The Democratic majority was quick to act on legislation prohibiting cooperation agreements between local police and the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and the governor signed it into law less than a week later in a clear rebuke of the Trump administration.

That wasn’t Massachusetts, however, but Maryland, where state lawmakers voted last week to establish a clearer firewall between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. On Tuesday, Gov. Wes Moore signed the measure, declaring that his state would not allow its law enforcement “to be deputized by agencies that do not hold the same standards.”

Bay State leaders are responding to the same current of growing national outrage about ICE actions in Minnesota and elsewhere, but exactly what they plan to do and when they’ll do it is still taking shape. The lack of cohesion has left some activists and insiders impatient.

“There are so many states that have already taken some type of action, and we hope that Massachusetts passes something quickly, especially now that we have a lot of solid proposals on the table,” said Elizabeth Sweet, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy coalition.

On January 28, the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus rolled out a sweeping proposal that would reshape how police work intersects with immigration status in Massachusetts, including a ban on civil immigration arrests in and around courthouses, new limits on sharing some information with federal authorities in civil immigration cases, and a prohibition on agencies entering into so-called 287(g) agreements with ICE, deals that allow local law enforcement to investigate and in some cases make arrests over civil immigration violations.

A day later, Gov. Maura Healey offered her own plan. She signed an executive order that bans agencies under her purview from striking new 287(g) agreements and bars the use of state property for immigration enforcement staging activities. Healey separately filed legislation that would bar ICE from “sensitive locations” like courthouses, schools, and churches and allow parents to designate guardians for their children in case they are deported.

But three weeks later, it’s still not clear how the Democrats who wield supermajority margins in the House and Senate intend to stitch all the varying pieces together or on what timeline they intend to act, other than with vague promises of “urgency.”

Asked last week whether his chamber planned to take up immigration legislation or a long-awaited energy cost bill first, House Ways and Means Committee chair Aaron Michlewitz said he did not “want to put a definitive timetable on anything.”

Although he hopes to see action on both topics before the House launches its annual state budget debate in April, Michlewitz cautioned about “complexities” that cloud the picture.

Top Senate Democrats added another variable last week, when they floated another legislative measure dealing with legal action against federal officers.