Skip to comments.Referendum could delay AZ immigration law to 2012
Posted on 04/29/2010 2:59:50 AM PDT by ketelone
Challenges to Arizona's tough new law targeting illegal immigration have started to emerge, with a Latino clergy group planning to file the first lawsuit seeking to halt enforcement of the crackdown and others aiming to block the law at the ballot box.
The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders says it will file suit Thursday in Phoenix federal court, the first of several lawsuits expected in coming months.
A draft of the complaint obtained by The Associated Press shows the coalition will seek an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law. The group argues federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders, and that Arizona's law violates due-process rights by allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be detained before they're convicted.
Other Hispanic and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, are also planning lawsuits. And U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the federal government may challenge the law.
On Wednesday, a group filed papers to launch a referendum drive that could put the law on hold until 2012 if organizers wait until the last minute to turn in petition signatures needed to get the measure on the ballot.
Opponents of the law have until late July or early August to file the more than 76,000 signatures _ the same time the law is set to go into effect. If they get enough signatures, the law would be delayed until a vote.
But the deadline to put a question on the November ballot is July 1, and a referendum filing later than that could delay a vote on the law until 2012, officials with the Secretary of State's Office said.
"That would be a pretty big advantage" to the law's opponents, said Andrew Chavez, head of a Phoenix-based petition-circulating firm and chairman of the One Arizona referendum campaign.
The legislation's chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said he has no doubt voters will support the new law at the ballot box, which would then protect it from repeal by the Legislature. In Arizona, measures approved by voters can only be repealed at the ballot box.
The law, which thrust Arizona into the national spotlight since Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed it last week, requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.
The clergy group's lawsuit targets a provision allowing police to arrest illegal-immigrant day laborers seeking work on the street or anyone trying to hire them, according to the draft. It says the solicitation of work is protected by the First Amendment.
State Rep. Ben Miranda, a Phoenix Democrat who will serve as the local attorney on the case, said it was important to file the suit quickly to show local Latinos and the rest of the country that there's still a chance the law won't be enacted.
"I think there's real damage being caused right now," Miranda said. "How do you measure the kind of fear ... going on in many parts of this community?"
At least three Arizona cities also are considering lawsuits to block the law. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon said the measure would be "economically devastating," and called on the City Council to sue the state to stop it from taking effect.
The council rejected that idea Tuesday, yet the mayor told reporters he retained legal counsel to prepare a lawsuit to file on behalf of the city.
Tucson leaders also are considering their options to block the law, and Flagstaff City Councilman Rick Swanson said the city had a duty to protect its residents who might be targeted.
Meanwhile, the effect of the law continued to ripple beyond Arizona.
A Republican Texas lawmaker said she'll introduce a measure similar to the Arizona law next year. Texas Rep. Debbie Riddle of Tomball said she will push for the law in the January legislative session, according to Wednesday's editions of the San Antonio Express-News and Houston Chronicle.
And Republicans running for governor in Colorado and Minnesota expressed support for the crackdown. "I'd do something very similar" if elected," Former Rep. Scott McInnis, told KHOW-AM radio in Denver.
no you’re not, it’;s the far left, illegals and a couple of Ron Paul idiots who are.
Having been through the immigration for years and legally I might add then they are only enforcing federal law so if bozo does not like federal law then he should change it
Look why doesn’t the far left, the kooks and illegals actually really say what they want.
no borders at all after all that is what they really want
I dunno -- maybe something like once they are granted citizenship all the men over a certain age and below a certain age are going to be drafted and sent to fight in multiples of wars like Iraq. And maybe, throw in that the government has plans THEN to lock down the border so that they can't escape back to Mexico...we need to get creative. Just start massive disinfo campaigns aimed at making them distrust the Democrat party and scare them.
To the “Progressives” it's not about doing the right thing. It's all about votes and power.
The “Progressives” have already demonstrated their number one priority is their control and implementation of their agenda, not the good of the USA.
If their successful in their amnesty push, voting rights for these illegal immigrants will follow shortly.
We've become a nation of selective law enforcement and are becoming a nation without borders. What follows next is the loss of sovereignty and anarchy.
Finally a state law that helps American Workers get the jobs. With Utah, Ohio, Texas and a few others are working on passing a similar law, maybe all illegals, from any country will go home and work in their country or go to SF, Nanny P's district. What part of illegal doesn't Washington DC understand. Winds of change are in the air and coming soon.
Arizona Chamber of Commerce Directory. http://www.azchamber.com/localchambers/index.cfm?ID=34
don’t the sigs have to be registered voters?
It is too bad that someone in the blogosphere does not do a short biography on Congressman Grijalva. Ironically, as a local politician of limited intelligence but easily swayed, he was the pointman financed by Jewish interests determined to halt the creation of a Middle East Institute at the U. of Arizona with Arab funds. After that effort ended successfully, Grijalva had a financial base. Then when the state was Gerrymandered to limit the impact of the Latino vote, he ran and won in the Latino district. As the years have passed Grijalva has become two faced, both bad; he supports the most radical of the irridentist Mexican movements, and his economic philosophy has become pure Marxism. In sum, he is still a stupid man, but now he is a dangerous radical.
Think of the improvements to that country that can be made with the skills that have been learned here in the US.
I’ve got to answer two others who give essentially the same response as you. I understand that Progressives are sick and tired of this persuasion shtick and want to go directly to command and control, but my point was how stupid do people have to be to not see that you can’t make two things that are identical to be different. A=A. I guess I was suggesting the wrong people to be delusional. It would be anyone fool enough to trust the current government and MSM.
I’m just not ready to be a willing field-hand for the new plantation owners. I’m thinking those in bed with the MSM/government aren’t either and are angling for redneck jobs. Cracking the whip on slaves can be fun, if you don’t mind considering the crackees to be less human than you are (I’m real short on being able to do that).
see my post #28
see my post #28
Yes and good point. A good conservative counter is to have the ‘offended’ illegal supporting group verify that everyone of those 76,000 signatures is a living legal resident of AZ!!
The IRS won’t do a thing. They’re too busy hassling car wash owners who owe 4 cents.
I think I understand where you are coming from. IMO many people are so disillusioned with the process or stuck on themselves that they burned out. They just don’t care and prefer to stick their heads in the sand.
I’ve read that even during the Rev. War only about 30% of the population supported the cause. With another 30% supporting the British and the remaining refusing to take a position.
We need to learn from our enemy and use modern media to our advantage. Stop having unrealistic expectations that people will suddenly wake up and fight. A large percentage won’t until the oven doors close on them.
So if the federal government REFUSES to protect its citizens, then the state is PREVENTED from doing it?
From pretty much all petitions for a ballot initiative I have seen, the 76,000 have to be registered voters.
We are rapidly devolving into a turd world country. Our voting system is one of the most corrupt in the world, our politicians refuse to enforce laws to protect the citizens from an illegal alien invasion, the president himself is neck deep in a scheme to steal $10 TRILLION a year from the people by forcing them to pay for “carbon credits”, nearly half the people who work pay no payroll taxes at all, the various socialists in the Obastard regime are collaborating to shut down free speech on the radio and the Internet, and it goes on and on and on.
This is totally bogus.
People are just going to do what is necessary regardless. They played a dangerous game when the made disregarding the law a possibility.
Allow me to parse this: