One GOP lawmaker is concerned that controversial border legislation sent to the ballot by Republican legislators could violate the state Constitution.
Republicans voted along party lines to ask voters to approve HCR 2060, which would give local and state police the power to arrest people who cross the border illegally — a power historically reserved for the federal government that the Biden administration has argued in court is off-limits to the states.
Several groups have filed lawsuits to keep the measure off the ballot. They argue it violates a state constitutional requirement that individual pieces of legislation stick to a single subject.
The ballot referral also includes new penalties for people who sell fentanyl or use fake documents to obtain employment or public benefits.
Republican Rep. David Cook (R-Globe) voted to put HCR 2060 on the ballot, but he said he wanted it broken up into three separate pieces of legislation over concerns it violates the single-subject rule.
“I hope the judge doesn't strike it down,” Cook said. “I hope it does make it to the ballot box, but I have serious concerns on the legality of it based on our Constitution.”
Cook made those comments days after an attorney for Republican lawmakers argued the ballot referral does not violate the single-subject rule.
In the legal filings, attorney Kory Langhofer claimed the provisions all fall under the general subject of harms relating to the southern border.
But attorneys representing the groups challenging the measure argued the measure deals with three separate issues: border enforcement, fentanyl dealing and employment law.
“The Legislature's attempt to impose state law consequences against those who do not enter the country and State through a legal port of entry or who submit false documents or information in applying for employment or public benefits has nothing to do with imposing criminal liability on every adult who commits the ‘sale of lethal fentanyl,’” wrote Attorney Andrew Gaona, who represents Poder in Action and other groups challenging the measure.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued the legislature’s interpretation would nullify the intent of the single-subject rule, which, he says, is to avoid “log-rolling,” or the process of combining multiple unrelated pieces of legislation into a single bill in order to secure the votes to pass it at the legislature.
“If the standard is merely whether the Legislature can imagine a connection among legislative acts, there is no standard at all,” wrote Jim Barton, an attorney representing a separate group also challenging the ballot referral.
