Judge Evaluates Legality of Controversial GOP ‘Secure Border’ Initiative

The fate of a GOP-backed ballot measure allowing local police to arrest migrants now hinges on a Maricopa Superior Court judge’s decision. On Monday, arguments were presented questioning the proposal’s constitutionality and its eligibility for the November ballot.

Four Latino and immigrant advocacy organizations have filed a lawsuit to block the “Secure the Border Act” from reaching voters. They argue the act breaches Arizona’s Single Subject Rule by bundling multiple issues, including illegal border crossing punishments, job and benefits fraud by undocumented residents, and a new class of felony for lethal fentanyl sales.

Proponents of the act insist it meets the single-subject criterion, claiming it addresses the issues stemming from the “unsecured” southern border. On the other hand, critics argue the act is a compilation of previously failed bills and accuse it of political logrolling.

During the court session, Democratic attorney Andy Gaona criticized the act, citing its unrelated provisions. He argued that while a multi-pronged proposal isn’t inherently unconstitutional, the act’s contents span disparate subjects. Judge Scott Minder expressed a desire to issue a ruling by week’s end to accommodate potential appeals before ballot printing starts on August 22.

One pivotal criticism was that the act’s parts don’t interrelate. Gaona highlighted the mismatch between provisions targeting immigration status and those criminalizing fentanyl sales. He also noted past Arizona Supreme Court decisions invalidating similarly broad legislative maneuvers.

Defense attorney Kory Langhofer, representing Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, contended that the act aligns under the single subject of “smuggling” activities at the southern border. He argued that addressing human and drug smuggling from the border justifies the act’s provisions.

Judge Minder scrutinized whether linking the act’s clauses to “border harms” indeed formed a singular subject. He emphasized the necessity of considering the practical impacts, not just legislative framing. Gaona warned that deferring to lawmakers’ interpretations could lead to political “mischief.”

Attorney Jim Barton stated that even removing the contentious fentanyl clause wouldn’t save the act from unconstitutionality. He highlighted the court’s inability to sever provisions to achieve compliance, insisting that the entire measure must be discarded if any part proves unconstitutional.

Langhofer maintained that the act’s broad topic of border issues was permissible, underscoring the real-life ramifications of fentanyl smuggling. He defended the fentanyl provision’s lawful import caveat, despite its criticized practicality.

As the arguments unfolded, the courtroom focused on whether the act’s breadth represented valid legislative action or an unconstitutional overreach. Judge Minder’s forthcoming decision will significantly influence the measure’s electoral journey, with potential appeals likely to follow.