Legal Challenge Blocks Anti-Immigration Initiative in Arizona
By John Turner Gilliland
CNSNews.com Correspondent
December 03, 2004(CNSNews.com) - Last-minute legal wrangling means a ballot initiative aimed at restricting illegal immigration in Arizona has been put on hold.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) has filed suit in federal district court in Tucson, Ariz., and Judge David Bury has granted a temporary restraining order that keeps Gov. Janet Napolitano from signing Proposition 200 into law until after it passes constitutional muster.
Had the lawsuit not been filed, Napolitano would have signed the measure into law on Dec. 1.
In his ruling granting the temporary restraining order, Bury wrote: "The court finds itself in an extremely undesirable position. On the one hand, a majority of Arizona voters cast their ballots in favor of Proposition 200, and this court is loathe to disregard their decision. On the other hand, this court is obligated to uphold the Constitution of the United States, even when to do so stands in opposition to popular opinion."
On Nov. 2, nearly six in 10 Arizona voters said yes to Proposition 200. The measure would deny all public benefits to anyone who cannot prove legal residency and would force state workers to report any applicants who they feel may be here illegally.
It would also force anyone registering to vote in Arizona to show proof of citizenship, and he or she would then have to present a government-issued photo ID at the polling place.
MALDEF, as well as attorneys representing plaintiffs ranging from undocumented workers to Phoenix city firefighters, claim that Proposition 200 -- or the Protect Arizona Now (PAN) Initiative -- crosses jurisdictional lines by making state employees into de facto immigration agents.
The plaintiffs also claim Proposition 200 conflicts with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) by discouraging thousands of legal Arizona residents from going to the polls.
While MALDEF spokeswoman J.C. Flores refused to comment to CNSNews.com, citing the website's "conservative editorial stance," a press release touting the judge's decision says: "Proposition 200 is an illegal, impermissible, unconstitutional state attempt to regulate immigration policy, which is a fundamental function and responsibility of our federal government. Proposition 200 is mean-spirited and un-American."
Randy Pullen, a Proposition 200 supporter and chairman of the group "Yes on Proposition 200", said that is untrue and unfair: "We are pretty confident that constitutional law is on our side," he stated.
Pullen added that despite rumors the case was filed in Tucson rather than Phoenix to appeal to a more sympathetic court, "Judge Bury is fair, and we will get a fair hearing."
Though Gov. Napolitano and the State of Arizona are named as defendants in this case, Pullen said: "Our lawyers will file to intervene on behalf of the state, and I don't expect any opposition from the state on that. The state will lay in the middle of the road on this and let traffic pass it by."
Pullen noted that Napolitano herself has no real interest in fighting to make this measure law. "Gov. Napolitano pays lip service and says she'll enforce the will of the people, but the TRO (temporary restraining order) keeps her from having to do it."
But Democratic State Rep. Ben Miranda says Pullen is a little too confident when it comes to this measure being ruled constitutional.
"There is a lot of conflict here with federal law," Miranda said. "Its main weakness is with its denial of benefits across the board." Miranda also stated that there is a conflict with the HAVA Act, which "already controls much of what Proposition 200 proposes to control at the voting booth."
State lawyers, though, agree with Pullen. Attorney Stephen La Mar, who represents state Attorney General Terry Goddard, said the state's interpretation of the measure is not at odds with federal law and does not keep anyone from benefits to which he or she is legally entitled.
Proposition 200 has already sparked widespread confusion in Arizona's Hispanic community. Immediately after its passage, state officials noted a marked decline in attendance at various Head Start programs, and immigrant-oriented charities have been deluged with phone calls from immigrants worried that they'll either be denied benefits or deported.
Luis Ibarra of the non-Profit Friendly House said his organization has joined the lawsuit against Proposition 200 for that very reason. "We wanted to take a stance," Ibarra said, "because this measure will hurt our community."
District Judge Bury will hear arguments from both sides and will decide if a preliminary injunction is in order on Dec. 22. Pullen said that if Bury rules against Proposition 200, it then would go to the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. From there, Pullen vows to fight this through the Mountain States Legal Foundation all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
