When Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 314 in November, they made a clear statement about their desire for more action on illegal immigration in our state. But there was a problem that many in law enforcement pointed out right away: There was no funding attached to the measure.
Proposition 314 makes illegally crossing the border a crime in the state, allowing law enforcement to arrest migrants they have reason to believe committed it. But how could they enforce it without the funding to make it happen?
Republican lawmakers at the Arizona Capitol are working to fix that problem. But, Jerod MacDonald-Evoy, a reporter at the Arizona Mirror, said there’s a big potential legal problem with it.
MacDonald-Evoy joined The Show to talk about it.
Full conversation
JEROD MACDONALD-EVOY: Even before that law was passed, we had members of law enforcement, particularly the state's law enforcement agency, the Department of Public Safety, telling lawmakers that they were concerned about, you know, if this passed, it would be basically an unfunded mandate. Law enforcement would be taking on extra duties and would be having to arrest and process people in a way that they don't currently do, and they were worried about having the funding and even the space to do that.
LAUREN GILGER: Right, and many law enforcement agencies around the state are really understaffed right now, too. So this would be a further challenge, it sounds like.
MACDONALD-EVOY: Correct. DPS, the state's main law enforcement agency, they've been having issues with staffing, funding. They've been having retention issues in the areas of the state where they patrol, where there might only be one trooper in a massive, several-hundred-mile radius at times. So law enforcement really was sounding the alarm before this was passed, and then after it was passed, that look, we don't know if we have the manpower or capabilities to do this. You have some sheriffs down in the border communities that said, we don't know if we have the detention facilities built out yet to enforce this, as well.
GILGER: OK, so lawmakers at the state Capitol are trying to solve this funding problem with another piece of legislation that they have introduced already. Tell us what it would do.
MACDONALD-EVOY: House Bill 2606, it gives $50 million to the Department of Public Safety to basically enforce Prop. 314. This money then would be able to be used by DPS to give out to other local law enforcement agencies as they kind of deem fit, in order to make sure that Prop. 314 can be enforced and that they have the resources they need.
GILGER: So where would this money come from?
MACDONALD-EVOY: The money is set aside in the legislation to be pulled from the state's general fund. That's the fund that the state uses for all sorts of different things, from, you know, education to law enforcement.
GILGER: Right, but you point out in a recent piece that there's an issue here, that this might set off kind of a constitutional showdown.
MACDONALD-EVOY: Correct. The Arizona Constitution requires that any ballot measure that increases state funding to provide money to pay for it. It also says that you can't take that money from the state's general operating fund or the general fund. This proposal would appropriate money directly from the general fund. So it could ultimately set up a scenario where, if this were to pass and be used to enforce 314, someone could then file a lawsuit to try to strike down 314 as well, declaring it unconstitutional.
GILGER: Right, so you reported on the hearing that this legislation had at the state Legislature. Have lawmakers commented on that potential problem at this point?
MACDONALD-EVOY: Lawmakers have not publicly commented on the constitutionality of this measure. In a committee hearing where this bill was passed earlier this week, there was no discussion about that. The discussion was mainly centered around the immigration policies we're seeing from the federal government and how that is impacting local communities, as well as a lot of discussion about, you know, the voters did overwhelmingly pass Prop. 314 and are clearly wanting to see some sort of action on immigration. Those were really the main key talking points. But no one brought up the possible issues with the funding that had been brought up in the past or brought up now.
GILGER: Yeah, yeah. And we should point out that Prop. 314, though voters did overwhelmingly pass it, is contingent upon another law, similar law in Texas, and kind of what happens with that. Is it possible, Jerod, this could never be enforced anyway?
MACDONALD-EVOY: Correct, there is currently a lawsuit against the Texas-based law, which this Prop. 314 was modeled after and that's kind of working its way through the courts. And if that law is deemed ultimately unconstitutional or non-enforceable, that would make Prop. 314 basically moot.
GILGER: OK, so this is just one measure at the state Capitol right now that is aimed at immigration enforcement. As you mentioned, lawmakers seem very cognizant of the fact that the electorate here wants to see something happen on immigration, and especially kind of in light of the mass deportations that we're seeing coming from the Trump administration already. What are lawmakers here looking to do? We have competing measures kind of from both sides.
MACDONALD-EVOY: Yeah, correct, the Democrats and the Republicans have both kind of introduced their own immigration measures. On the Republican side, you have Senate President Warren Petersen. He has created what they're calling the Arizona “ICE Act,” which requires law enforcement to enter into these 287g agreements. By next year, 10% of every officer in every law enforcement organization would have to participate in these, and 287g’s are these agreements with federal authorities like ICE and it deputizes them to do certain immigration duties. This kind of became prominent back here in Arizona during their Arpaio years, when he was entering into these agreements and was kind of found to be racially profiling, some of his deputies who had entered into these agreements.
GILGER: Right, so only the GOP bill here will likely get a hearing. Should we expect that to be vetoed by the governor?
MACDONALD-EVOY: It’s unclear if it will be vetoed by the governor currently. She has not directly answered questions on that, and we've seen a bit of a shift on the governor, as well as other key large Democrats in the state, such as [Sens.] Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, who are supporting more hardline immigration policies such as the Laken Riley Act. So it's unclear if, given you know her competitive race in 2026, if this is something that she will veto or allow to go forward.
On the flip side of that, the Dems have pushed what they're calling the Immigration Trust Act at the Legislature, which would basically do the opposite of what the Republican measure would do. It would bar law enforcement, cities, localities from searching, questioning or arresting someone solely based on suspicion of their immigration status.
GILGER: Yeah, basically opposites entirely.
