Activists take fight against border-control ballot measure to state Supreme Court
Activist organizations are appealing a judge's ruling that allowed a proposal making it a state crime to cross the border illegally to qualify for the November ballot.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder on July 12 rejected the organizations' argument that the measure violated the constitution's single-subject rule. The appeal is headed to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Alejandra Gomez, executive director of the advocacy group Living United for Change in Arizona, said the group is challenging the decision because they believe the measure violates the rule that a ballot measure must be on a single subject.
In early June, LUCHA, along with state Rep. Oscar De Los Santos, D-Phoenix, the assistant minority leader, and a separate cluster of organizations, including Poder in Action, Phoenix Legal Action Network, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, sued the state of Arizona, challenging the constitutionality of the House Concurrent Resolution 2060.
The measure would require legal status verification of those seeking public benefit programs and would increase penalties for providing false documentation to an employer or to obtain state or local public benefits.
It also includes provisions related to the sale of fentanyl, including making the sale of the drug a Class 2 felony if it results in the death of another person.
HCR 2060 passed the House and Senate last month and is scheduled to appear on the November ballot for voters' consideration.
A bill with the same proposals was killed by Gov. Katie Hobbs in March.
A broad-brush proposal
According to the state Constitution, legislative proposals must address a single issue to avoid bundling together multiple unrelated statutes that may not be approved on their own merits. This rule applies to legislative statutes as well as ballot measures.
Activists and their legal representatives are trying to keep it off the ballot, fearing HCR 2060 would represent a setback reminiscent of the days of SB 1070 or the "show me your papers" law.
HCR 2060 opponents have argued that the measure, dubbed "Secure the Border Act," does little to fulfill its stated purpose. Rather, they say it sets the stage for racial profiling, which would disproportionately affect communities of color, especially Latinos.
The proposal does not state geographic limits, and nowhere does the resolution state age restrictions or exceptions for sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals or places of worship. The measure would allow the deportation of asylum seekers pending legal proceedings.
“This proposal has everything to do with politics, the politics of division,” Gomez said, adding that the law would be "stop-and-frisk" on steroids, which historically has drawn criticism for its potential for biases and abuse.
“The community is paying attention, and they don't want to go back to the Arizona of 2010 where police could stop our communities, detain our communities, and deport our communities,” she said.
Seeking to shed light on the 'true impact'
Should the high court rule against their challenge, the next battle would focus on the ballot measure's synopsis to ensure it reflects the true impact of the proposed law, which is several pages long, according to Joseph García, executive director of Sí Se Vota CPL Action Fund and vice president of public policy at Chicanos Por La Causa.
“We need to make sure ballot language voters read is not biased and does not show a dumb-down version of what this law entails. There’s a lot of bad stuff in this law, and if that isn't in the ballot language, voters may think it’s no big deal,” Garcia said. “Well, it is a big deal. We have to make sure the ballot language matches the true impact.”
Much of the activists' work ahead will entail reminding voters of the damage caused by SB 1070 a decade ago, he said.
That effort is made more complicated because the state has many new voters who were not around at the time. Between 2010 and 2022, Arizona's population grew by almost 15%, adding nearly 1 million new residents.
In a statement Monday, state Senate Republicans lauded the court's ruling, calling the lawsuit an attempt by “radical left activists" to keep the measure off the ballot.
"My colleagues and I worked tirelessly this session to create impactful legislation to help secure our border because the people of Arizona are desperately asking for it," stated Republican Sen. Janae Shamp, R-Surprise. She proposed an identical bill early in the legislative session that ultimately was vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs.
“From the spreading of misinformation to the filing of frivolous lawsuits, they will stop at nothing to keep our border wide open and perpetuate Biden's border crisis,” Shamp said in the statement.
According to Andrew Gaona, partner at Coppersmith Brockelman PLC and legal representative of Poder in Action, the appellants on Wednesday received a scheduling order from the court.
After opening and response briefs in the coming days, the court could decide on the appeal anytime between July 31 and the third week in August.
November ballots will go to the printers on Aug. 22.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona activists continue fight to keep HCR 2060 off the ballot
Solve the daily Crossword
