SEARCH RESULTS.

Ley de Seguridad Fronteriza de Arizona a votación como la Proposición 314 Por Oscar Ramos, Prensa Arizona El juez del Tribunal Superior del Condado de Maricopa, Scott Minder, rechazó la demanda contra una remisión electoral del Partido Republicano que convertiría en delito estatal que los inmigrantes crucen la frontera sur y facultaría a los agentes de policía locales para arrestarlos, allanando el camino para que la ley sea votada en noviembre como la Proposición 314. El juez del Tribunal Superior del condado de Maricopa, Scott Minder, desestimó la impugnación legal contra la “Ley de Seguridad Fronteriza”, escribiendo en una orden de 11 páginas que la ley cumple con la regla de sujeto único de la Constitución de Arizona.  “Debido a que todas las disposiciones de la HCR 2060 se relacionan con un tema general – ‘respuestas a los daños relacionados con una frontera no segura’ – la Corte determina que la HCR 2060 satisface el único requisito de la Constitución de Arizona”, escribió Minder. Cuatro grupos de defensa de los latinos, incluyendo Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), Poder in Action y Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Network, habían argumentado que la remisión viola el requisito constitucional porque sus disposiciones introducen múltiples cambios. La ley crea un nuevo delito grave por la venta de fentanilo letal, castiga a los arizonenses indocumentados que presentan documentación falsa para solicitar empleo o beneficios públicos, y convierte el cruce ilegal de la frontera sur en un delito estatal punible con pena de prisión. En su orden, Minder desestimó las críticas de los grupos de defensa de los inmigrantes, diciendo que su interpretación era demasiado estrecha. Casos judiciales anteriores han determinado que solo es necesaria una relación “razonable” entre las disposiciones de una medida electoral. Minder citó el caso de 1990 Knapp contra Miller, donde se concluyó que todas las disposiciones de una ley sobre pruebas de DUI, suspensiones de licencia y audiencias judiciales se enmarcaban en el único tema de “transporte” y de manera similar, Minder concluyó que la “Ley de Seguridad Fronteriza” satisface la norma de sujeto único de la Constitución estatal. Según Minder, todas las disposiciones de la ley apuntan al mismo objetivo de abordar los problemas causados por una frontera sur “no segura”. La quinta disposición, que crea una nueva clase de delito grave por la venta de fentanilo, también cumple con el supuesto tema de la ley, según Minder, ya que la droga se pasa ilegalmente a través de la frontera y justificó la inclusión de la disposición sobre el fentanilo citando su conexión con los daños relacionados con una frontera no segura. El juez concluyó que los opositores no cumplieron con la carga de evidencia necesaria para evitar que la ley se incluyera en la boleta electoral  y ahora, depende de los votantes apoyar la propuesta en noviembre. El presidente del Senado, Warren Petersen, aplaudió el fallo y arremetió contra el gobernador demócrata y la administración Biden por no resolver los problemas fronterizos del estado.  Jim Barton, abogado que representó a LUCHA, dijo que el equipo legal del grupo todavía está sopesando sus opciones. Alejandra Gómez, directora ejecutiva de LUCHA, denunció la medida como “parar y registrar con esteroides” y advirtió que si la ley llega a la boleta electoral de noviembre, las poblaciones minoritarias del estado sufrirán, pero también afirmó que está dispuesta a apelar el fallo. Los críticos han comparado la ley con la SB1070, la tristemente célebre “ley de muéstrame tus documentos” de Arizona que condujo a una discriminación racial desenfrenada. Enlace original: https://prensaarizona.com/desestiman-demanda-contra-la-hcr-2060/

Latino advocacy groups are appealing a judge’s approval of a GOP ballot referral that would allow local police to jail migrants, in a last-chance attempt to prevent it from being considered by voters in the fall.  By Gloria Gomez, The AZ Mirror “Proposition 314 has no place on the ballot box,” Alejandra Gomez, executive director of Living United for Change in Arizona, said in an emailed statement. “We urge the Arizona Supreme Court to hear our case and deny this proposition on constitutional grounds.” Last month, Arizona Republicans sent Proposition 314, titled the “Secure the Border Act,” to the November ballot. The proposal mirrors a Texas immigration law whose constitutionality is currently being litigated and makes it a state crime for migrants to cross Arizona’s southern border anywhere but at an official port of entry, punishing first time offenders with up to 6 months in jail.  A quartet of Latino and immigrant advocacy organizations, including LUCHA, Poder in Action, the Phoenix Legal Action Network and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project quickly launched a legal challenge to the proposal, saying that its multiple provisions are too disparate to comply with the state constitution’s single-subject rule. The rule mandates that the content of all ballot measures stick to one topic. Along with criminalizing migrants, the act also punishes undocumented Arizonans who submit false documentation when applying for jobs or public benefits with a class 6 felony. Additionally, it creates an entirely new class of felony offense, with increased prison time, for those who knowingly sell fentanyl that later results in someone else’s death. Republican lawmakers argued that all of the provisions were related to the act’s purported purpose of addressing the “harms” caused by the “unsecured” southern border.  On July 12, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder sided with GOP legislative leaders, who defended the act’s constitutionality in court . In an 11-page ruling , Minder concluded that the overarching theme of an “unsecured” border is sufficient to meet the single-subject rule’s requirement.   Gomez denounced the proposal as “stop and frisk on steroids” and called on the Arizona Supreme Court to take up the case and invalidate Minder’s order. She reiterated a frequent argument from opponents of the act, that it is a compilation of separate bills, which indicates that it is made up of different subjects. The act combines at least five bills, including one vetoed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, and four others that stalled in the legislature.  “This is a package of already failed and vetoed legislation that violates the single-subject rule in our case’s argument,” Gomez said. “The Stop and Frisk bill will disproportionately target Arizonans and subject them to suspicion and persecution. This discriminatory legislation will not only grant law enforcement immunity but will also lead to over-policing in every community across our state.”  Critics of the “Secure the Border Act,” have likened it to SB1070, Arizona’s notorious “show me your papers law” that allowed police officers to investigate the citizenship status of Arizonans during routine traffic stops and have warned that it will lead to increased racial profiling if voters approve it in November.  Link to original article: https://azmirror.com/briefs/opponents-appeal-judges-decision-on-az-border-ballot-referral/

Proposition 314 would make it a state crime to enter Arizona by crossing the state’s border with Mexico outside of a legal port of entry, and it would empower local and state law enforcement to arrest people for violating that law. By Wayne Schutsky, KJZZ Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), Poder in Action and other groups argued the proposal, referred to the ballot by Republican lawmakers, runs afoul of the state Constitution, claiming it deals with a broad range of unrelated topics. Specifically, the groups claimed separate sections dealing with illegal border crossings and fentanyl trafficking violate a state constitutional provision requiring individual pieces of legislation to stick to a single subject. But, last week, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder disagreed . He found all parts of the bill related to problems resulting from an unsecured border. Jim Barton, an attorney for LUCHA, said the plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Arizona Supreme Court. The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office said the case must be resolved by Aug. 22 so ballots can be printed, according to a scheduling order signed by Supreme Court Justice Kathryn King. Link to original article: https://www.kjzz.org/kjzz-news/2024-07-17/gop-border-ballot-initiative-headed-to-arizona-supreme-court

The latest iteration of the costly and disastrous SB 1070 will be Proposition 314 on the November ballot. By EJ Montini, The Arizona Republic A reasonable lay person would have kicked the so-called “Secure the Border Act” off the November ballot because the name itself is a lie. But a judge didn’t see it that way. The courts don’t determine the validity of a ballot referral based on a title but on whether the content adheres to legal requirements for appearing before voters and, in this case, a judge held that the Republican-controlled Legislature’s ham-handed appeal to our worst prejudices made the cut. So, unless opponents can pull a last-minute legal rabbit out of the hat, a warmed over version of the disastrous Senate Bill 1070 will be on the ballot. It would essentially turn police officers into border patrol agents no matter where in the state they work.Like SB 1070, it’s a show-me-your-papers disaster, the kind that caused a colossal amount of unnecessary hardship and resentment and has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars . Just like SB 1070, except perhaps even more so This new version will be no better. 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. On your very crowded ballot will be titled Proposition 314. The people behind it are counting on the fact that a ballot that’s jam packed with political races, initiatives and referendums will cause many voters to gloss over the details of each and every question put them. Meaning, a proposition supposedly promoting border security, which has absolutely nothing to do with securing the border, might pass. Due process shouldn't depend on the color of your skin 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 saw 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. When the GOP was pushing the referendum through the Legislature, Noah Schramm from the ACLU of Arizona said the proposal “violates fundamental due process protections for immigrants and creates an entire state system of immigration enforcement impacting all Arizonans.” ‘I’m supposed to be dead’: Trump’s brush with death will change him UA traded its reputation for revenue at a shady online school. It wasn't worth it Maricopa County closes shooting range for 'public safety,' leaving gun safety in the dust Want more opinions? We've got an even better newsletter to share them How do we know such a thing is a horrible idea? Sometimes, the people behind such things say the quiet thing out loud . During a testy back and forth between state senators, visitors in the state Capitol gallery hissed their disagreement with Republican state Sen. John Kavanagh. He replied, “I’m sorry if I offended any criminals in the gallery.” Link to original article: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2024/07/16/arizona-sb-1070-racist-immigration-border-vote/74422599007/

An Arizona judge last week rejected an effort to keep the Secure the Border Act off the statewide 2024 general election ballot. By Kevin Stone, KTAR News PHOENIX — The Republican majority in the Legislature referred the measure to voters on June 4 by passing HCR2060 . The proposal is now set to appear on the Nov. 5 ballot as Proposition 314. Living United for Change in Arizona, a political advocacy group better known by the acronym LUCHA , filed a lawsuit a day after the Legislature passed the resolution. The lawsuit argued that the measure violates the state’s single-subject rule. The single-subject rule is a constitutional provision that requires the contents of a voter initiative to be limited the topic reflected in its title. However, in a ruling issued Friday , Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder found that “HCR 2060 contains a single subject, namely ‘responses to harms relating to an unsecured border.'” What would the Secure the Border Act do? If approved by voters, Prop 314 would make it a state crime for people to cross the Arizona-Mexico border anywhere except a port of entry. It would also give state and local officers the power to arrest violators and let state judges order people to return to their home countries. In addition, the Secure the Border Act would make it a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison for selling fentanyl that leads to a person’s death and require some government agencies to use a federal database to verify a noncitizen’s eligibility for benefits. Opponents have compared the proposal to SB1070, Arizona’s controversial “show-me-your-papers” law that passed in 2010 that was eventually partially struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Supporters say the measure is necessary because the federal government has failed to fulfill its duty of securing the border. “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,” Republican state Sen. Janae Shamp said in a press release Monday. Link to original article: https://ktar.com/story/5581528/arizona-judge-rejects-bid-to-keep-secure-the-border-act-off-november-ballot/

A Maricopa County judge ruled that a broad Republican-backed border security proposal could seek approval from voters in November. By Danyelle Kharma, Arizona Public Media Superior Court Judge Scott Minder ruled Friday against the plaintiff's argument that House Concurrent Resolution 2060 is too broad to comply with a constitutional provision that prevents legislators from putting unconnected items into the same bill. Jim Barton is a lawyer for plaintiffs Living United for Change in Arizona. “So to say that we can talk about defunding the cartels in one breath, and then in the same bill, talk about whether a kid who's here without documentation can get a library card, those aren't the same topic,” Barton said. “They're not one subject. It's ridiculous to say they're one subject.” Minder ruled all measures in the proposal are “responses to harms relating to an unsecured border,” and should be left to the voters. “If literally anything you can come up with, basically anything they can blame on the unsecured southern border — if that's allowed to be a single subject then you don't have a single subject anymore,” he said. Barton says plaintiffs plan to appeal the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court. 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. Link to original article: https://news.azpm.org/p/azpmnews/2024/7/15/221036-judge-says-border-security-ballot-proposal-is-constitutionally-sound/

A proposal to make it a state crime to cross the border illegally qualifies for the November ballot, a judge ruled Friday as he rejected a lawsuit that argued the measure violated the constitution's single-subject rule. By Mary Jo Pitzl, The Arizona Republic The Secure the Border Act would give Arizona law enforcement the authority to arrest and detain people who cross the border with Mexico other than at a legal port of entry. Republicans in the state Legislature referred the matter to the Nov. 5 ballot, triggering an immediate challenge that the move was unconstitutional. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder ruled that lawmakers met the "single-subject" standard for ballot questions when they approved House Concurrent Resolution 2060 in June. Besides authorizing Arizona law enforcement to detain and arrest people who cross illegally, the measure also provides immunity for law enforcement officers who detain or arrest; makes it a state crime to fraudulently get state benefits and hikes the penalties for any fentanyl sales that result in death. Living United for Change, a civil rights group, went to court the day after the measure passed along partisan lines. They argued the multiple provisions ran afoul of the state constitution's single-subject rule. But Minder, quoting from a previous ruling on the single-subject law, disagreed. The provisions all “'fall under . . . one general idea' which is 'responses to harms relating to an unsecured border,'" he wrote. He found there is a "natural connection" between the measure's various provisions because they all relate to an unsecured border. Based on that, he ruled, the plaintiffs didn't meet the burden of proof to block the act from appearing on the Nov. 5 general election ballot. James Barton, attorney for the various plaintiffs, said an appeal is being considered. "We need to be strategic and weigh the risks," Barton said in an emailed comment, noting he would need to confer with the plaintiffs. LUCHA and its executive director, Alejandra Gomez, were the lead plaintiffs in the case, along with Victory PAC and state Rep. Oscar De Los Santos. Other groups joined in: Poder in Action, Inc., the Phoenix Legal Action Network, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. All were seeking a preliminary injunction and a judgment barring the Secure Border Act from the ballot. The act was a hot-button issue in the final month of the legislative session. Its main provision — state enforcement of border crossings — hinges on whether a federal appeals court upholds a Texas law that proposes the same authority for Texas law enforcement. Federal law makes it clear border enforcement is a federal matter but states like Texas and Arizona are testing that standard. In US and Mexico, politics and violence have always been a toxic mix. What to know US Sen. Mark Kelly's name surfaces in Dem poll on day he criticizes JD Vance Arizona abortion rights campaign is Planned Parenthood's 'No. 1 priority' Democrats worry Arizona may ‘slip away’ from an embattled Joe Biden Arizona Republican lawmakers earlier this year passed a similar bill, but Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed it. Lawmakers resurrected it as a ballot referral, which does not need any action from the governor. The ruling sets the stage for a contentious campaign. LUCHA and other groups have likened it to Arizona's infamous SB1070, which a decade ago brought national attention to Arizona, resulting in boycotts and numerous protests. Critics of that measure have said they are better prepared now to fight this border-related act, citing their experience from the 1070 struggle. Link to original article: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2024/07/13/az-judge-rejects-legal-challenge-to-house-concurrent-resolution-2060/74389558007/

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

Opponents say the ruling is flawed and they plan to appeal By Gloria Gomez, The AZ Mirror A judge on Friday rejected a lawsuit against a GOP ballot referral that would make it a state crime for migrants to cross the southern border and empower local police officers to arrest them, clearing the past for it to go before voters in November.  Late Friday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder threw out the legal challenge against the “Secure the Border Act” that sought to keep it off the ballot, writing in an 11-page order that the act complies with the Arizona Constitution’s single subject rule.  “Because all provisions of HCR 2060 relate to one general subject — ‘responses to harms related to an unsecured border’ — and because Plaintiffs have not met their burden to overcome Arizona’s presumption of constitutionality, the Court finds that HCR 2060 satisfies the Arizona Constitution’s single-subject rule,” Minder wrote, referring to the act’s underlying legislation.  Four Latino advocacy groups — Living United for Change in Arizona, Poder in Action and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Network — had sued, arguing that the referral violates the constitutional requirement because its provisions make multiple changes. It creates a new felony offense for the sale of lethal fentanyl, punishes undocumented Arizonans who submit false documentation to apply for jobs or public benefits and makes crossing the southern border illegally a state crime punishable with prison time.  In his order, Minder, who was appointed to the bench in 2017 by GOP Gov. Doug Ducey, dismissed the criticism from the immigrant advocacy groups, saying that their interpretation was too narrow. Previous court cases concerning the single subject rule have found that only a “reasonable” relation between a ballot measure’s provisions is necessary, Minder wrote.  Among the cases Minder cited as proof that the single subject rule allows broad interpretation was the 1990 case Knapp v. Miller . In that case, John Knapp, whose driver’s license was suspended, argued that an act that included regulations on DUI testing, license suspensions and court hearings violated the Arizona Constitution. But the court found that all of the act’s provisions fell under the single subject of “transportation.”  Minder concluded that the “Secure the Border Act” similarly satisfies the state Constitution’s single subject rule. In a legislative findings clause added to the act, GOP lawmakers defended its wide-ranging provisions as solutions for the same issue: the problems caused by an “unsecured” southern border. Minder agreed with that premise, writing that all of the provisions included in the act appear to work towards the same goal.  “Four of the five provisions relate to the presence, verification, benefits, and return of people who cross the border without legal permission. Those four provisions are all deterrents to, or enforcement methods for, crossing the border without legal permission,” he wrote. “Logic and popular understanding shows that those items ‘are parts of, or germane to’ responses to harms relating to an unsecured border.” The fifth provision, creating a new class of felony offense, with strict prison sentences for people who sell fentanyl that knowingly ends in someone else’s death, also complies with the act’s purported subject, according to Minder. Critics argued in court that the sale of fentanyl is unrelated to someone’s immigration status and loops in all Arizonans, meaning the act encompasses separate and dissimilar subjects.  But Minder said that the drug is sufficiently related to the theme of the unsecured border because it is being illegally smuggled across it.  “Entry of people and of drugs into Arizona through the border are ‘logically or in popular understanding’ connected, which is what the single-subject rule requires,” he wrote. Minder upheld the legislative findings clause as the justification for the inclusion of the fentanyl provision and said it adequately ties the rest of the provisions together. “It is enough that the Legislature believes the ‘lethal fentanyl’ and the other four provisions  appropriately address harms from the “unsecured border” and that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently  shown otherwise,” he wrote.  And, Minder added, a ballot proposal doesn’t have to punish just one group of people to comply with the single subject rule. Previous court rulings have concluded that, as long as a ballot measure complies with the single subject requirement, it can be deemed constitutional, even if it affects multiple different groups of people.  In a Monday court hearing, opponents of the act warned Minder that finding it to be in compliance with the Arizona Constitution’s single subject rule would open the door to lawmakers making any legislative findings to bolster overly broad ballot referrals. Minder acknowledged that risk in his ruling, but said that the mere possibility that future legislatures could violate the constitutional requirement using his reasoning as a basis isn’t sufficient to render the act unconstitutional.  In the end, Minder wrote, opponents simply didn’t meet the burden of evidence needed to prevent the act from being placed on the November ballot. The courts, he noted, operate from a presumption that the legislature passed a constitutional measure, and the evidence against that must be clear and convincing. A successful challenge of the single subject rule, he ruled, faces a high bar: It needs to prove that a ballot measure’s provisions cannot be linked together by any reasonable argument. Now, Minder concluded, it’s up to the voters whether to support the proposal in November.  “Arizona law requires Plaintiffs to overcome the strong presumption that the act is constitutional,” he wrote. “Because a natural connection exists, i.e., all provisions are ‘responses to harms relating to an unsecured border,’ Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show a violation. Absent other challenges, the policies of HCR 2060 should be left to the voters.” In a statement posted to social media site X , Senate President Warren Petersen applauded the ruling. The Republican from Gilbert, along with House Speaker Ben Toma, took up the defense of the legislation in court after Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, declined to. The duo were instrumental in passing the act through the legislature, with Petersen co-sponsoring a bill that sought to make it a state crime to cross the southern border that was later ensconced into the act after Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed it.  In his statement, Petersen lambasted the Democratic governor and the Biden administration for failing to resolve the state’s border issues. Arizona Republicans have repeatedly touted the “Secure the Border Act,” as a solution in a bid to recruit votes during an election year when the border has risen to the top of voter concerns for the first time in five years.  “It’s unthinkable that Democrats and our Governor would stand with Biden and radical left activists, instead of the hardworking Arizona families who are begging for their elected leaders to secure our border and promote safety within our communities,” Petersen said. “As expected, the court ruled in favor of sanity instead of chaos, and we’re grateful we are able to provide this opportunity to voters to have the final say on.” Jim Barton, an attorney who represented LUCHA in court, said the group’s legal team is still weighing its options.  Ballot measures can only be challenged on their form before voters consider them in an election. A violation of the single-subject rule was among the few legal avenues to prevent the act from making it onto the ballot. Challenges based on the act’s content can’t be launched until after voters have had a say.  That includes a lawsuit over the act’s lack of allocated funding. The Arizona Constitution requires ballot proposals that are likely to incur state spending to make up for that cost, and despite multiple law enforcement and government officials warning of just that during the act’s passage through the legislature, GOP lawmakers refused to account for it. Alejandra Gomez, executive director of LUCHA, denounced the act as “stop and frisk on steroids” and said Minder’s ruling sets a “dangerous” precedent. She warned that if the act, which has been titled Prop. 314, makes it onto the November ballot, the state’s minority populations will suffer. LUCHA, she said, is prepared to appeal the ruling. “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,” Gomez said in a written statement. “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.” Critics have compared the act to SB1070, Arizona’s notorious “show me your papers law” that led to rampant racial profiling after it empowered local police officers to question the citizenship status of Arizonans during routine traffic stops. Link to original article: https://azmirror.com/2024/07/13/gop-secure-border-ballot-measure-cleared-for-voters-after-judge-rejects-constitutional-challenge/

State lawmakers are entitled to ask Arizona voters to approve a border security measure that contains everything from penalties for entering this country to selling fentanyl, a judge ruled late Friday. By Howard Fischer, The Arizona Daily Star PHOENIX — There’s nothing illegal about putting all of that into a single take-it-or-leave-it ballot measure, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder said in an 11-page ruling. Minder rejected arguments by immigrant rights groups and Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) that the five-provision measure violates a requirement that all legislation be limited to “one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” That same requirement applies to measure placed on the ballot. The idea is to prevent “logrolling,” where disparate issues are placed together with voters forced to adopt the whole package — including things they don’t want — to get what they do. Minder said four of the provisions relate to the legal presence, employment verification, access to benefits and allowing judges to order the deportation of those who enter the country at other than a port of entry. “Those four provisions are all deterrents to, or enforcement methods for, crossing the border without legal permission,” the judge wrote. “Logic and popular understanding shows that these items are parts of, or germane to responses to harms relating to an unsecured border.” And Minder concluded that a fifth provision — enhanced prison sentences for those who sell fentanyl if it results in the death of another person — also fits. “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,” he wrote. “This court has no factual basis to doubt, and plaintiffs have shown no reason to question, the deterrent effect of the proposed ‘lethal fentanyl’ crime,” the judge continued, “Entry of people and of drugs into Arizona through the border are logically or in popular understanding connected, which is what the single-subject rule requires.” There will be an appeal, Alejandra Gomez, the group’s executive director, said Saturday in a statement. “If Proposition 314 reaches the ballot box this November, many Arizonans will be disproportionately targeted and subjected to suspicion and persecution,” Gomez said, referring to the number being given to the measure by the Secretary of State’s Office. “This discriminatory legislation will lead to over-policing in every community across our state.” The most visible part of the legislation is the language allowing police to arrest those who enter Arizona from Mexico other than at a port of entry. The Republican-controlled Legislature actually approved a measure to do just that earlier this year, only to have it vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs. A separate proposal by Rep. Quang Nguyen, R-Prescott Valley, dealing with the sale of fentanyl never made it out of the House. GOP leaders then combined both into HCR 2060, designed as a ballot measure to bypass the governor. They made violating that law a crime — but allowed judges to drop charges if the person self-deports. They also added provisions making it a crime to use forged papers to seek public benefits and to get around requirements to prove legal presence to work in the state. The combined measure was approved by lawmakers over the objections of many Democrats. They said the provision empowering police to arrest border crossers would lead to racial profiling and result in the same bad publicity Arizona got in 2010 with the adoption of SB 1070 giving police the power to question and detain people they believe are in the country illegally. Foes also questioned whether the measure is constitutional. They pointed out that a federal appeals court has so far barred enforcement of SB 4, a nearly identical Texas law on which much of HCR 2060 is modeled. But any similar challenge here cannot be heard by the court unless and until the measure is approved in November. That left foes with only one pre-election legal tool: argue that it violates the single-subject rule. Minder acknowledged that courts have struck down other ballot measures where lawmakers have tried to cram in various unrelated items. “The subject is broad,” he said of HCR 2060. “But it is not foolishly so.” Consider, he said, a decision by the Arizona Supreme Court to strike from the ballot a measure that was simply titled as “relating to state government.” But Minder said the justices found nothing improper in allowing a vote on a package of issues as “related to marital and domestic relations.” Ditto, he said, of a ballot measure labeled simply “protection of children” or one labeled “transportation.” “This court finds that ‘responses to harms related to an unsecured border’ is no broader than ‘domestic relations,’’ Minder said. Even the provision on fentanyl, he said, meets the legal test, even though those who would be subject to its penalties could be U.S. citizens. “Arizona courts have repeatedly found that provisions of the same act can affect different groups of people without violating the single-subject rule,’’ Minder said. If the decision is not overturned, it could become a draw to bring out voters who may be sympathetic to Republicans who will be running for office at the same Nov. 5 general election. Hobbs herself has acknowledged that the measure is likely to prove popular among those who believe the border is not secure. “I understand their frustration,” Hobbs said. But the governor, in an earlier interview with Capitol Media Services, is beginning to make the case for its defeat. “It will kill jobs,” she said. “It will vilify communities,” Hobbs continued, “It will put us right back where we were with 1070. And that’s not good for Arizona.” Link to original article: https://tucson.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/elections/arizona-border-security-ballot-measure-gop-legislators-legal-challenge-judge-rules/article_d06e8ca2-40bf-11ef-a91e-e7df901b7ea4.html

Karime Rodríguez es la directora de servicios de LUCHA, Living United for Change in Arizona, o viviendo juntos, coexistiendo para una lucha de cambio en Arizona Por Arianny Valles & Judith León, Conecta Arizona En entrevista para La Hora del Cafecito , el programa de radio de Conecta Arizona , la activista compartió el trabajo que realiza la organización que representa y a quiénes atiende de manera particular. Lo primero que detalló es que LUCHA es una organización con sede en Phoenix, aunque también tiene oficinas en Tucson; ésta surgió en el año 2010, durante la época de la ley “Inmigración, procuración de justicia y vecindarios seguros, de Arizona, conocida también como SB 1070, con la que se endureció la reforma migratoria. Rodríguez señaló que quienes conforman esta organización quieren ver un cambio en el estado de Arizona en distintas aristas como es en sí, la de inmigración y lo relacionado con la atención médica, para que no se vea afectada la economía. Trabajan básicamente, dijo, por un estado que trabaje con la comunidad. Los integrantes de LUCHA fueron anfitriones de una mesa redonda el pasado 18 de junio, donde se habló de la Orden Ejecutiva del presidente Joe Biden sobre abordar la situación de migrantes irregulares. Cabe destacar que la entrevistada forma parte de una familia migrante y desde pequeña ha vivido esta realidad que impacta a quienes llegan a Estados Unidos a buscar otra forma de vida; de ahí su participación activa en LUCHA . 🎙️ ¿Cuáles son los servicios que LUCHA presta a la comunidad? Ahorita estamos haciendo renovaciones de DACA; renovaciones de residencia, aplicaciones para la ciudadanía, y también tenemos clases para ayudarle a nuestra comunidad. Hacemos clases de inglés, clases para prepararlos para la entrevista de ciudadanía, entre otras. Y, para el año que viene queremos agregar más servicios migratorios. 🎙️ ¿Cuánto tiempo tienes realizando esta labor en LUCHA? Yo tengo -más o menos año y medio- aquí en LUCHA , pero soy miembro de este movimiento desde que era pequeña. Estuve aquí en los años de SB 1070, yo soy migrante, entonces soy parte de la Lucha desde muchos desde hace mucho tiempo. Desde pequeña. 🎙️ ¿Qué impacto tiene en las personas que ustedes atienden la implementación de la Orden Ejecutiva anunciada por el presidente? Muchos de nuestros miembros van a poder beneficiarse de esta Orden Ejecutiva de las dos partes; o sea, de la parte que les pueden dar un un permiso de trabajo, tenemos miembros que van a poder beneficiarse de esta parte. También tenemos miembros que se van a beneficiar del Parole in Place , de poder ajustar su estatus aquí dentro de los Estados Unidos porque se casan, están casados con ciudadanos estadounidenses. Entonces, queremos hacer -ya que tengamos más información del gobierno- sobre cómo podemos aplicar exactamente para esto. También queremos ofrecer este servicio a nuestra comunidad porque sabemos que muchos de nuestros miembros van a poder ajustar su estatus con esta Orden Ejecutiva. Recordemos que la Orden Ejecutiva tiene dos variantes: una dedicada a las personas indocumentadas, casadas con ciudadanos estadounidenses, también aplica a los hijos de estos ciudadanos. Y por el otro lado hacia los DACA, a otros dreamers que se gradúen de las universidades en Estados Unidos y que vayan a aplicar a trabajos relacionados con lo que estudiaron, para otorgarles de manera rápida su permiso de trabajo. Esto apenas fue anunciado y se estimó un tiempo para poder mirar cómo se va a implementar; las organizaciones sin fines de lucro son las encargadas de educar a la comunidad, educar a la población en función de estas medidas y de cómo van a poder aplicar para esta Orden Ejecutiva. 🎙️ ¿Karime, qué te pareció la conversación que se dio en la mesa redonda? Para mí fue una conversación muy importante porque Arizona es un estado muy importante, no solamente para las elecciones, pero cuando se trata de temas de inmigración, muchos de nuestros miembros, también en la comunidad en general de Arizona, vienen de familias que -a lo mejor- ellos son inmigrantes o tienen familiares que son inmigrantes. Entonces, para mí es muy importante que vengan representantes de la Casa Blanca para hablar en nuestra comunidad, para saber exactamente lo que está sucediendo y cómo ellos en un nivel federal pueden ayudarnos a nivel estatal. Me pareció una conversación muy abierta, me encantó poder conocer a Tom Pérez y a su equipo, se me hicieron personas muy, como te diré, se nota que sí quieren ver el cambio en esta comunidad. Ojalá y no sea la última conversación que tengan aquí con nosotros. 🎙️ Tú que ayudas a tantas personas a llenar sus formas, a introducir solicitudes, las preparas para la ciudadanía, has tenido tanto contacto con nuestra comunidad y sabes cuáles son sus miedos, las cosas que tal vez les cueste comprender más. ¿En qué piensas que el gobierno debe enfocarse a la hora de crear este procedimiento para que las personas puedan aplicar, para ser aprobados en esta Orden Ejecutiva? Es muy importante que sea algo accesible; sabemos que ahora quieren hacer muchas cosas en línea, pero también tienen que reconocer que muchas personas de nuestra comunidad necesitan ayuda con esto. También tener esta información en varios lenguajes; nuestra comunidad inmigrante viene de muchos países, mucha gente no habla inglés, entonces tiene que estar disponible en varios idiomas. También creo que pueden asesorarnos a las organizaciones que ayudamos a la comunidad, tal vez con un manual o instrucciones para poder ayudar de la mejor manera. Mayte Sánchez podría ver a su familia y trabajar sin miedo 🎙️ Una de las beneficiarias de la organización LUCHA en Arizona e Mayte Sánchez, beneficiaria de DACA, quien comparte ¿cómo impactaría en su porvenir la orden de Biden en su comunidad y dentro de tu familia? Esta Orden Ejecutiva me ayudaría básicamente para tener el privilegio de poder ir a ver a mi familia, poder aplicar, como que tengo DACA y de los que han dicho somos dreamers , que somos soñadores para nuestro futuro. Esto, en DACA, ha cambiado mucho y desafortunadamente no lo considero como un dreamer . Es una oportunidad para trabajar y la Orden Ejecutiva va a ayudar a muchos a tener el beneficio de poder trabajar, sin miedo; que generaciones nuevas puedan ir a la escuela, agarrar becas, poder moverse un poquito más sin tener ese miedo de que ‘ay no, no voy a poder porque pues soy mexicana’, ‘ay, no voy a poder trabajar por el Estado porque tiene que ser uno ciudadano’. Eso es algo que me da mucho orgullo, que me ayudaría para mí y para mucha gente en la comunidad. 🎙️ Mayte, ¿de qué manera te ha ayudado LUCHA ? Ya tengo tres años con esta organización. Empecé cuando trabajaba en la escuela, pasó el COVID-19, se esperaron muchas cosas, y también se me fue mi DACA en ese tiempo y LUCHA , gracias a Dios me ayudó; me dieron fuerza para poder tener esperanza que me iba a poder llegar mi DACA. Ellos pudieron pagar los servicios. Ayudan mucho a la comunidad con varias cosas y, me imagino que, ellos tienen muchas más oportunidades también para la Orden Ejecutiva que está pasando, que va a pasar. 🎙️ De acuerdo a la experiencia que has tenido llenando formas, haciendo aplicaciones, ¿qué crees que el ente encargado de llevar a la comunidad esta acción ejecutiva debe tomar en cuenta a la hora de crear ese procedimiento? Pues es algo muy intenso. No puedes confundirte con ninguna palabra, pero es una información de uno, algo personal, pero el momento de que un error chiquito puede afectar seis meses para atrás… es algo que uno tiene que tener paciencia. Tanto que estamos esperando, también hay que tener la paciencia de que va a llegar el procedimiento. 🎙️ Se estableció de un periodo de 60 días aproximadamente para esclarecer cómo se va a hacer este procedimiento precisamente Ojalá que nos ayude a todos. Enlace original: https://conectaarizona.com/lucha-surgio-en-2010-la-organizacion-quiere-ver-en-el-estado-de-arizona-un-cambio-a-favor-de-la-comunidad-migrante-karime-rodriguez/

Legislation resembling the “show me your papers” law is on the November ballot … Political advocacy groups are pushing back … District 3 Dems to debate. By Susan Barnett, Caitlin Schmidt and Curt Prendergast, Tucson Agenda Leer en español mas abajo Anyone who lived in Arizona in 2010 remembers well the controversial “show me me your papers” law that put our state in the center of a national conversation around immigration enforcement. SB 1070 allowed police to act as immigration enforcement and request proof of citizenship, leaving the door open for racial profiling and a battery of lawsuits that eventually stripped the law of most of its power.  It wasn’t a great look and Arizona officially did away with the law in 2016 . Now, a similar measure has worked its way onto the November ballot and political advocacy groups are striking back, filing lawsuits of their own and increasing efforts to get voters to the polls. LUCHA, Living United for Change in Arizona, was born out of SB 1070 and is playing a pivotal role in the fight against legislation like HCR 2060 , referred to by the group as “SB 1070 2.0.” The group has filed a lawsuit to prevent the legislation from moving forward at all and organizers say they remain steadfast in their commitment to get people –– especially underrepresented communities –– registered to vote in time for the primary and general election. “When we're out there working in the community, we try to remind folks of the actual power that they have to make their voices heard and to make a difference in their community,” said LUCHA representative Cesar Fierros . “Our communities have been left out of the political process for a long time, purposely and by design. There have been many attempts throughout American history to silence our power.” According to a national poll by Unidos US , 50% of Latino voters in Arizona support prioritizing a path to citizenship for long-residing undocumented individuals, and 30% support increasing legal immigration.  “HCR 2060 actually goes against the good parts, the non enforcement parts of federal immigration law and refugee law, that the U.S. has,” said Allan Colbern , an expert on immigration and politics at Arizona State University. “These are parts that are going to be challenged because the federal government, and the immigration system is meant to actually allow people to seek asylum.” The word “lucha” is Spanish for fight, or struggle. The organization was created to mobilize, defend and protect communities under attack, and many see this new legislation as an attack on communities of color.  “(HCR 2060) will be a mobilizing law. I think that LUCHA will be able to use this law to build up and mobilize voters, build up its membership to strengthen the Democratic Party, and the visibility of the party in Arizona,” Colbern said. “People in Arizona and throughout the country remember SB 1070 and this law is much worse.” LUCHA has been on the political scene for over a decade now playing a pivotal role in state and national elections. In the past decade, they’ve led the effort to pass the current minimum wage law, mobilized to flip Congress in 2018, helped elect Democratic President Joe Biden in 2020, and most recently Gov. Katie Hobbs in 2022.  LUCHA is member-led, with organizers and canvassers across the state leading the efforts to register people to vote. Volunteers have seen what is possible through organizing and building political power through voting and educating. Take LUCHA spokesman Fierros for example: he is a first-generation Mexican-American from Tucson, but his family has deep roots in Sonora. He got to see first-hand the effects of SB 1070, of “bad policy making” on his community, and it drove him to become politically active.  “There's a lot of effort to educate folks and give people the sense of belonging and empowerment that, ‘Hey, if I show up and vote in my city elections or my town elections, we can probably elect some really good people to represent us, and that will keep us in mind, keep our values, keep our interests in mind when they are elected, and that'll translate to good things for our group, for our community and for our family,’” Fierros said. With anti-immigration rhetoric running deep this election cycle, LUCHA is hoping to turn the tide. The group has set a national goal for 2024 to knock on one million doors. In Arizona, the goal is 20,000 doors, and the organization says it’s well on its way to reach those markers.  “In this election, one of every four Arizona voters are going to be Latino, nearly 25% of Arizona's voter base will be a Latino voter,” Fierros said. “That is a massive number. That's a very powerful number that will tilt the scales for President Biden if he's able to secure their vote.” Link to original article: https://tucsonagenda.substack.com/p/the-daily-agenda-preventing-a-repeat La Agenda Diaria: Prevenir una repetición de la SB 1070 Una legislación similar a la ley “muéstrame tus documentos” está en la boleta electoral de noviembre... Los grupos de defensa política están rechazando. Cualquiera que haya vivido en Arizona en 2010 recuerda bien la controvertida ley de “muéstrame tus papeles” que puso a nuestro estado en el centro de una conversación nacional sobre la aplicación de la ley de inmigración. SB 1070 permitió a la policía actuar como agente de inmigración y solicitar pruebas de ciudadanía, dejando la puerta abierta a la elaboración de perfiles raciales y a una serie de demandas que finalmente despojaron a la ley de la mayor parte de su poder. No fue una gran apariencia y Arizona oficialmente eliminó la ley en 2016 . Ahora, una ley similar se ha abierto camino en las elecciones de noviembre y los grupos de defensa política están contraatacando, presentando sus propias demandas y aumentando los esfuerzos para que los votantes acudan a las encuestas de votacion. LUCHA, en español Vivir Unidos por el Cambio en Arizona, nació de la SB 1070 y está desempeñando un papel fundamental en la lucha contra legislación como la HCR 2060. El grupo ha presentado una demanda para impedir que la legislación avance y los organizadores dicen que se mantienen firmes en su compromiso de lograr que la gente ––especialmente las comunidades subrepresentadas–– se registre para votar a tiempo para las elecciones primarias y generales. “Cuando trabajamos en la comunidad, tratamos de recordarles a las personas el poder real que tienen para hacer oír su voz y marcar una diferencia en su comunidad”, dijo César Fierros , representante de LUCHA. “Nuestras comunidades han sido excluidas del proceso político durante mucho tiempo, de manera intencionada y por diseño. Ha habido muchos intentos a lo largo de la historia de los Estados Unidos de silenciar nuestro poder”. Según una encuesta nacional de Unidos US, el 50% de los votantes latinos en Arizona apoyan priorizar un camino hacia la ciudadanía para las personas indocumentadas que residen desde hace mucho tiempo, y el 30% apoya el aumento de la inmigración legal.  “HRC 2060 en realidad va en contra de las partes buenas, las partes que no se aplican de la ley federal de inmigración y la ley de refugiados, que tiene Estados Unidos”, dijo Allan Colbern , experto en inmigración y política de Arizona State University. “Estas son partes que van a ser cuestionadas porque el gobierno federal y el sistema de inmigración están destinados a permitir que las personas soliciten asilo”. El uso del acrónimo “lucha” tiene significado. La organización fue creada para movilizar, defender y proteger a las comunidades atacadas, y muchos ven esta nueva legislación como un ataque contra las comunidades de color. “(HCR 2060) será una ley movilizadora. Creo que LUCHA podrá utilizar esta ley para fortalecer y movilizar a los votantes, aumentar su membresía para fortalecer el Partido Demócrata y la visibilidad del partido en Arizona”, dijo Colbern. “La gente en Arizona y en todo el país recuerda la SB 1070 y esta ley es mucho peor”. LUCHA ha estado en la escena política durante más de una década y ahora desempeña un papel fundamental en las elecciones estatales y nacionales. En la última década, lideraron el esfuerzo para aprobar la actual ley de salario mínimo, se movilizaron para cambiar el Congreso en 2018, ayudaron a elegir al presidente demócrata Joe Biden en 2020 y, más recientemente, a la gobernadora Katie Hobbs en 2022. Los voluntarios han visto lo que es posible organizar y construir poder político mediante el voto y la educación. Tomemos como ejemplo al portavoz de LUCHA, Fierros: es un mexicano-estadounidense de primera generación de Tucson, pero su familia tiene profundas raíces en Sonora. Pudo ver de primera mano los efectos de SB 1070, de “malas políticas” en su comunidad, y eso lo impulsó a volverse políticamente activo. “Hay muchos esfuerzos para educar a la gente y darles el sentido de pertenencia y empoderamiento de que, 'Oye, si me presento y voto en las elecciones de mi ciudad o de mi pueblo, probablemente podamos elegir a algunas personas realmente buenas para que nos representen'. y eso nos tendrá en cuenta, mantendrá nuestros valores, tendrá en cuenta nuestros intereses cuando sean elegidos, y eso se traducirá en cosas buenas para nuestro grupo, para nuestra comunidad y para nuestra familia'”, dijo Fierros. Con la retórica antiinmigración arrasando en este ciclo electoral, LUCHA espera cambiar el rumbo. El grupo se ha fijado como objetivo nacional para 2024 tocar un millón de puertas. En Arizona, el objetivo es 20.000 puertas y la organización dice que está en camino de alcanzar esos marcadores. “En esta elección, uno de cada cuatro votantes de Arizona será latino, casi el 25% de la base de votantes de Arizona será un votante latino”, dijo Fierros. “Ese es un número enorme. Es una cifra muy poderosa que inclinará la balanza a favor del presidente Biden si logra asegurar su voto”. Enlace original: https://tucsonagenda.substack.com/p/la-agenda-diaria-prevenir-una-repeticion