Jason Rantz is blasting Washington state Democrats over Senate Bill 5855, arguing that the law billed as a ban on masked ICE agents is effectively unenforceable, constitutionally vulnerable, and being recycled as campaign messaging despite having little practical impact.

Rantz said his attention was caught by a social media post from a Democratic account celebrating the law as if it had just taken effect.

"I saw a very curious tweet over the weekend that made me chuckle, and it comes from an account called Democrats Deliver, Dems Deliver," Rantz said.

He said the post featured an image of Governor Bob Ferguson alongside a masked ICE agent and declared that ICE officers were now prohibited from covering their faces in Washington.

"It said, 'quote, ICE agents are now banned from wearing masks in Washington," Rantz said.

Rantz argued that anyone following the issue closely would know why he found the claim misleading. He noted that the legislation was signed months earlier and said ICE agents have continued wearing masks across the state.

"This is part of a national campaign to help Democrats ahead of the midterm; they are celebrating a ban on masked ICE agents in Washington State as if it just passed, but it was signed six months ago," Rantz said.

He said the reality since then has been very different from the campaign message.

"And you know what's been happening this entire time? ICE agents across the state of Washington, whether it is in Seattle, or Tacoma, or Yakima, or Spokane, everywhere, they are still covering their faces because the law wasn't merely unconstitutional, but it was unenforceable. It's unenforceable," Rantz said.

Rantz identified the law as Senate Bill 5855 and said Ferguson signed it on March 19 with an emergency clause that allowed it to take effect immediately.

"Now the law they're talking about is Senate Bill 5855. Ferguson signed it into law on March 19th, and it was deemed an emergency," Rantz said.

He said the measure passed along party lines, with Democrats supporting it and Republicans opposing it.

"Now it passed along partisan party lines. All the Democrats supported it. All the Republicans were against it," Rantz said.

But according to Rantz, the law has not been meaningfully used.

"It has not been used. This law hasn't been enforced one single time since March 19 th, when it was signed," Rantz said.

He emphasized that the law contains no criminal penalty, which he argued makes direct enforcement unrealistic.

"Number one, the law has no criminal penalty. No criminal penalty means you're not going to enforce this," Rantz said.

Instead, he said the law depends on civil lawsuits brought by people detained by masked officers.

"It only lets someone detained by a masked ICE agent or masked officer, because it's not just about ICE agents. According to this law, you can sue that officer for damages," Rantz said.

He argued that this shifts the burden onto immigrants who may already be in detention or facing removal.

"So in practice, that puts enforcement on immigrants who are being held in detention or facing removal. You're the one who has to enforce this. So of course, that's not going to happen," Rantz said.

Rantz also said he could not find evidence that local law enforcement agencies were stepping in to enforce the state law against federal officers.

"No, I couldn't find a single instance. It doesn't appear that this has come up at any point. Period," Rantz said.

He cited comments from Spokane Police Department Assistant Chief Steve Wool, who said local police would not act as enforcers against federal agencies.

"He said, "Quote: There's civil remedies for that. It's not something that local law enforcement is going to enforce. We're not the police of the federal law enforcement agencies," Rantz said.

Rantz also pointed to the Supremacy Clause and referenced a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling involving a similar California law.

"Now there's something called the supremacy clause, which we knew was going to be used as a way to dismiss this incredibly stupid bill," Rantz said.

He quoted Judge Mark Bennett’s majority opinion on state laws regulating federal activity.

"If a state law directly regulates the conduct of the United States. It is void, irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with federal functions or operations," Rantz said.

Rantz said Washington Democrats tried to distinguish their version from California’s by arguing that it applies more broadly to law enforcement rather than only federal agents, but he dismissed that argument.

"Other than they're just either dumb, which is certainly true, but it's more that this was political performance art. This is performative politics at its worst," Rantz said.

He also said Democrats stopped talking about the law after making a major show of signing it.

"And you'll notice, by the way, they don't even talk about this ban anymore, right? They made a big deal about signing that bill, and we're gonna. And then all of a sudden, they stopped talking about it completely," Rantz said.

Rantz concluded that the legislation was never realistically going to produce the result Democrats advertised and questioned why the party would revive it as midterm messaging.

"So this was never gonna happen. This is never gonna happen," Rantz said.

He said the campaign message risks reminding voters that the promise was not fulfilled.

"No one believes that, and that's the funny thing," Rantz said.

Rantz ended by arguing that the continued use of masks by federal officers only reinforces his point.

"If anything, people started to use masks even more. They're double masking, just to say screw you, Democrats."

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservative Mix. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.