The Colorado House on third reading approved Senate Bill 276 on measures to prevent violation of civil rights based on immigration status, passing the bill 42-21 with two excused after an extended floor debate.

Supporters said the bill clarifies when local agencies and institutions must require a federal warrant and aims to protect constitutional due-process rights; opponents said it would hinder cooperation with federal authorities, risk federal funding and create enforcement gaps that could affect public safety.

Proponents framed the measure as a constitutional safeguard. Representative Velasco, a co-sponsor, told colleagues the bill ‘‘places no restrictions on local law enforcement’s ability to investigate criminal cases’’ and that it is intended to prevent unlawful detentions and ensure judicial process. Supporters repeated that the bill does not ban cooperation when federal authorities present a valid judicial warrant.

Opponents — including several members representing rural and suburban districts — argued the measure ties the hands of local law enforcement and could endanger public safety and state funding. Members raised concerns about potential legal challenges and cited recent federal scrutiny and litigation involving sanctuary policies.

Floor debate also included appeals to personal and family histories and local examples, with lawmakers from Aurora, Denver and other districts describing how the bill would affect immigrant communities and public safety practices. Lawmakers on both sides urged a federal solution but said the state must act now to protect residents and institutions.

The bill’s passage followed a roll call that recorded 42 yes, 21 no and 2 excused. Sponsors and backers said the bill includes procedural guidance for schools, hospitals, libraries and child-care centers and clarifies limits on state resources being used to enforce federal civil immigration law.

What the bill does not do, sponsors emphasized, is strip local authorities of the ability to pursue criminal investigations or to honor valid warrants. Opponents countered that the bill’s restrictions and some denied amendments left unresolved questions about mutual aid, guard coordination and the possibility of litigation that could cost state and local budgets.

Lawmakers slated additional committee meetings and guidance for political subdivisions in coming weeks; supporters said the bill will prompt local entities to adopt clear policies so employees know how to respond to federal requests without violating residents’ rights.