Judge says Arizona border security proposal can stay on the ballot

A broad, Republican-backed border security proposal sent to voters by the Arizona Legislature can stay on the November ballot, a judge ruled.

By Wayne Schutsky, KJZZ

If approved by voters, Proposition 314 would make it a state crime to cross Arizona's border with Mexico outside of a legal port of entry. That’s already illegal under federal law, but the new measure would allow state and local law enforcement, including sheriffs, to arrest people that cross the border illegally.

Proposition 314, also known as HCR 2060, also includes other provisions creating new penalties in state law for selling fentanyl that leads to the death of another person or using fake documents to get a job or obtain public benefits.

Immigrant rights groups filed a lawsuit claiming the proposal is too broad.

They said it violates a state constitutional provision requiring individual pieces of legislation to stick to a single subject.

But Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder disagreed. In a ruling issued Friday, Minder sided with attorneys for the Republican lawmakers who sent the measure to ballot, finding all aspects of the proposal are “responses to harms related to an unsecured border.”

Minder, citing previous single-subject cases that went before the Supreme Court, rejected arguments by attorneys the groups that brought the lawsuit, who argued Republican lawmakers manufactured a purposely broad subject in order to stuff Proposition 314 with multiple unrelated policy proposals.

“This Court recognizes that risk, as did counsel for the Legislative Intervenors, but disagrees that the mere possibility that HCR 2060’s subject could relate to far more requires the Court to find this act unconstitutional,” Minder ruled.

In attempting to sway the judge, Andy Gaona, an attorney representing Poder In Action and other plaintiffs, cited the fentanyl provision specifically.

“That violates the single-subject rule by veering substantially away from all of HCR 2060’s other provisions that relate directly to a person's immigration status,” Gaona said.

Minder acknowledged “the subject is broad.”

“But it is not ‘foolishly’ so,” he added.

Minder found the border crossing provision is inherently connected to separate sections requiring government entities to verify a person’s legal status before doling out public benefits and creating enhanced penalties for those that use fake documents to circumvent that verification.

“Those four provisions are all deterrents to, or enforcement methods for, crossing the border without legal permission,” Minder wrote.

The fentanyl provision is connected, too, Minder ruled.

“The Legislature made explicit findings about the dangers of fentanyl and the impact of the transportation of fentanyl over the border, including the enticement of people to cross the border without legal permission,” the judge wrote.

Prior to the ruling, Barton, representing Living United for Change in Arizona, argued allowing Proposition 314 to reach the ballot would effectively neutralize the Arizona Constitution’s single subject requirement and give lawmakers the greenlight to “log roll,” or combine several disparate proposals into a single bill in order to increase its chances of success.

“If whatever the legislature says, if that's good enough, then we don't really have a single subject rule anymore in the Constitution,” Barton said.

But Minder also rejected that argument. He said the issues at play in the border security legislation “reasonably relate” and did not meet the standard set by the Arizona Supreme Court in earlier single-subject cases.

For example, he contrasted Prop 314 with a Supreme Court decision to partially dismantle a budget passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2021 after finding the budget bills were stuffed with non-budget laws in order to marshal support among lawmakers.

The border measure doesn’t go that far, Minder found.

“The single-subject rule seeks to prevent log-rolling, but the rule only requires the individual components to fit reasonably within the act’s subject,” Minder wrote. “That is the case here.”

In a statement, LUCHA, one of the groups challenging Prop 314’s constitutionality, said it plans to appeal the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Link to original article: https://www.kjzz.org/2024-07-13/judge-says-arizona-border-security-proposal-can-stay-on-the-ballot