SEARCH RESULTS.

The Arizona Supreme Court sided with a lower court that a Republican-backed border security proposal can stay on the November ballot. By Danyelle Khmara, Arizona Public Media Living United for Change in Arizona and other plaintiffs sought to prevent House Concurrent Resolution 2060 from appearing on the ballot and argued it violated Arizona's single subject rule, which prevents legislators from putting unconnected items into the same bill. A Maricopa County judge previously ruled all components of the legislation are related to "responses to harms relating to an unsecured border." And the Supreme Court agreed, clearing the way for the bill to appear in the general election as Prop 314. The proposal contains numerous border-related measures, including allowing state officials to arrest and deport people who cross the border unauthorized, enhanced penalties for selling fentanyl that leads to a death, and making it a felony to apply for public benefits using false information. LUCHA and other opponents of the bill are comparing it to SB 1070 and vow to knock on more than 1 million doors across the state to mobilize voters against the proposition. “Prop 314 is more than just a bad piece of legislation; it is a direct assault on Arizona’s communities,” said LUCHA Executive Director Alejandra Gomez in a statement. “Prop 314 is designed to create a separate immigration system that will facilitate the mass deportations outlined in Trump’s Project 2025 agenda. The motivations behind this proposition are clear: to instill fear, promote racial profiling, and enable the unchecked over-policing of Arizona’s neighborhoods.” Link to original article: https://www.azpm.org/p/headlines/2024/8/14/221427-az-supreme-court-upholds-gop-backed-border-security-proposal-for-november-ballot/

Proposition 314, the so-called 'Secure the Border Act,' will secure nothing, cause human suffering and cost taxpayers a bundle. By EJ Montini, The Arizona Republic Sometimes it’s the little things that expose the dark underbelly of a political maneuver. Last spring, when the Republicans who control the Arizona Legislature were pushing through a resolution that would put a grotesque version of Arizona’s disastrous Senate Bill 1070 on the ballot this November, visitors in the state Capitol gallery hissed their disagreement with Republican state Sen. John Kavanagh. To which he replied, “I’m sorry if I offended any criminals in the gallery.” That, essentially, is the gist of the fallaciously named “Secure the Border Act,” which will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 314 . It’s all about making assumptions about people. Wrong ones. Proposition would turn police into border patrol This week, after having been challenged by opponents, the Arizona Supreme Court decided that the proposition met the criteria under the state constitution’s single-subject rule and can go before voters . Unfortunately, common sense and human decency are not among the requirements to get something on the ballot. And bigotry is not a disqualifier. Proposition 314 would essentially turn police officers into border patrol agents, no matter where in the state they work. Like SB 1070, it is a show-me-your-papers disaster, the kind of policy that caused a colossal amount of unnecessary hardship and resentment and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars . The nonpartisan Grand Canyon Institute issued a report estimating that the GOP’s latest iteration of that law could cost taxpayers at least $325 million a year , and possibly a lot more. Worse, it adds immunity to protect bad actors Back when the GOP at the State Capitol was ramming this through along party lines, Alejandra Gomez, executive director of the nonprofit LUCHA (Living United for Change in Arizona) issued a statement on the proposition saying, “If Prop. 314 reaches the ballot box this November, many Arizonans will be disproportionately targeted and subjected to suspicion and persecution. This discriminatory legislation will lead to over-policing in every community across our state. “Arizonans, even those hundreds of miles from the border, will be under the intense scrutiny of law enforcement. A routine traffic stop could quickly escalate into an inquiry about citizenship status and possible detainment based solely on the color of your skin and your last name.” We know from SB 1070 the kind of ill will that legislation like this can create, and the damage it can do to the state’s reputation. And so do the people who crafted it. That’s why the proposition has a clause saying that a “state or local government entity, official, employee or contractor is immune from liability from damages arising” from enforcement of the law. The people behind this garbage not only expect unwarranted bigotry. They’re willing to protect it. Link to original article: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2024/08/14/arizona-supreme-court-racist-immigration-ballot-measure/74792159007/

Arizonans will see a sweeping measure on their November ballots that would address illegal border crossings, migrants using false documentation and fentanyl trafficking, despite concerns from immigration advocates and a veto from the governor. By Dan Gooding, Newsweek Opponents argued that Proposition 314 combined issues that were unrelated – arresting those in the U.S. without legal status and the lethal drug trade – and could harm the estimated 225,000 undocumented migrants in the state. On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the bill could appear on the ballot as is. "Prop 314 is more than just a bad piece of legislation; it is a direct assault on Arizona's communities," Alejandra Gomez, executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) said. "Prop 314 is designed to create a separate immigration system that will facilitate the mass deportations outlined in Trump's Project 2025 agenda." The bill, which will appear alongside at least 13 other pieces of legislation — including one expanding abortion access — would create four new crimes under state law. Under Prop. 314, anyone who enters Arizona from Mexico other than through an official port of entry could be arrested by state or local law enforcement. "The motivations behind this proposition are clear: to instill fear, promote racial profiling and enable the unchecked over-policing of Arizona's neighborhoods," Gomez continued. "If Prop 314 passes, every Arizonan, regardless of where they live, will be subjected to intense scrutiny, invasive stop-and-frisk tactics, and an unprecedented level of law enforcement investigation." The measure is similar to attempts seen in Texas, as well as Oklahoma and Iowa, in recent years. All have come up against barriers in the courts , as the federal government has constitutional authority over border security. That precedent was affirmed in a ruling on a case in Arizona just over a decade ago, but Prop. 314 adds to the list of state legislators trying to overrule it. "An alien could not be prosecuted for any of these crimes until a similar law in the state of Texas or a similar law in any other state has been in effect for at least 60 consecutive days after Proposition 314 is approved by voters and becomes effective," the bill states , allowing time to see if the plan is workable elsewhere. In May, protections for those already living in the state were written into the plans. Prop. 314 also says that law enforcement would be granted "civil immunity" for any actions taken to stop a migrant attempting to cross the border illegally. U.S. Customs and Border Protection data shows its officers have encountered around 500,000 people who have crossed the border illegally into Arizona since October 2023. Alongside the border crossing crimes, Prop. 314 would make it illegal for undocumented migrants to apply to local, state or federal benefits with false documentation. A similar rule would apply to those submitting false documents to the E-Verify system when applying for work. Getting tougher on fentanyl trafficking Migrant advocacy groups are worried that the bill will be passed by voters not necessarily because of these measures, but because of new rules on fentanyl distribution also shoehorned into the text. Under Prop. 314, any adult knowingly selling fentanyl that leads to someone's death could see an extra five years tacked onto their sentence. The accused would have some defense if the fentanyl was manufactured in the U.S. or legally imported, the bill says. Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs , a Democrat, previously vetoed Prop. 314 after it passed through the state legislature and was widely supported by Republican representatives. "This has been described as 1070 2.0, which clearly was fraught with constitutional issues," Gov. Hobbs said at a press conference Wednesday, referring to the 2012 legislation. "Almost all of it was struck down by the courts. "I think more importantly, it's legislation that doesn't solve the issue at our border. We need federal action on that. We need Congress to pass the bipartisan border bill that was negotiated that they refused to," Hobbs continued. "This proposition will kill jobs and hurt businesses and will hurt our reputation in the country, and it's not going to solve the issues that we're faced with at the border." After Tuesday's ruling that the bill could go on the ballot as-in, Arizona Senate Republicans posted on X, formerly Twitter , that the move was "great news for the citizens of Arizona". "Arizona voters will have the opportunity to take border security into their own hands this November," the group said. LUCHA and other groups have vowed to fight the bill and encourage voters to stand against it. "Prop 314 will cost Arizona taxpayers $314 million a year to implement - money that will be taken away from our schools, from public safety, from our roads and bridges and instead be used to turn our communities into police states," Viri Hernandez, Strategy Director at Poder in Action, said in a press release. "This bad piece of public policy will create an Arizona where people are targeted based on the color of their skin or the sound of their last name with impunity. This proposition is a clear and present danger to civil liberties and must be stopped." Voters in Arizona will also have their say on another hot topic this November: abortion rights. The ballot will include Proposition 139, which seeks to establish a fundamental right to abortion until around 23 weeks. Over half a million signatures were gathered for the Abortion Access Act to get the issue on the ballot. The addition of the abortion measure was widely seen as having the potential to juice turnout for Democrats in the crucial swing state. The immigration measure could have the same effect for Republicans. Link to original article: https://www.newsweek.com/arizona-immigration-border-security-ballot-measure-november-1939232

A measure creating new criminal statutes barring illegal border crossings and enhancing drug offenses to include the sale of “lethal fentanyl” was cleared to go to voters by the Arizona Supreme Court Tuesday.  By Kiera Riley, Arizona Capitol Times In a unanimous decision, the state high court found Proposition 314 did not violate the single subject rule of the Arizona Constitution, affirming an earlier ruling from Maricopa County Superior Court. The order allows the measure to be printed on the 2024 ballot.  House Concurrent Resolution 2060, passed by the Republican majorities in both chambers, augments state criminal code and creates a law barring illegal entry from a foreign nation and deeming it a class 1 misdemeanor and enacts a new criminal statute making it a low-level felony for individuals in the country illegally to knowingly apply for public benefits using false documents.  The act also designates the sale of “lethal fentanyl” produced outside the U.S. as a criminal offense.  Following its passage, immigration advocacy and legal groups filed suit.  Living United for Change in Arizona, Victory Pac and assistant minority leader Oscar De Los Santos first sued for violation of the single subject rule and were later joined by a separate, but similar, legal challenge from Poder in Action, Phoenix Legal Action Network and Florence IMmigrant and Refugee Rights Project.  All five groups sought to see the measure struck down and claimed the various provisions changing criminal code in the realm of immigration, drugs and public benefits were fractured from each other and could not be logically held together by the “border security” umbrella claimed by the legislature. Maricopa County Superior Court judge Scott Minder, an appointee of the former Gov. Doug Ducey, found all provisions of HCR2060 did relate to one general subject, “responses to harms related to an unsecured border.”  “The subject is broad,” Minder wrote in his July ruling. “But it is not ‘foolishly’ so.” On appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Minder’s ruling.  “The Court unanimously agrees with the superior court that Appellants have not met their burden to overcome the strong presumption that HCR 2060 is constitutional. Specifically, the Court concludes that HCR 2060 satisfies the single subject rule. HCR 2060’s subject is ‘responses to harms relating to an unsecured border,’ and all components of the proposed law are ‘reasonably related’ to that,” Chief Justice Ann Timmer, an appointee of the former Gov. Jan Brewer wrote. “It is not necessary that the components have a free-standing relationship to each other.”  In the order, Timmer did clarify the sole issue raised is the single subject rule.  “We were not asked to address, nor could we address, the constitutionality of any individual provision in HCR 2060,” Timmer wrote, referring to case law which provides constitutional challenges to legislation or measures must follow enactment to avoid interfering with the legislative or initiative process.  Timmer noted, having rejected the single subject claim, that HCR 2060 will appear on the ballot and ultimately be decided by voters.  LUCHA executive director Alejandra Gomez said in a written statement that LUCHA would continue to fight against the measure’s passage. “LUCHA will not stand by and allow this unjust referendum to go unchallenged. We are committed to knocking on more than 1 million doors across the state to inform and mobilize voters against Prop 314. This will be a major motivator for Latinos and all Arizonans who value justice, freedom, fairness, and dignity,” Gomez said. “We will not rest until Prop 314 is defeated.” Link to original article: https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2024/08/13/border-measure-headed-to-ballot/

By Eva McKend, CNN Earlier this summer, Alejandra Gomez, executive director of Living United for Change (LUCHA) in Arizona,  told CNN  it would be difficult for her organization’s canvassers to talk to voters about the Biden administration’s immigration policies. But now Gomez and the organizers in the pivotal battleground state are excited about Vice President Kamala Harris’ ascension to Democratic nominee for president and her selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate. She describes her tapping Walz as “a significant political gesture to voters.” “She’s signaling to the American public that we’re going to see a progressive, no-nonsense presidency from her,” said Gomez in an interview with CNN.  In Minnesota, undocumented students who meet certain conditions are eligible for free college tuition at public two- or four-year colleges and other state financial aid awards. And last year, Walz signed a bill into law expanding eligibility for a standard driver’s license by allowing state residents, regardless of immigration status, to obtain a license. The group was also “incredibly encouraged” by Biden’s executive action in June shielding undocumented spouses and children of citizens. The group aims to knock on 1 million doors by November and has already reached 100,000. “We want to make sure that Arizona delivers big. And what we are seeing is that, as of the transition and Kamala now as our candidate for president, that the Latino community is energized in a new way,” said Gomez. Link to original article: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/harris-trump-election-08-09-24#h_532aa0f93d7b18407332d4925f6fee5c

Come November, Arizona voters will have some big choices to make. By Justin Lum & Kenneth Wong PHOENIX - Besides the presidential and congressional elections, there will also be a few propositions on the ballot this year, and two of them are expected to get a lot of attention. Proposition 139 Prop 139: AZ voters to weigh in on abortion rights This November, Arizona voters will decide on the issue of abortion, as a ballot known as Prop 139 is likely headed to the ballot. The measure would protect abortion rights until fetal viability, which is commonly considered to be at 24 weeks. FOX 10's Justin Lum has more. What's it about? Proposition 139 is an abortion-related ballot measure. Abortion has been a hot-button topic across the nation, and especially in Arizona, a battleground for abortion access since the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling was overturned in 2022 . According to information provided by the Arizona Secretary of State's Office, the measure, if approved, will add abortion rights to the Arizona State Constitution. "A ‘yes’ vote shall have the effect of creating a fundamental right to abortion under Arizona’s constitution. The State will not be able to interfere with this fundamental right before fetal viability, unless it has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible," read a portion of the official ballot language for the measure. "A ‘no’ vote shall have the effect of not creating a fundamental right to have an abortion under Arizona’s constitution, will leave in place current laws that restrict abortion before fetal viability, and will allow the State to further restrict or ban abortion in the future." Fetal viability, as defined in the measure, means "the point in pregnancy when, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures." Per the website for non-profit organization KFF (formerly known as The Kaiser Family Foundation), fetal viability "varies from person to person and also by the medical resources that are offered in their community, but is generally estimated to be at around 24 weeks LMP." The measure, per the ballot language, also includes a provision that bans the state from interfering with the "good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional that an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual," and also bans the state from penalizing "any person for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the right to an abortion." The ballot summary for this measure became the subject of a lawsuit, after Arizona for Abortion Access sued the Republican-led Legislative Council for using the phrase ‘unborn human being’ to describe a fetus for the summary. The court subsequently ruled that the phrase is provocative, and has emotional and partisan meaning. What are proponents saying? Proponents of this measure are feeling confident, after gathering more than 800,000 signatures in an effort to get this measure on the ballot. "Right now, Arizona is living under an extreme abortion ban that limits abortion to 15 weeks," said Chris Love, a spokesperson with Arizona for Abortion Access. "There are no protections for victims of rape or incest. There are very limited protections for medical emergencies, and we just don’t feel that that’s enough." Love says the choice for an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant person, and not the government. "We’re tired of these retrograde decisions being made by politicians and courts, as opposed to putting medical decisions into the hands of people that know better, and that’s the patients and medical providers who are trained to make these decisions," Love said. What are opponents saying? Those criticizing the measure say the language is too broad, and causes major concern. "We believe this amendment definitely goes too far, and how it allows abortion beyond viability, how it removes safety standards, keeps parents in the dark and puts women at risk," said Joanna de la Cruz with a campaign called ‘It Goes Too Far.' Opponents also believe the measure’s use of the term ‘health care professional’ is broad, as it does not specifically state the term ‘doctor’ or ‘physician.’ "We’re not just talking about performing a surgical abortion, but who could provide the pill, who could sign off on a post-viability abortion," said de la Cruz. Critics also say the proposal could lead to unlimited and unregulated abortions in Arizona. "What Arizona voters need to realize is this is a constitutional amendment that would be voter-protected, and under those two categories of how this would be passed, it would be nearly impossible to make any fixes or changes if these problems begin to arise," said de la Cruz. Proposition 314 Prop 314: AZ voters to decide on border measure Come November, Arizona voters could influence what happens next with the border crisis, as they decide on a ballot measure that targets illegal immigration and border security. FOX 10's Justin Lum explains. What's it about? Proposition 314 is a measure on illegal immigration and border security, and it has drawn some controversy. The measure was referred to the ballot by the State Legislature . If approved, the measure will make it a state crime for noncitizens to enter the state at any location other than a port of entry, and arrests can lead to deportations that are ordered by state judges. Local law enforcement would need Probable Cause to make contact with anyone who appears to be crossing illegally. In addition, people using false documentation to apply for public benefits or employment could be charged with a class six felony as a result of the measure. The ballot measure also criminalizes the act of knowingly selling fentanyl that leads to the death of another person. Such an act is considered by the measure as a class two felonym, which is punishable by up to ten years in prison. What are opponents saying? Opponents of the measure are calling it racist, and some advocates of migrants say theyt are getting déjà vu. "This is now SB1070 on steroids," said Alejanda Gomez, Executive Director of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), a Latino advocacy group. Gomez was referring to a controversial 2010 state law that allowed police to check the immigration status of people they believed to be in the United States illegally. SB1070 was ultimately found to be mostly unconstitutional . "If someone is presumed to look as if they are undocumented, it is the outright targeting of black and brown people," said Gomez. Gomez also questions whether law enforcement have enough resources. "What we have heard from law enforcement is that they are not prepared to be able to incur now, with the influx, of having to be also immigration agents," said Gomez. Opponents vow to stop the bill at the ballot on behalf of mixed status families. "The progressive infrastructure is going to knock on 5 million doors, so we feel very confident that we will be able to stop this, should it make it to the ballot in November." What are proponents saying? Proponents say Proposition 314, if passed, empowers local law enforcement to arrest migrants crossing illegally. "This strictly has to do with border security. It’s a border bill. That’s why it’s called the Border Security Act. It only has to do with people crossing the border illegally. It does not have to do with people who are already in the state," said Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, who is a Republican. Petersen blames the federal government for failure at the border. "If the federal government was enforcing the law, there would be no need for us to mirror the federal law," said Petersen. Petersen also talked about the issue of resources for law enforcement. "We’ve always funded public safety sufficiently. If they need resources, we’ll provide those resources," said Petersen. "It doesn’t matter who’s entering this country illegally. It doesn’t matter what country they’re from. If they’re crossing illegally, they’re breaking the law." Opponents mounting legal appeal Immigration advocates are in the process of appealing a Maricopa County judge’s ruling that kept Proposition 314 on the ballot. Opponents believe the State Legislature lumped unrelated topics on one initiative together, like fentanyl, public benefits, and immigration. Supporters, however, argue all of those issues fall under a single subject: border security. Link to original article: https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/2024-arizona-election-when-comes-ballot-measures-voters-have-some-big-choices-make-november

Ruben Gallego is leaning hard on Latino voters in his uncontested campaign to be the Democratic Party’s nominee for Arizona’s open U.S. Senate seat. By Jose Gonzalez, Arizona Republic The efforts by Gallego, a House Democrat from Arizona, have prompted the 14-year-old Latino activist organization Living United for Change in Arizona to make its first Senate candidate endorsement. Gallego has already netted the endorsements of the United Farm Workers, the Latino Victory Fund, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and civil rights titan Dolores Huerta.  His winning of key Latino endorsements is essential during an election with issues facing the community in Arizona. The nonpartisan NALEO Education Fund estimates Hispanics will be nearly 25% of Arizona voters this year .  "I think he’s a hero," LUCHA endorsement committee member Arnold Montiel said. Montiel is a 61-year-old former U.S. Army National Guard soldier and Tucson resident who cited Gallego’s service as a combat veteran as key to the organization’s support. Gallego’s campaign has amplified his bona fides as a retired U.S. Marine by running ads of him sharing his experience fighting in the Iraq War. Montiel cited House Concurrent Resolution 2060 as contributing to what he said was a "dangerous" and "very divisive" political climate that spurred him to become involved in electoral politics. The ballot initiative would make unauthorized southern border crossings a state crime, allow for the deportation of migrants suspected of crossing the border unauthorized, and bolster employee immigration status verification. LUCHA has warned such legislation would pressure Latino immigrants to flee the state . The organization is among the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in early June against HCR 2060 on grounds it is unconstitutional.  "That's gonna negatively affect my gente (people)," Montiel said in an interview with The Republic. "All it's gonna do is just tear people apart." The Arizona Republic reported in May that President Joe Biden lagged behind Gallego in Hispanic male voter support .  These major Arizona primary races are still close after election day. Results may take days Arizona primary election 2024: Smith, Freeman to vie for mayor of Mesa 'Part of our civic duty': What Arizona voters had to say at the polls Tuesday Sen. Mark Kelly sidesteps VP talk, hits Trump pick JD Vance again On Sunday, LUCHA’s endorsement committee announced their support for Vice President Kamala Harris to be the Democratic presidential nominee. LUCHA Executive Director Alejandra Gomez told The Republic the progressive organization expects the race to narrow with Harris at the top of the ticket. "If Ruben Gallego wins, you can expect Kamala Harris to have a good election night," Gomez said.  The Gallego campaign started running ads in Spanish starting June 21. His likely Republican opponent, longtime Phoenix TV personality Kari Lake, has been less conspicuous in her Latino outreach. Lake is expected to win the GOP Senate nomination in Arizona against Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb.  Lake, whose husband is of Colombian heritage through his mother, said in a video from May that "Latinos embody everything I’m fighting for: faith, family and freedom." On the Spanish-language network Univision, Lake said she did not believe children born to immigrants were natural-born citizens.  The Lake campaign on Saturday afternoon did not respond to a request for comment on its Latino voter outreach efforts. Link to original article: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2024/07/30/ruben-gallegos-latino-voter-outreach-pays-off-in-u-s-senate-race/74575794007/

Hispanic leaders and civil-rights groups are backing the vice president, despite their clashes with the Biden administration on border policy. By Jazmine Ulloa, New York Times No issue is likely to be thornier on the campaign trail for Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, than immigration. Republicans are falsely painting her as President Biden’s failed “ border czar ” and running ads tying her to Biden administration policies that they argue have contributed to chaos at the border. But condemnation has also come from liberal and progressive Democrats, who along with immigrant-rights groups have faulted Ms. Harris as part of an administration that they say has ceded ground on the issue to Mr. Trump and his allies. In one of the most striking moments in Ms. Harris’s tenure as vice president, she drew swift criticism from Latino elected officials and immigrant-rights leaders for her admonishment to the growing ranks of migrants in the summer of 2021. “Do not come,” she told them, in a news conference in Guatemala, where she was on a diplomatic tour . Robert Rivas, a California state lawmaker, helped the Latino Legislative Caucus draft a fierce statement in opposition to those remarks, urging her and the administration not to discourage asylum seekers “from doing what they need to do to survive.” But three years later, Mr. Rivas, now the speaker of the California Assembly, endorsed Ms. Harris within minutes of President Biden’s exit from the race on Sunday. He is one of many of those same leaders who are quickly setting aside their disputes with the White House, saying Ms. Harris is far preferable to former President Donald J. Trump. “Trump was an absolute disaster for our country, and there’s just no comparison between the two candidates,” Mr. Rivas said, citing Mr. Trump’s punitive record against immigrants from Latin American and Muslim-majority countries. Surveys and focus groups showed that more Latino voters , like most American voters , trusted Mr. Trump over Mr. Biden and Democrats to handle the southern border. More have also warmed up to tougher immigration enforcement measures, as the number of migrants apprehended hit records last year and Republicans continue to decry them as invaders, criminals and potential terrorists. Alfonso Aguilar, director for Hispanic engagement at the American Principles Project, a socially conservative think thank, contended Ms. Harris would have trouble distancing herself from Biden administration policies that had turned off many Hispanics. “It’s a different person, but it’s the same policies, the same problems,” he said. Latino Democratic leaders said they saw the chance for a reset with Ms. Harris, and some immigrant-rights leaders who once criticized her for saying “do not come” said they believed she had learned from that experience and would take a different approach as president. Her supporters cite her upbringing as the daughter of an Indian mother and a Jamaican father, and her experience forging her political path in California, a state where roughly 40 percent of the population is Latino and almost half of children have one immigrant parent . “That background brings empathy and understanding to the immigrant agenda,” said Héctor Sánchez Barba, president Mi Familia Vota, a group that works to mobilize Latino voters. Mr. Sánchez Barba has loudly denounced the Biden administration’s actions to shut down the border and curb asylum. But he was among the Latino leaders who attended a barbecue on Thursday at Ms. Harris’s Washington residence, where they had the chance to discuss policy and Latino voter outreach with the vice president. Mr. Sánchez Barba and other attendees said they had left feeling “hopeful” that Ms. Harris would be able to articulate a vision that would balance border enforcement with improving legal pathways for citizenship. Ms. Harris has already drawn the endorsements of Latino Democrats, including Senator Alex Padilla of California, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Representatives Joaquin Castro and Veronica Escobar of Texas. She also has the support of three major Latino voter-turnout and civil-rights organizations: Mi Familia Vota, Voto Latino and UnidosUS Action Fund. Janet Murguía, president of UnidosUS Action Fund, said those groups would help Ms. Harris’s campaign address skepticism over her immigration record with messaging and volunteers in key races involving large or fast-growing Latino populations, including those in Arizona, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. She and other leaders have also been working to increase their coordination, she said, as they have sought to apply lessons learned from 2016. That year, Mr. Trump’s campaign demonized Mexicans and immigrants, but few Latino leaders believed he could win. “There’s a sense of urgency to unify quickly behind Vice President Harris,” she said. The Harris campaign offered a glimpse into her immigration message in a virtual call with Latinas on Wednesday that drew an estimated 4,500 participants, including celebrities and elected officials, and raised about $118,000. The call opened with a video of her speaking and meeting supporters as she described generations of immigrants who had made the nation stronger, and her mother’s arrival to the United States at 19. (Hundreds of women flooded the chat, with calls of “Yes!” “Wepa!” and “Sí se puede!”) In the weeks ahead, Ms. Harris will have a fine needle to thread between toughness and compassion, and even some Latino Democrats and immigrant-rights leaders acknowledged division among Hispanic voters. Ms. Harris’s record leaves her vulnerable to criticism from both the right and the left. Conservatives note that as a prosecutor, attorney general and senator in California, she fell in line with Democrats who sought to expand and protect the rights of undocumented immigrants in the state. She developed close connections with the United Farm Workers union and Latino labor leaders such as Dolores Huerta . During the Trump presidency, Ms. Harris went viral for grilling U.S. officials over their treatment of young undocumented immigrants and for opposing a ban on travelers from certain countries, most of them with Muslim majorities. She also was the first senator to call on Kirstjen Nielsen, Mr. Trump’s homeland security secretary, to step down over his administration’s zero-tolerance policy, which led to the separations of families at the border . Ms. Harris must also contend with criticism from liberals over the Biden administration’s aggressive approach to border enforcement, a reversal of Mr. Biden’s pledges to roll back Trump policies when he took office. Her first assignment on immigration as vice president was the diplomatic mission of addressing the root causes that spurred people to flee Central American countries, which led her to that fateful appearance in Guatemala. People who worked closely with her on that front praised her work with recalcitrant Latin American leaders, saying she had helped prompt more than $5 billion in private and public investments in the region to create jobs, expand internet access and connect people with banking services. But Republicans have continued to malign Ms. Harris, because, among other things, her diplomatic effort did not tackle what immigration analysts say is now at the at heart of the challenges at the border . The migration boom has erupted farther south, through the perilous jungle known as the Darien Gap, and smuggling networks are moving migrants from a much broader array of countries. Alejandra Gomez, executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, a Latino voter mobilization group credited with fueling Democratic wins in state elections, said that while some of her members had criticized Ms. Harris’s statement in Guatemala, they nonetheless endorsed her unanimously on Sunday. “We have to remain focused on the bigger picture here,” Ms. Gomez said. Link to original article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/27/us/politics/latino-kamala-harris-immigration.html

Proposition 314 would make it a crime under Arizona law to cross the border illegally – allowing police to arrest anyone who can’t prove U.S. citizenship or legal residency and state courts to order deportations. By Alex Cunningham , Cronkite News WASHINGTON – Even if voters approve the measure in November, it faces high legal hurdles. Immigration enforcement is a federal power, and federal courts have so far blocked similar laws in Texas and other states. Advocates for civil liberties and migrants warn that such “show me your papers” laws put Americans with darker skin and accents at risk. “It’s completely unconstitutional under every interpretation of the Constitution by the federal courts to date,” said Lynn Marcus, a clinical immigration law professor at the University of Arizona. A similar Arizona law from 2010 known as SB 1070 triggered nationwide backlash and boycotts, amid allegations it would lead to racial profiling. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of that law in 2012 in Arizona vs. United States. The ruling reiterated a basic principle of federalism: “States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance.” One key element of SB 1070 survived – a provision requiring police to demand papers of anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Arizona ended that practice in 2016, though, as part of a settlement with immigrant rights groups. “Proposition 314 will open up Arizona to a ton of different lawsuits,” said César Fierros, spokesman for Living for United Change, or LUCHA, an immigrant advocacy group. “It’s going to cost taxpayers a lot of money.” In March, Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill that, like Proposition 314, would have made it a crime under state law to be in the United States illegally. To bypass her, Republicans in the Legislature shifted tactics. A measure known as HCR 2060 would let voters decide. The House approved it 31-29. The Senate vote was 16-13. No Democrats supported it. “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,” said Daniel Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks immigration restrictions. Taking the legal challenges into account, Proposition 314 would only take effect once the Texas law or any similar law in another state has been in effect for 60 days. Arizona police already have the authority to assist Border Patrol in the arrest of illegal immigrants. The legal rationale for Proposition 314 – and SB 4 in Texas – is that the influx of immigrants coming across the U.S.-Mexico border amounts to an “invasion.” Under Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, states may “engage in war” if “actually invaded or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” In early 2022, Arizona’s previous attorney general, Mark Brnovich, a Republican, issued an opinion advising the Legislature that “invasion” as a constitutional concept “is not limited to hostile foreign states. … The violence and lawlessness at the border caused by transnational cartels and gangs satisfies the definition … and Arizona therefore has the power to defend itself from this invasion.” But courts have yet to agree that drug smugglers and unarmed migrants – as opposed to a foreign army – could trigger that clause. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed the law in December and has argued repeatedly that the state is under invasion. The U.S. Justice Department has challenged the Texas law, and it is not currently in force. Noah Schramm, border policy strategist at ACLU of Arizona, said he expects a Trump administration – if former President Donald Trump wins in November – would not try to stop Arizona, Texas and other states from taking a role in immigration enforcement. That, he said, would be a “more challenging landscape” for his side of the issue. In February, U.S. District Court Judge David Alan Ezra, a Reagan appointee sitting in the Western District of Texas, rejected Abbott’s argument, ruling that “invasion” refers exclusively to an attack by a hostile foreign government. The conservative Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judge’s injunction, allowing enforcement to proceed as challenges work through the courts. On March 19, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to uphold the appellate ruling, clearing the way for enforcement. But based on the highest court’s critique of its reasoning, the Fifth Circuit pivoted. Within hours it reinstated the injunction, rendering SB 4 unenforceable until courts sort out the issue of constitutionality. “The entry, admission, and removal of noncitizens … is exclusively a federal power” and has been recognized as such for 150 years, wrote Chief Judge Priscilla Richman of the Fifth Circuit. The ruling drew on the Supreme Court opinion that dismantled Arizona’s SB 1070 in 2012. “It would be very shocking for them (the courts) to shift position because the legal issues are identical,” said David Donatti, a senior staff attorney at ACLU of Texas. In May, the Justice Department sued Iowa to block a similar law allowing arrest and deportation of people in the country illegally. In late June, a federal judge temporarily blocked enforcement of a new law in Oklahoma that also allows such arrests. One wrinkle with Proposition 314 involves the state constitution’s “single-subject rule.” That requires each bill to focus on one subject. Along with empowering arrests of suspected immigrants, Proposition 314 would also crack down on the sale of fentanyl and toughen penalties for using false documents to apply for public benefits or to pass an employment eligibility check. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder rejected a challenge from LUCHA last week, declaring that Proposition 314’s multiple provisions fell under the umbrella of “deterrents to, or enforcement methods for, crossing the border without legal permission.” LUCHA has taken the argument to the Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona Secretary of State has warned the issue must be resolved before Aug. 22 so ballots can be printed. Link to original article: https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/07/24/arizonas-proposition-314-authorizing-local-immigration-enforcement/

Four immigrant advocacy organizations are urging the Arizona Supreme Court to overrule a lower court judge and block a GOP ballot referral that would give police officers permission to jail migrants, saying that it violates the state’s constitutional requirement to stick to one topic.   By Gloria Gomez, The Arizona Mirror “Two years ago, this Court held that the Legislature violated the (single-subject rule) by injecting unrelated hot-button political issues into ‘budget reconciliation bills’ intended to implement the State’s annual budget. Yet here we are again, with more hot button political issues and another constitutional violation,” wrote Democratic attorney Andy Gaona, referencing the high court’s 2021 decision to strike down a bid by Republican lawmakers to ensconce wish list items into the state budget, including mask mandate prohibitions and critical race theory bans . Gaona represents Poder in Action, the Phoenix Legal Action Network and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project in an ongoing effort to prevent the “Secure the Border Act” from being considered by voters.  The ballot measure seeks to make it a state crime, punishable with jail time, for migrants to cross the southern border anywhere except an official port of entry and would penalize the submission of false documentation to apply for jobs or public benefits with a class 6 felony. It also creates an entirely new class of felony offense, with harsh prison sentences, for those convicted of knowingly selling fentanyl that ends in someone else’s death. Critics have argued in court that its provisions are too different to comply with the Arizona Constitution’s mandate that a ballot measure address just one subject. But earlier this month, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that the act does satisfy the single-subject rule, siding with GOP lawmakers who claimed the proposal works towards one unifying goal: responding to the “harms” caused by an “unsecured” border. Opponents quickly filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court in a last-chance bid to block it from appearing on the November ballot. Gaona warned that the trial court’s ruling threatens to render the state’s single-subject requirement meaningless. The rule, he wrote, is intended to prevent political logrolling . Allowing GOP lawmakers to use broad themes to defend a piece of legislation that was once five separate bills undermines that, he argued.  “The (single-subject rule) is an important limitation (and check) on legislative power,” Gaona wrote. “It ensures that, to pass substantive policy, legislators must gather enough votes from representatives of the majority of constituents who support the policy — not slip them into unrelated legislation. Yet that’s exactly what happened with (the Secure the Border Act).”  One of the early iterations of a bill that was later inserted into the act was vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs, and two others were near-identical mirrors of that failed proposal. The remaining bills that inspired provisions in the act, including the portions having to do with the sale of lethal fentanyl and legal punishments for submitting false documentation, had previously stagnated in the legislature.  Gaona added that, on top of being a clear example of logrolling, the act itself is made up of provisions that violate the state’s single-subject rule. Criminalizing the sale of lethal fentanyl, he wrote, is completely unrelated to the other crimes the act seeks to punish, which are dependent on a person’s citizenship status.  “Prescribing a new crime for every adult for the ‘sale of lethal fentanyl’ has nothing to do with an individual’s immigration status, and thus is not ‘connected with or related to…either logical or in popular understanding’ (the Secure the Border Act’s) remaining provisions,” Gaona wrote, referencing previous court rulings.  Critics of the GOP’s ballot measure have frequently denounced the fentanyl provision as the most disparate part of the proposal, pointing to it as proof that the act fails to comply with the single-subject rule.  But Republican leaders have defended it by citing a legislative findings clause they added to the act’s underlying legislation that asserts Arizona’s fentanyl crisis is tied to the “harms” originating at the southern border. And a last-minute amendment added to the legislation sought to quell criticism by further linking fentanyl to the southern border with an affirmative defense claim that would allow people charged under it to avoid a conviction if they can prove that the fentanyl that was sold or its precursor chemicals were legally imported into the U.S.  In his ruling, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder concluded that the legislative findings clause was sufficient to justify the inclusion of fentanyl. But Gaona urged the state supreme court to ignore that conclusion. Many things, he wrote, cross Arizona’s southern border, including potentially dangerous items like firearms. It would be a mistake, he continued, to give lawmakers the ability to cherry pick which ones to package into a single proposal, limited only by how they connect them in their own “self-serving” legislative findings clauses. “The Legislature shouldn’t have license to include whatever it wants in that legislation so long as it makes legislative findings that make vague connections between various matters,” he wrote.   In his ruling, Minder repeatedly noted that the court operates from a default position of supporting the legislature’s findings and accepting the presumptive constitutionality of laws. But Gaona said courts shouldn’t merely “rubber-stamp” legislative findings, and called on the justices to ignore the legislative findings clause.  The court, he said, should be more concerned with the practical, real world effects of the act’s provisions, not with what lawmakers claim their intent was.  While Gaona argued that the fentanyl provision alone renders the act unconstitutional, attorney Jim Barton, representing Living United for Change in Arizona, reasoned that all of its provisions are too different to comply with the single-subject rule. LUCHA, a Latino and immigrant advocacy organization that was at the forefront of public criticism of the act while it was being debated by lawmakers, was the first to launch a lawsuit against it, and has since combined its legal efforts with the one headed by Poder in Action.  Barton argued that policing who crosses the state’s southern border, criminalizing the submission of false documentation and erecting new prison sentences for the sale of lethal fentanyl all constitute different and wholly unrelated issues. And, he said, the attempt from GOP lawmakers to tie all the provisions together under the umbrella of “harms” caused by the “unsecured” southern border isn’t a valid approach.  “The sale of lethal fentanyl is not a factor affecting the receipt of public benefits,” Barton wrote.  “Finding some abstract problem that each of the provisions indirectly touch — for example, have some relationship to Arizona’s southern border — is not enough. They must have a real, logical connection, not one concocted to bypass the single subject rule.”  Minder’s ruling accepted that a broad theme could satisfy the single-subject rule. As proof for his conclusion, Minder cited a 1990 case that centered around a person’s bid to nullify a DUI conviction by challenging the constitutionality of a bill that included various regulations on DUI testing, license suspensions and court hearings. The court, Minder said, ultimately found that all of those provisions, though different, were connected because they all fell under the theme of “transportation”.  But Barton accused Minder of overstating the subject, and noted that other rulings have determined that using an umbrella approach to find “some semblance of unity” is not valid. Barton added that the provisions contested in the 1990 case were all related to DUI violations, and noted that, in the same legislative session that produced the bill that case focused on, lawmakers also passed 24 other, separate bills having to do with “transportation”.  Ultimately, Barton wrote, a ballot measure’s provisions must correlate to each other as well as work towards a singular goal. But the “Secure the Border Act,” he argued, doesn’t meet those requirements. “If the act’s main objective is to respond to ‘harms relating to an unsecured border,’ the act’s provisions should fall within that objective plus the provisions must be logically or naturally connected to each other so that they present a coordinated approach,” Barton wrote.  He urged the court to reject the act in light of its obvious violations of the single-subject rule, and warned that finding it to be fit for voters would drastically undermine the constitutional mandate and the court’s own 2021 ruling.  “Concocting a unifying theme as the alleged objective of disparate measures does not satisfy the constitutional requirement that an act embrace but a single subject and matters properly connected therewith,” Barton wrote. “To allow such an interpretation of the rule to stand is to construe it so foolishly liberally as to essentially repeal the rule altogether.” Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, who have taken up defending the act in court after Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes declined to, have until the end of the month to file a reply. The case is on an expedited schedule, as Maricopa County is set to begin printing ballots on Aug. 22 and the issue must be resolved by then.  If the current challenge is unsuccessful, opponents have already signaled an interest in launching lawsuits later in the process , once voters have had their say. Link to original article: https://azmirror.com/2024/07/24/letting-the-secure-border-act-go-to-voters-would-neuter-an-az-constitutional-rule-critics-argue/

By ABC 15

Activist organizations are appealing a judge's ruling that allowed a proposal making it a state crime to cross the border illegally to qualify for the November ballot. By Silvia Solis, The Arizona Republic Leer en español mas abajo Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder on July 12 rejected the organizations' argument that the measure violated the constitution's single-subject rule. The appeal is headed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Alejandra Gomez, executive director of the advocacy group Living United for Change in Arizona, said the group is challenging the decision because they believe the measure violates the rule that a ballot measure must be on a single subject. In early June, LUCHA, along with state Rep. Oscar De Los Santos, D-Phoenix, the assistant minority leader, and a separate cluster of organizations, including Poder in Action, Phoenix Legal Action Network, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, sued the state of Arizona, challenging the constitutionality of the House Concurrent Resolution 2060. The measure would require legal status verification of those seeking public benefit programs and would increase penalties for providing false documentation to an employer or to obtain state or local public benefits. It also includes provisions related to the sale of fentanyl, including making the sale of the drug a Class 2 felony if it results in the death of another person.  HCR 2060 passed the House and Senate last month and is scheduled to appear on the November ballot for voters' consideration. A bill with the same proposals was killed by Gov. Katie Hobbs in March. A broad-brush proposal According to the state Constitution, legislative proposals must address a single issue to avoid bundling together multiple unrelated statutes that may not be approved on their own merits. This rule applies to legislative statutes as well as ballot measures. Activists and their legal representatives are trying to keep it off the ballot, fearing HCR 2060 would represent a setback reminiscent of the days of SB 1070 or the "show me your papers" law.  HCR 2060 opponents have argued that the measure, dubbed "Secure the Border Act," does little to fulfill its stated purpose. Rather, they say it sets the stage for racial profiling, which would disproportionately affect communities of color, especially Latinos. The proposal does not state geographic limits, and nowhere does the resolution state age restrictions or exceptions for sensitive locations such as schools, hospitals or places of worship. The measure would allow the deportation of asylum seekers pending legal proceedings. “This proposal has everything to do with politics, the politics of division,” Gomez said, adding that the law would be "stop-and-frisk" on steroids, which historically has drawn criticism for its potential for biases and abuse. “The community is paying attention, and they don't want to go back to the Arizona of 2010 where police could stop our communities, detain our communities, and deport our communities,” she said. Seeking to shed light on the 'true impact' Should the high court rule against their challenge, the next battle would focus on the ballot measure's synopsis to ensure it reflects the true impact of the proposed law, which is several pages long, according to Joseph García, executive director of Sí Se Vota CPL Action Fund and vice president of public policy at Chicanos Por La Causa. “We need to make sure ballot language voters read is not biased and does not show a dumb-down version of what this law entails. There’s a lot of bad stuff in this law, and if that isn't in the ballot language, voters may think it’s no big deal,” Garcia said. “Well, it is a big deal. We have to make sure the ballot language matches the true impact.”  Much of the activists' work ahead will entail reminding voters of the damage caused by SB 1070 a decade ago, he said. That effort is made more complicated because the state has many new voters who were not around at the time. Between 2010 and 2022, Arizona's population grew by almost 15% , adding nearly 1 million new residents.  In a statement Monday, state Senate Republicans lauded the court's ruling, calling the lawsuit an attempt by “radical left activists" to keep the measure off the ballot.  "My colleagues and I worked tirelessly this session to create impactful legislation to help secure our border because the people of Arizona are desperately asking for it," stated Republican Sen. Janae Shamp, R-Surprise. She proposed an identical bill early in the legislative session that ultimately was vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs. “From the spreading of misinformation to the filing of frivolous lawsuits, they will stop at nothing to keep our border wide open and perpetuate Biden's border crisis,” Shamp said in the statement. According to Andrew Gaona, partner at Coppersmith Brockelman PLC and legal representative of Poder in Action, the appellants on Wednesday received a scheduling order from the court. After opening and response briefs in the coming days, the court could decide on the appeal anytime between July 31 and the third week in August.  November ballots will go to the printers on Aug. 22. Link to original article: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/20/arizona-activists-continue-fight-to-keep-hcr-2060-off-the-ballot/74465191007/ Activistas apelan ante Corte Suprema la constitucionalidad de medida antiinmigrante La Legislatura aprobó una medida en la boleta electoral que ampliaría el perfil de deportación en Arizona. Grupos de activistas la pelean en corte. Tras un fallo adverso a demandas en contra de una medida que criminalizaría a nivel estatal el cruce ilegal por la frontera, organizaciones locales y sus representantes legales han apelado el juicio ante la Corte Suprema de Arizona. “Acabamos de recibir una respuesta del tribunal el viernes pasado diciendo que la demanda fue denegada,” dijo Alejandra Gomez, directora ejecutiva del grupo de defensa Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA). Apelarán la decisión porque saben que la medida viola la Constitución estatal. A principios de junio, LUCHA, junto con el Representante Demócrata Oscar De Los Santos, líder asistente de la minoría de la Cámara, así como el conjunto de organizaciones Poder in Action, Phoenix Legal Action Network y el Proyecto de Derechos de Inmigrantes y Refugiados de Florence demandaron al Estado de Arizona denunciando la inconstitucionalidad de la medida HCR 2060. La medida requeriría además la verificación del estatus legal de quienes buscan apoyos de gobierno y agravaría las sanciones contra quienes proporcionen documentación falsa a un empleador o para obtener beneficios públicos estatales o locales. Además, esta incluye estipulaciones relacionadas a la venta del fentanilo, incluyendo convertir la venta de la droga en un delito grave de Clase 2 si esto resulta en la muerte de otra persona.  HCR 2060 fue aprobada por la Cámara y el Senado el mes pasado, y está programada para aparecer en la boleta electoral de noviembre para consideración de los y las votantes. Una iniciativa de ley con las mismas propuestas fue anulada por la Gobernadora Katie Hobbs en marzo. Una ley de brocha gruesa De acuerdo a la Constitución estatal, las propuestas legislativas deben abordar un solo tema con el fin de evitar agrupar múltiples estatutos no relacionados entre sí, que no serían aprobados por méritos propios. Esta regla aplica no solamente a estatutos legislativos sino también a medidas electorales (sólo en inglés).  La esperanza de los activistas y sus representantes legales es que la medida no llegue a la boleta, ya que dicen que esto significaría un retroceso en el avance que se ha hecho desde los tiempos de la SB 2070 o ley ‘muéstrame tus papeles'.  Sus opositores han alegado que, más allá de proteger la frontera, la medida abriría la puerta a que, en todo el estado, las personas sean fichadas en base a estereotipos raciales, lo cual afectaría desproporcionadamente a las comunidades de color, especialmente a la comunidad latina. No se establece un límite al area geográfica donde se puede aplicar el cumplimiento de la ley ni restricciones de edad o excepciones para ubicaciones sensibles como escuelas, hospitales o lugares de culto. Inclusive, la medida permitiría la deportación de solicitantes de asilo en espera de procedimientos legales. “Esta propuesta tiene todo que ver con política, la política de división,” dijo Gomez, añadiendo que esto es parte de una estrategia que se ha usado por mucho tiempo llamada ‘stop-and-frisk,’ la cual involucra el chequeo por parte de la policía que ha incitado mucha crítica por el potencial de ser prejuiciosa e invasiva.  “La comunidad está poniendo atención y no quieren regresar a la Arizona del 2010 donde la policía podía parar a nuestras comunidades, detener a nuestras comunidades y deportar a nuestras comunidades,” ella dijo.  Buscan esclarecer daños de la medida De acuerdo a Joseph García, director ejecutivo de Sí Se Vota CPL Action Fund y vicepresidente de políticas públicas en Chicanos Por La Causa, de no verse victoriosos ante la Corte, la siguiente batalla sería asegurarse de que el lenguaje de la boleta refleje el verdadero impacto de la medida la cual abarca varias páginas. “Necesitamos asegurarnos de que el lenguaje de la boleta que los votantes lean no sea sesgado y no presente una versión simplificada de lo que implica esta ley. Hay muchas cosas malas en esta ley, y si eso no está en el lenguaje de la boleta, los votantes pueden pensar que no es tanto problema,” él dijo. “Sí es un gran problema. Debemos asegurarnos que el lenguaje de la boleta refleje el verdadero impacto.”  Parte del trabajo de los grupos activistas involucra recordarle a los votantes los daños que causó la ley SB 1070 hace una década, dijo García. Sin embargo, muchos votantes no estuvieron aquí en esa época, lo cual presenta una nueva complicación. La población de Arizona creció casi un 15 por ciento entre el 2010 y 2022, con cerca de un millón de nuevos habitantes.  En un comunicado el lunes (solo en inglés), los Republicanos del Senado aplaudieron el fallo de la corte llamando la demanda un intento por parte de activistas “radicales” de la izquierda de mantener la medida fuera de la boleta.  "Mis colegas y yo trabajamos incansablemente en esta sesión para crear una legislación de impacto que ayude a asegurar nuestra frontera porque la gente de Arizona lo está pidiendo desesperadamente," dijo la Senadora Republicana Janae Shamp, quien patrocinó la propuesta de ley en marzo. “Desde la difusión de desinformación hasta la presentación de demandas frívolas, no se detendrán ante nada para mantener nuestra frontera completamente abierta y perpetuar la crisis fronteriza de Biden.” Los grupos demandantes recibieron la orden de calendarización de la apelación el miércoles, según Andrew Gaona, socio del bufete de abogados Coppersmith Brockelman PLC y representante legal del conjunto liderado por Poder in Action. Habiendo presentado los informes y las respuestas en los próximos días, la Corte podría tomar una decisión en cualquier momento entre el 31 de julio y la tercera semana del siguiente mes.  Las boletas electorales se mandan a la imprenta el 22 de agosto. Enlace original: https://www.azcentral.com/story/noticias/2024/07/21/activistas-apelan-por-inconstitucionalidad-de-medida-antiinmigrante/74461720007/