Prop. 314 Faces Legal Hurdles Similar to SB1070 in Allowing AZ Cops to Enforce Federal Immigration Laws

Proposition 314, a contentious measure on November’s ballot, proposes to criminalize illegal border crossings under Arizona law. This would empower state police to arrest individuals unable to prove U.S. citizenship or legal residency. Additionally, state courts could order deportations.

Despite potential voter approval, the measure’s implementation faces considerable legal challenges. Immigration enforcement remains a federal jurisdiction, and federal courts have previously blocked similar state laws, such as those in Texas. Civil liberties advocates argue that these “show me your papers” laws could disproportionately target Americans with darker skin tones and accents.

“It’s completely unconstitutional under every interpretation of the Constitution by the federal courts to date,” stated Lynn Marcus, a clinical immigration law professor at the University of Arizona.

Arizona’s past attempt to enforce such laws, embodied by 2010’s SB 1070, saw significant backlash and boycotts due to racial profiling concerns. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated most of SB 1070 in 2012, reinforcing that states cannot regulate areas designated under federal control.

One surviving element of SB 1070 required police to check the papers of suspected illegal immigrants, a practice Arizona ceased in 2016 following a settlement with immigrant rights groups.

César Fierros, spokesperson for the immigrant advocacy group LUCHA, cautioned, “Proposition 314 will open up Arizona to a ton of different lawsuits. It’s going to cost taxpayers a lot of money.”

Earlier this year, Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a similar bill. In response, Republican legislators advanced HCR 2060, allowing voters to decide the fate of Proposition 314. The measure passed narrowly through both the House and the Senate without Democratic support.

Daniel Stein, president of the far-right Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), stated, “Arizona has an interest in the regularization of traffic across its border, even though it’s a federal responsibility to ensure that those borders are properly controlled.” The SPLC lists FAIR as a “hate group” due to its extreme stance on immigration.

Proposition 314 would only take effect if the similar Texas law or another state’s equivalent remains in effect for 60 days. Arizona police already possess the authority to assist Border Patrol in immigrant arrests.

Advocates of the proposition argue that the influx of immigrants constitutes an “invasion,” permitting states to engage in self-defense under certain constitutional interpretations. Former Attorney General Mark Brnovich supported this notion, indicating that transnational cartel activity met the criteria of an “invasion.” However, courts have generally not agreed, distinguishing drug smugglers and unarmed migrants from foreign armies.

The U.S. Justice Department has challenged the Texas law, which is not currently enforceable. Border policy strategist Noah Schramm from the ACLU of Arizona anticipates that a Trump administration might not oppose state-level immigration enforcement.

The legal complexities of Proposition 314 are compounded by the state constitution’s “single-subject rule.” While primarily focused on unlawful border crossings, it also targets fentanyl sales and fraudulent document use. LUCHA has challenged this, arguing the proposition encompasses multiple subjects, but the challenge was dismissed by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder.

LUCHA has escalated the issue to the Arizona Supreme Court, which must rule before August 22 to allow time for ballot printing.