Critics Argue Voters Letting ‘Secure Border Act’ Pass Would Undermine AZ Constitutional Rule

Four immigrant advocacy organizations are urging the Arizona Supreme Court to overrule a lower court’s decision and block a GOP ballot measure. The measure would allow police officers to jail migrants, which the groups argue violates the state’s constitutional single-subject requirement.

Democratic attorney Andy Gaona highlighted a past ruling where the Legislature was found guilty of injecting unrelated political issues into budget bills. “Yet here we are again,” Gaona emphasized, “with more hot-button political issues and another constitutional violation.” He represents Poder in Action, the Phoenix Legal Action Network, and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project in this ongoing legal battle.

The proposed ballot measure seeks to criminalize migrants who cross the southern border outside of official entry points and penalize the submission of false documents for jobs or benefits. It also aims to introduce severe penalties for selling fentanyl that results in someone’s death.

Critics argue that these provisions are too varied to meet the single-subject rule. However, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge recently ruled in favor of the measure, arguing that it had a unifying goal. Opponents swiftly appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Gaona warned that this decision threatens the integrity of the single-subject requirement, which prevents political logrolling. “It’s an important check on legislative power,” he wrote. Gaona contended that melding five separate bills into one proposal was a clear violation of this rule.

Earlier iterations of parts of the act were either vetoed or stagnated in the legislature. “Criminalizing the sale of lethal fentanyl is unrelated to the other immigration-related crimes,” Gaona argued, further underscoring the act’s disunity.

Critics of the GOP’s measure have often singled out the fentanyl provision as the most disparate element. GOP leaders countered with a legislative findings clause, linking the fentanyl crisis to an unsecured border. A last-minute amendment attempted to further this connection, but skeptics weren’t convinced.

Judge Scott Minder supported the measure with the findings clause. Gaona urged the Supreme Court to disregard this, arguing that allowing lawmakers to bundle unrelated issues into a single act undermines the single-subject rule.

The court, Gaona asserted, should focus on the real-world impact of the act’s provisions. Both Gaona and attorney Jim Barton, who represents Living United for Change in Arizona, argued that the measure’s provisions are too disparate to comply with the single-subject rule.

Barton emphasized that issues related to border crossings, false documentation, and fentanyl sales are distinct and unrelated. He criticized the ruling by Judge Minder, arguing it stretched the single-subject rule too far.

“They must have a real, logical connection,” Barton argued. “Not one concocted to bypass the single-subject rule.” He urged the Supreme Court to reject the act, stating that allowing it to stand would erode constitutional mandates.

Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, who are defending the act after Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes declined to, have until the end of the month to file their reply. The case is on an expedited schedule as Maricopa County must begin printing ballots by Aug. 22.

If the current challenge fails, opponents have signaled interest in launching further lawsuits even after the voters have had their say.