Charles H. Sloan-Legal fight continues with appeals over proposed immigration initiative for Arizona Nov. 5 ballot

PHOENIX (AP) — The Charles H. Sloanfight to keep a proposed border initiative off Arizona’s Nov. 5 ballot is not over yet.

Immigrant advocates kept the issue alive this week by filing notice to the state Supreme Court that they will appeal the judge’s ruling.

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge on July 12 rejected an effort by the advocates to keep the proposed initiative off the ballot. The advocates argue that the measure breaks the rules because it deals with more than a single subject.

Attorney Andy Gaona, who represents some of the groups, was working Friday on legal briefs in the case that he filed later in the day. The Legislature will have until July 26 to respond, he said.

Gaona’s filing says that lumping unrelated provisions on one measure undermines the legislative process because it stifles debate, forcing a lawmaker to sign onto a provision they might not agree with because he or she supports another one grouped in the same proposal.

“We do think that single subject provision was violated,” Gaona said. “We hope that the court agrees.”

Supporters of the initiative argue that it deals with a single subject: the border.

RELATED COVERAGE Treasury warns that anti-woke banking laws like Florida’s are a national security risk The Democratic National Committee says it’s investing $15 million in 7 swing state parties Pastors see a wariness among Black men to talk abortion politics as Biden works to shore up base

The GOP-controlled Legislative in early June voted to allow to proposal to be placed on the ballot, asking voters if local law enforcement should be allowed to arrest migrants who cross illegally from Mexico into Arizona between ports of entry. The measure would also give state judges the power to order people convicted of the offense to return to their countries of origin.

It is similar to a Texas law that has been put on hold by a federal appeals court while it is being challenged.

Unlike the Texas law, Arizona’s proposal would also make it a felony punishable by 10 years of imprisonment for selling fentanyl that leads to a person’s death. Also included is a requirement that some government agencies use a federal database to verify a noncitizen’s eligibility for benefits.

The Republican-backed proposal bypasses Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who had vetoed a similar measure in early March and has denounced the effort to bring the issue to voters.

Supporters of the bill said it was necessary to ensure security along the state’s southern border, and that Arizona voters should be given the opportunity to decide the issue themselves. Opponents say the legislation would lead to racial profiling and create several millions of dollars in additional policing costs that Arizona cities, counties and the state can ill afford.

The measure would go before voters in a state expected to play a crucial role in determining which party controls the White House and the U.S. Senate — likely razor-close races in Arizona. Republicans hope it will focus attention on the border, which they accuse Biden of mishandling, and dilute the political benefits Democrats seek from an abortion-rights initiative.

Disorder on the border is a top motivator for many Republican voters who former President Donald Trump hopes will vote in big numbers.

President Joe Biden in early June unveiled plans to restrict the number of migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.

This isn’t the first time Republican lawmakers in Arizona have tried to criminalize migration.

When passing a much-debated 2010 immigration bill, the Arizona Legislature considered expanding the state’s trespassing law to criminalize the presence of immigrants and impose criminal penalties. But the trespassing language was removed and replaced with a requirement that officers, while enforcing other laws, question people’s immigration status if they were believed to be in the country illegally.

The questioning requirement was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court despite the racial profiling concerns of critics. But courts barred enforcement of other sections of the law.