal division: state Attorney General Rob Bonta released a model non-cooperation policy on July 1, just days before the scheduled vote, as required by Senate Bill 580 (2025). That law gives counties until early 2027 to adopt the model or an equivalent — but with a quarter of its residents being immigrants, Contra Costa's year-long process has left advocates waiting while the rest of the region moved on.

MARTINEZ — Contra Costa County supervisors had spent more than a year crafting a policy that would prohibit cooperation with federal immigration officials. A vote was set for July 7. Then Sacramento moved first.

State Attorney General Rob Bonta released a model non-cooperation policy on July 1 — just days before the scheduled board vote — as required by Senate Bill 580, a law the state legislature approved in 2025. County staff said they needed time to compare what they'd drafted against the new state framework. The issue will now return to the Board of Supervisors in August or September, according to the East Bay Times.

The delay matters in a county where about 25 percent of residents are immigrants — roughly 275,000 people, by county estimates. The counties of San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz have all enacted non-cooperation policies in recent years; several Bay Area cities have held sanctuary designations for decades. Contra Costa remains the outlier.

Supervisor Candace Anderson sought to reassure constituents that the postponement carries no operational consequence. "Us delaying is not going to change how the Sheriff's Department interacts with ICE. It's not going to change how any of our departments interact with ICE. It is not going to change this Board of Supervisors' policy that we need to continue to uplift our immigrant community," she told the East Bay Times.

But the board is also split on a foundational legal question that the delay hasn't resolved: whether to codify the guidance as a resolution or an ordinance.

Supervisors Ken Carlson and Shanelle Scales-Preston, who have driven the effort through the county's Equity Committee since August 2025, agreed in June to send a draft policy to the full board. As drafted, it would bar the use of county resources — including personnel — to assist ICE or any other immigration authority, unless required by state or federal law. Carlson framed the purpose plainly: to "send a message to a community that's divided and afraid," he told the East Bay Times.

Anderson and Carlson favor a resolution, an administrative directive that would take effect immediately upon ratification. Scales-Preston and Supervisor John Gioia want an ordinance — a local law requiring multiple public hearings and a 30-day grace period before implementation. Community advocates have largely backed the ordinance, arguing it carries stronger enforcement teeth.

County Counsel Tom Geiger told supervisors the practical difference is narrower than it appears. County employees who violate the guidance would face the same internal discipline under either form, Geiger said, and the county would not fine itself. The sharper distinction applies to contractors: any third party that violates the policy — resolution or ordinance — would face contract termination.

Scales-Preston drew the political stakes in the bluntest terms. "We're not here as elected leaders to be in fear. It's already happening so these threats from the federal government are not going to stop," she told the East Bay Times.

SB 580's deadline gives Contra Costa until January 2027 to act. That leaves time — but the gap between where the county is and where its neighbors already are is now measured in years, not months.