Critics Warn: Putting ‘Secure Border Act’ to Vote Could Undermine Arizona Constitution

Four immigrant advocacy organizations are petitioning the Arizona Supreme Court to overturn a lower court’s decision and halt a GOP ballot measure that they argue violates the state’s constitutional single-subject rule.

Democratic attorney Andy Gaona, representing Poder in Action, the Phoenix Legal Action Network, and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, is spearheading the legal challenge. Gaona references a 2021 Arizona Supreme Court ruling that struck down unrelated political issues in budget bills, indicating a similar constitutional breach this time.

The ballot measure, titled the “Secure the Border Act,” proposes making it a crime for migrants to cross the southern border outside official ports of entry, submitting false documentation for jobs or public benefits, and selling fentanyl resulting in death. These provisions, critics argue, are too disparate to comply with the single-subject rule. However, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge recently sided with GOP lawmakers, claiming the act addresses a unified theme of border security harms.

Gaona cautions that this ruling threatens the single-subject requirement’s integrity, traditionally protecting against political logrolling. By merging what were formerly separate bills into one, the legislature, Gaona argues, undermines the rule’s intent. One provision for criminalizing fentanyl sales, Gaona notes, is particularly unrelated to the immigration-focused aspects of the act.

Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), represented by attorney Jim Barton, joined the legal battle, insisting that each provision addresses different issues and cannot be unified under a single theme. Critics, including LUCHA, argue that the GOP’s attempt to connect these disparate elements under the guise of border-related harms is flawed.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder upheld the legislative findings clause justifying the inclusion of fentanyl, a decision Gaona contests. The judge’s ruling cited past cases, suggesting that a broad theme could meet the single-subject rule, a point Barton counters, calling for logical connections between provisions, not broad thematic links.

Opponents maintain that the act’s provisions do not correlate effectively to warrant a single-subject designation, potentially setting a dangerous precedent if upheld. Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma have until the end of the month to file replies. The expedited case must be concluded by August 22, when ballot printing begins. Legal challenges may continue even if the current appeal fails, signaling an enduring battle over the measure’s legitimacy.