Arizona Border Ballot Showdown: Opponents Challenge Judge’s Ruling

Latino advocacy groups are appealing a judge’s approval of a GOP ballot referral that would allow local police to jail migrants, in a last-chance attempt to prevent it from being considered by voters in the fall.

“Proposition 314 has no place on the ballot,” Alejandra Gomez, executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona, said in an emailed statement. “We urge the Arizona Supreme Court to hear our case and deny this proposition on constitutional grounds.”

Last month, Arizona Republicans sent Proposition 314, titled the “Secure the Border Act,” to the November ballot. The proposal mirrors a Texas immigration law whose constitutionality is currently being litigated and makes it a state crime for migrants to cross Arizona’s southern border anywhere but at an official port of entry, punishing first-time offenders with up to 6 months in jail.

A quartet of Latino and immigrant advocacy organizations, including LUCHA, Poder in Action, the Phoenix Legal Action Network, and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project quickly launched a legal challenge to the proposal. They argued that its multiple provisions are too disparate to comply with the state constitution’s single-subject rule, which mandates that the content of all ballot measures stick to one topic.

Along with criminalizing migrants, the act punishes undocumented Arizonans who submit false documentation when applying for jobs or public benefits with a class 6 felony. Additionally, it creates a new class of felony offense, with increased prison time, for those who knowingly sell fentanyl that results in someone’s death. Republican lawmakers argued that the provisions are related to the act’s purported purpose of addressing the “harms” caused by the “unsecured” southern border.

On July 12, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder sided with GOP legislative leaders who defended the act’s constitutionality in court. In an 11-page ruling, Minder concluded that the overarching theme of an “unsecured” border is sufficient to meet the single-subject rule’s requirement.

Gomez denounced the proposal as “stop and frisk on steroids” and called on the Arizona Supreme Court to take up the case and invalidate Minder’s order. She reiterated a frequent argument from opponents of the act, stating that it is a compilation of separate bills, indicating it is made up of different subjects. The act combines at least five bills, including one vetoed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, and four others that stalled in the legislature.

“This is a package of already failed and vetoed legislation that violates the single-subject rule in our case’s argument,” Gomez said. “The Stop and Frisk bill will disproportionately target Arizonans and subject them to suspicion and persecution. This discriminatory legislation will not only grant law enforcement immunity but will also lead to over-policing in every community across our state.”

Critics of the “Secure the Border Act” have likened it to SB1070, Arizona’s notorious “show me your papers law” that allowed police officers to investigate the citizenship status of Arizonans during routine traffic stops. They warn that it will lead to increased racial profiling if voters approve it in November.