Latino advocacy group asks judge to prevent border proposal from appearing on Arizona ballot

PHOENIX — A day after lawmakers voted to put a border proposal on the Nov. 5 vote in Arizona, a Latino advocacy group and a Democratic lawmaker filed a lawsuit challenging the measure because it contains an alleged constitutional defect.

In their challenge filed Wednesday, the group Living United for Change in Arizona and Democratic state Rep. Oscar De Los Santos argued that the proposal — which seeks to bring local police into immigration enforcement — violates a rule in the state constitution that says that legislative proposals must cover a single subject.

If approved by voters, the proposal would make it a state crime for people to cross the Arizona-Mexico border anywhere except a port of entry, give state and local authorities the power to arrest violators, and allow state judges to order people returned to their homes. countries.

It would also make it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison for selling fentanyl that leads to a person’s death and would require some government agencies to use a federal database to verify a noncitizen’s eligibility for benefits.

Jim Barton, an attorney representing the advocacy group, expressed confidence that a court will block the measure from being voted on, saying he does not believe a judge will view the measure — as its proponents do — as being broadly applicable to border issues.

Instead, Barton said the proposal addresses issues unrelated to immigration enforcement, the fentanyl crisis and public benefits regulation. “It’s defective – and everyone involved in this knows it,” Barton said.

Republican leaders who supported the measure say those behind the lawsuit are trying to prevent Arizonans from voting on a high-priority issue.

“Arizonans are fed up and want change,” House Speaker Ben Toma, a Republican, said in a statement. In a separate statement, Senate President Warren Petersen, also a Republican, said he was confident the measure would survive court scrutiny and win voter approval in November.

The office of Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, the state’s chief electoral officer who was the target of the action, declined to comment on the case.

This is not the first time that the Legislature has been accused of violating the single subject rule.

In late 2021, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a first instance decision which concluded that the Republican-controlled Legislature violated the single-issue rule by killing a budget bill that was filled with a conservative wish list of unrelated policy items.

The Arizona proposal is similar to a Texas law that was suspended by a federal appeals court while it was challenged. A federal appeals court is currently considering Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s appeal of the ruling that blocked enforcement of the state law.

Final approval of the border measure by the Arizona Legislature came on the same day that President Joe Biden revealed plans to restrict the number of migrants seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border.

Although federal law already prohibits unauthorized entry of migrants into the U.S., supporters of the measure say it is necessary because the federal government has not done enough to stop people from illegally crossing Arizona’s vast and porous border with Mexico. They also said some people who enter Arizona without authorization commit identity theft and take advantage of public benefits.

Opponents say the proposal would inevitably lead to racial profiling by police, burden the state with new costs from law enforcement agencies that have no experience with immigration law and harm Arizona’s reputation in the business world.

This is not the first time that Republican lawmakers in Arizona have attempted to criminalize migrants who are not authorized to remain in the United States.

In passing its 2010 immigration bill, the Arizona Legislature considered expanding the state’s trespassing law to criminalize the presence of immigrants and impose criminal penalties. But the infringing language was removed and replaced with a requirement that officials, while enforcing other laws, question people’s immigration status if they are believed to be in the country illegally.

The interrogation requirement was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, despite critics’ concerns about racial profiling, but the courts prohibited the application of other sections of the law.