Az Supreme Court Upholds ‘Secure Border’ Measure for Ballot Vote

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a Republican-sponsored ballot measure aimed at making it a state crime for migrants to cross the southern border can be presented to voters in November. This ruling dismissed opponents’ claims that the proposal violates the constitutional requirement limiting ballot questions to a single subject.

The challenge was led by four Latino advocacy groups which argued that the referral, known as the “Secure Border Act,” altered multiple sections of state law. Proposition 314 would introduce a new felony for the sale of lethal fentanyl, penalize undocumented individuals providing false documentation, and criminalize illegal border crossings, punishable by imprisonment.

A trial court had previously sided with the legislature, a decision that the state Supreme Court unanimously upheld. In their brief order, the justices highlighted a “strong presumption” of constitutionality for legislative actions put forward for public vote, stating that the plaintiffs failed to provide adequate evidence to dispute this presumption.

Republicans included a clause in the legislation asserting that its primary aim is to address issues stemming from the southern border. This was seen as an attempt to preempt legal challenges regarding the single-subject stipulation.

Opponents contended that allowing broad definitions linking disparate legal provisions undermines the integrity of the single-subject rule, which is intended to prevent logrolling—the practice of bundling popular measures with less favorable ones. They argued this practice allows lawmakers to circumvent scrutiny of legislation that originally consisted of five separate bills.

Some sections of the proposed measure stemmed from earlier bills previously rejected by Governor Katie Hobbs or stymied in the legislature. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court found that the components of Proposition 314 were “reasonably related” to the overarching topic of border security.

Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer noted that it is not essential for the components to have an independent relationship with each other.

Alejandra Gomez, executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona and one of the plaintiffs, criticized the ruling as a “threat to the fundamental freedoms and civil rights” of all Arizonans. She vowed to mobilize efforts to defeat the measure by canvassing over 1 million doors ahead of the election.

Gomez asserted that the proposition aims to instill fear and promote racial profiling, warning that its passage would lead to heightened scrutiny and aggressive policing tactics affecting all residents.

Viri Hernandez, strategy director for Poder In Action, echoed these sentiments, expressing concern that the ruling sends a message that racial profiling is permissible in Arizona. She emphasized that communities of color have long perceived the state’s justice system as inadequate in ensuring their safety.

If Proposition 314 secures voter approval, it may face legal hurdles regarding its constitutionality. This stems from a 2004 amendment requiring any ballot measure that increases state spending to include funding sources that do not draw from the state’s general operating account—a provision lacking in the current proposal, despite warnings about its financial implications.