A group of Latino and immigrant advocacy organizations are appealing a judge's approval of Proposition 314, a GOP ballot measure that would allow local police to jail migrants. The proposal mirrors a Texas immigration law under constitutional scrutiny and makes it a state crime for migrants to cross Arizona's southern border at locations other than official ports of entry, with first-time offenders facing up to six months in jail.
Last month, Arizona Republicans advanced Proposition 314, titled the "Secure the Border Act," to the November ballot.
Back then, four Latino advocacy groups (LUCHA, Poder in Action, the Phoenix Legal Action Network and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project) quickly challenged the proposal, arguing that its multiple provisions violate the state constitution's single-subject rule, which requires ballot measures to address only one topic.
Alongside criminalizing border crossings, the act punishes undocumented Arizonans who submit false documentation when applying for jobs or public benefits with a class 6 felony and even creates a new felony offense with increased prison time for those who knowingly sell fentanyl that causes a death.
However, on July 12, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder ruled in favor of GOP legislative leaders, defending the act's constitutionality. In an 11-page decision, Minder concluded that the overarching theme of an "unsecured" border meets the single-subject rule requirement.
In new filings reported by Arizona Daily Star, attorney Jim Barton, representative of Latino activist group Living United for Change in Arizona, claims that the proposal hardly qualifies under what is known as the "single-subject rule.''
"The act embraces at least three distinct subjects: unlawful entry, unlawful presence, and importing foreign-made illicit drugs" Barton said, adding that it seems like a "classic example of the pernicious practice ... of logrolling,'' putting multiple issues into a single take-it-or-leave it package so that voters who want one provision have to also agree to take the rest of it.
Attorney Andrew Gaona, representing several different Latino rights groups also opposed to the ballot measure, told the justices in his own legal filing that they might be able to consider the provisions dealing with immigration as a single subject. "Prescribing a new crime for every adult for the sale of lethal fentanyl has nothing to do with an individual's immigration status,'' Gaona said.
According to the Arizona Daily Star, the justices will have to decide the question of whether Prop. 314 appears on the ballot on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, because if they conclude that one or more provisions violate the single-subject rule, they cannot simply excise the offending provisions but have to reject the proposition in its entirety. A decision is unlikely to come before the end of the month.
© 2024 Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
