Thread: Arizona Supreme Court refuses to block enactment of law.....

Arizona Supreme Court refuses to block enactment of law requiring public employees to report illegal immigrants

December 02, 2009 5:33 PM
HOWARD FISCHER
Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX -- The Arizona Supreme Court refused late Wednesday to block enactment of a new state law that requires public employees to report illegal immigrants.

Without ruling on the merits of the law, the justices said that the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, which had asked that the law be struck down as illegal, had not shown that the issue merited being taken directly to the state's high court.

Ken Strobeck, executive director of the league, said he was "shocked and disappointed'' that the justices did not see fit to weigh in on the question, at least at this point. He said no decision has been made whether to try again, this time by filing the case in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Strobeck said cities are concerned about several provisions of the law, part of a package approved by lawmakers in August to help balance the budget.

He specifically cited sections on illegal immigration which spell out what documents applicants for various public services must provide to prove they are in this country legally.

It also says that any public employee who fails to report discovered violations of federal immigration law are guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. That carries a potential of four months in jail and a $750 fine.

That same penalty would apply to the worker's supervisor if he or she knew of the failure to report the illegal immigrant and did not direct the worker to file the report.

And the law allows state resident who believes the law has been broken to file suit.

Strobeck said cities are concerned about the liability of their workers and the potential to become embroiled in lawsuits.

But in challenging the law, the cities dealt not with the merits of the law but the way it was enacted.

Specifically, the lawsuit points out that the August special session was called to deal with budget issues. And the measure in which the illegal immigration language was included deals with changes in policy related to state spending.

That, the league's lawsuit claims, makes the provisions about illegal immigration unconstitutional because they have nothing to do with the budget. Strobeck said cities have no interest in providing services to illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit also uses the same arguments to void other non-budget provisions in the same bill, including one that retroactively freezes any increase in "impact fees'' that cities can charge developers.

House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, has defended the changes, saying that they relate to money the government spends on providing services. Lawmakers also have argued that the freeze on impact fees, saying that move could help stimulate the home building industry which affects total state revenues.

Those arguments now will have to be presented to a trial court judge -- if the league decides to pursue the case. Strobeck acknowledged that it could be years before the case gets through a trial, goes to the court of appeals and eventually winds up back before the state Supreme Court.

http://www.yourwestvalley.com/news/cour ... izona.html

Good news now if every other state just did the same

Brightened my day!

EXCELLENT NEWS!

Great!

Let's put Sheriff Joe in the Governor's office and move this along

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-4745--0-0.html

Looks like AZ may have the only Judges in the country not on the take!

Great news.

In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame,
two is a law firm and three or more is a congress.--John Adams

Fight organized crime: Re-elect no one...

Our activist newspaper allowed activist Jennifer Allen to say her piece the other day before the Supreme Court gave their ruling. Ironically, this local paper constantly denies the opportunity to one of our local State Senators to publish his opinion pieces in this same paper.

Published: 12.02.2009

Let's oust lawmakers who indulge in scare tactics, bashing immigrants
By Jennifer Allen
SPECIAL TO THE ARIZONA DAILY STAR
A new Arizona law recently went into effect that requires state and local employees who provide federal public benefits to not only verify the identity and immigration status of applicants for services, but also to report "discovered" immigration law violations to federal immigration authorities.
If an employee doesn't file a report or a supervisor doesn't require employees to do so, they can be charged with a criminal offense. Furthermore, any individual can file a lawsuit against an employee, agency or even city or town that is suspected of not reporting to immigration authorities.
This law is ill-conceived and, most likely, unconstitutional.
Many public benefits are constitutionally protected basic rights available to everyone in the United States, regardless of immigration status. These include a K-12 education, emergency medical care and public-safety services, all of which contribute to the overall well-being and security of our communities, not just the individuals receiving the service.
This law also will ultimately cost Arizona taxpayers more than whatever it might save by denying benefits to a relative few.
The cost of prosecuting civil servants who fail to comply and defending civil litigation against state agencies and employees will more than eat up any benefits from the law.
If all this sounds familiar, it should. In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, a law that required people to show proof of citizenship at the voting polls and contained almost the same language on verifying the immigration status of people applying for public benefits and reporting any possible violations to federal immigration authorities.
Naturally, the 2004 law was immediately caught up in legal battles.
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard interpreted the law to apply to certain state benefits, none of which is available to people who can't prove their lawful presence in the country.
Mesa Republican Sen. Russell Pearce, Arizona's leading anti-immigrant legislator, along with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an anti-immigrant lobbying group, resented the limitations on the law and the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
Instead of using his chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Committee to solve the budget deficit and impasse, and as an end run around Goddard's ruling, Pearce slid his new version of Proposition 200 into a budget-focused special session this summer.
Soon after its passage, the Arizona League of Cities and Towns filed suit with the Arizona Supreme Court calling for the nullification of the new law because it would leave towns open to costly and pointless lawsuits at a time when towns are financially strapped.
Pearce and his allies know their legislation will have little real impact on reducing who actually receives public benefits.
However, they also know that legislation of this sort burnishes their extremist right-wing credentials by intimidating Arizona's Latino families and bashing local governments, even at the cost of doing further damage to Arizona's already badly tarnished national reputation.
There is no doubt that this law will face a steadfast challenge in the federal courts and ultimately be found unconstitutional.
Once again, Mr. Pearce and his supporters will have caused more harm than good with their ineffectual, symbolic laws.
The time has come for the residents and taxpayers of Arizona to realize the need to replace them with legislators who are more concerned about doing the people's business than promoting their political careers through fear mongering and immigrant bashing.
E-mail Jennifer Allen at jallen@borderaction.org
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/319746