Judge rejects 'single-subject' challenge to AZ GOP-backed border control measure

A proposal to make it a state crime to cross the border illegally qualifies for the November ballot, a judge ruled Friday as he rejected a lawsuit that argued the measure violated the constitution's single-subject rule.

The Secure the Border Act would give Arizona law enforcement the authority to arrest and detain people who cross the border with Mexico other than at a legal port of entry. Republicans in the state Legislature referred the matter to the Nov. 5 ballot, triggering an immediate challenge that the move was unconstitutional.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder ruled that lawmakers met the "single-subject" standard for ballot questions when they approved House Concurrent Resolution 2060 in June.

Besides authorizing Arizona law enforcement to detain and arrest people who cross illegally, the measure also provides immunity for law enforcement officers who detain or arrest; makes it a state crime to fraudulently get state benefits and hikes the penalties for any fentanyl sales that result in death.

Living United for Change, a civil rights group, went to court the day after the measure passed along partisan lines. They argued the multiple provisions ran afoul of the state constitution's single-subject rule.

But Minder, quoting from a previous ruling on the single-subject law, disagreed. The provisions all “'fall under . . . one general idea' which is 'responses to harms relating to an unsecured border,'" he wrote.

He found there is a "natural connection" between the measure's various provisions because they all relate to an unsecured border. Based on that, he ruled, the plaintiffs didn't meet the burden of proof to block the act from appearing on the Nov. 5 general election ballot.

James Barton, attorney for the various plaintiffs, said an appeal is being considered.

"We need to be strategic and weigh the risks," Barton said in an emailed comment, noting he would need to confer with the plaintiffs.

LUCHA and its executive director, Alejandra Gomez, were the lead plaintiffs in the case, along with Victory PAC and state Rep. Oscar De Los Santos. Other groups joined in: Poder in Action, Inc., the Phoenix Legal Action Network, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. All were seeking a preliminary injunction and a judgment barring the Secure Border Act from the ballot.

The act was a hot-button issue in the final month of the legislative session. Its main provision — state enforcement of border crossings — hinges on whether a federal appeals court upholds a Texas law that proposes the same authority for Texas law enforcement.

Federal law makes it clear border enforcement is a federal matter but states like Texas and Arizona are testing that standard.

Arizona Republican lawmakers earlier this year passed a similar bill, but Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed it. Lawmakers resurrected it as a ballot referral, which does not need any action from the governor.

The ruling sets the stage for a contentious campaign. LUCHA and other groups have likened it to Arizona's infamous SB1070, which a decade ago brought national attention to Arizona, resulting in boycotts and numerous protests. Critics of that measure have said they are better prepared now to fight this border-related act, citing their experience from the 1070 struggle.

Reach the reporter at [email protected] or at 602-228-7566 and follow her on Threads as well as on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter @maryjpitzl.

Support local journalism. Subscribe to azcentral.com today.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: AZ judge rejects legal challenge to House Concurrent Resolution 2060