LUCHA files lawsuit to block Arizona's voter-approved border law, Prop. 314

An immigrant rights group wants a judge to block a Republican border security law approved by 63% of Arizona voters last year.

Living United for Change in Arizona, or LUCHA, filed a lawsuit Monday seeking an injunction against Proposition 314, which 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 empower local and state law enforcement to arrest people for violating that law.

The legislation, inspired by a similar Texas law, also includes enhanced penalties for fentanyl dealing and using fake documents to work in the U.S.

LUCHA joined Democratic lawmakers in opposing the measure as it worked its way through the state Legislature last year, arguing it will lead to racial profiling and disproportionately impact minority and immigrant communities.

“At the center of this fight is Proposition 314, a dangerous law that would fuel vigilantism, unjust policing that leads to racial profiling at the behest of a fanatical agenda,” LUCHA Executive Director Alejandra Gomez said. “Prop. 314 is not just bad policy, it's a threat to the constitutional rights of people.”

Now, they’re arguing the law also violates the Arizona Constitution because it includes no funding mechanism to pay for enforcement. The state Constitution's Revenue Source Rule requires ballot initiatives that include mandatory expenditures to identify a funding source.

“It is unconstitutional to ask the voters to pass legislation without identifying the funding source when it costs money,” said Jim Barton, LUCHA’s attorney. “Does this legislation cost money? Hell yeah it does.”

Barton referenced estimates from the Department of Public Safety and the state prison system, which found the law would add over $200 million in new costs by 2029.

Gage Skidmore/CC by 2.0

Senate President Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert), a vocal supporter of the law, declined to comment, because he had not yet seen a copy of the lawsuit.

However, in the past, he dismissed concerns about the lack of a funding source, arguing the law will save money by curbing unlawful entries into the U.S.

“It cost Arizona $3.2 billion a year to deal with this crisis,” Petersen said last year, referring to a report the anti-immigration Federation for American Immigration Reform presented to the U.S. House Budget Committee.

LUCHA also argues the Legislature infringed on powers reserved for the court system when it defined “probable cause,” or the evidence law enforcement needs to arrest someone who allegedly crossed the border outside of a legal port.

Republican lawmakers had argued that part of the law would prevent racial profiling by law enforcement by requiring officers have actual evidence, such as an eyewitness account, that a person crossed the border outside of a legal port of entry.

But Barton said it is not up to the Legislature to define probable cause.

“Well, in the state of Arizona, the Legislature, the legislative branch, does not define probable cause. The judiciary does,” he said.

The LUCHA lawsuit also claims the legislature illegally delegated its own authority to lawmakers 1,000 miles away in Texas. That’s because the border crossing provision is directly tied to SB 4, the Texas law that inspired it that is currently on hold pending legal challenges.

Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services

According to the text of Prop. 314, that section “may not be enforced in any manner until [the law] that was enacted in the state of Texas, or any other law of any other state similar thereto, has been in effect for a period of sixty consecutive days at any time on or after the effective date of this article.”

“So this legislation says we're going to create this new crime, but we're not going to have it take effect unless the Texas Legislature and their litigation team wins on Senate Bill 4,” Barton said.

It’s not the first time LUCHA has filed suit in an attempt to block Prop. 314.

The group filed a separate lawsuit last year seeking to prevent it from going before voters on the November ballot. But the Arizona Supreme Court rejected arguments that the proposal included too many, unrelated provisions, which would violate a state Constitutional rule requiring individual pieces of legislation to stick to a single subject.