Thread: Judge looks disinclined to block sanctions law

Judge looks disinclined to block sanctions law
Says businesses' hardships may take a back seat
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 12.19.2007
PHOENIX — A federal judge said Tuesday that the interests of Arizonans at the lower end of the economy may trump any hardships on businesses forced to comply with the state's new employer sanctions law.
U.S. District Judge Neil Wake listened to attorneys for business groups who told him he should block state and county officials from enforcing Arizona's new employer-sanctions law, at least for the time being.
Wake promised a ruling by the end of the week. Business attorneys said if he denies their request they will file an immediate appeal.
Lou Moffa Jr., who represents some of the challengers to the law, said it is unfair to force businesses to comply with the law, set to take effect Jan. 1, while its constitutionality is being contested in court.
If nothing else, he said there is a financial cost to companies to use the federal government's E-Verify system to check the legal status of new workers, one of the requirements of the law.
Conversely, Moffa said there is no hardship on the state or counties if they don't enforce the law until its legality is determined.
Wake, however, said that ignores one of the underlying purposes of the law: to ensure that undocumented workers do not take jobs from those in this country legally.
"What about the people at the bottom" of the economy? Wake asked.
"Unauthorized workers compete with people who just struggle with the bare necessities of life," the judge continued. "There's no one in the courtroom who represents the 100,000 Arizonans living on the edge of poverty."
But attorney Paul Eckstein, also representing some business interests, said leaving the law the way it has been for years — with no state penalties for hiring undocumented workers and no requirement to use E-Verify — is no big deal.
"Another 45 days … is spit in the ocean here," he said.
And David Selden, another business attorney, said the law does not require companies to check whether all those on their payrolls Jan. 1 are here legally. Instead, he said, it applies only to people hired on or after that date.
"The labor market in Arizona … is not going to be affected."
The issue is crucial: Judges are required to consider the "balance of hardships" in deciding whether to issue a restraining order blocking enforcement of a law while its validity is litigated.
Tuesday's hearing followed Wake's decision earlier this month to throw out the original legal challenges to the law.
Wake said the business groups should have sued the 15 county attorneys charged with enforcing the law; instead they sued the state.
A new lawsuit filed less than 10 days ago adds those county attorneys.
Wake promised Tuesday to hear the new arguments Jan. 16, a date he said is as fast as possible to ensure that the new defendants have time to prepare. The judge also got representatives of various county attorneys to essentially promise they won't bring charges against anyone before Feb. 1.
Eileen GilBride, representing Maricopa County, said it's an easy promise to make, as there is no way a complaint against an employer can be fully investigated between now and then.
But Moffa told Wake that still leaves the economic burden of having to use the E-Verify system.
There is no charge by the federal government. But Moffa submitted legal papers that the price tag for each business could run $1,800 a year, with costs ranging from purchasing computers and Internet access to the time and expense of actually running the checks on all new workers.
The business groups' demand to put the law on hold also comes with a not-so-veiled warning that failure to do so could end up costing taxpayers money.
Selden said that $1,800 cost multiplied by 150,000 Arizona businesses computes out to $270 million a year in expenses. He said if the law ultimately is declared unconstitutional, businesses could legitimately argue that they were forced to expend money unnecessarily and demand reimbursement from the government.
And Moffa said putting the law on hold actually saves money for the counties that won't have to begin investigations.
That brought a sharp response from Mary O'Grady, the state's solicitor general. She called it "rather disingenuous" for businesses to claim they are protecting the taxpayers while hinting they may sue for damages.
Wake hinted that if he grants a delay in enforcing the law, he may force the challengers to post a bond.
The judge noted the state sent out notices to all employers earlier this year informing them of the new law and the requirements to comply.
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/216873

I will wager you that not ONE single business that doesn't have a COMPUTER and internet access. This phony baloney argument of costs is absurd!