Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) is taking a stand against what they consider a problematic ballot proposition. In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, the advocacy group aims to strike down HCR 2060, dubbed the "Secure the Fare Border Fare Tax," citing constitutionality concerns. According to AZPM News, LUCHA's argument is that the proposition unlawfully bundles multiple subjects, from immigration to employment law, in violation of Arizona's state constitution which demands that each act stick to a single subject.
The initiative receiving support from Republican lawmakers bypassed the desk of Governor Katie Hobbs and is slated for the November ballot. During a floor debate, House Speaker Ben Toma highlighted the measure's intended enhancements such as tougher sentences for fentanyl dealers and reinforcement of employment eligibility checks. LUCHA contends, filing the suit not to block immigration reform outright, but to contest the mingling of disparate legislative issues under one umbrella. Chris Gilfillan, LUCHA's political director, expressly told AZPM News, "When an act combines unrelated subjects in violation of the Single Subject Rule, courts will not attempt to ascertain which of the subjects is primary but will strike the measure in its entirety."
Governor Hobbs, while blocked from direct intervention, criticized the proposition on social media. She indicated that not only would it harm local businesses and complicate law enforcement efforts, but it would also burden Arizona's budget with the responsibility of grappling with what is seen as federal-level issues. The governor's stance is that while public safety remains a priority, state resources should not be stretched to clean up federal oversights.
According to LUCHA, the ballot measure's fate may also energize voter turnout. Gilfillan expects a surge in motivation among specific demographics, as per AZPM News "Our calculation is that HCR 2060 will instead motivate Latinos and women to come out and vote by the droves." In the midst of these proceedings, what remains clear is that the debate on state versus federal jurisdiction in immigration issues is not one to fade quietly into the desert sunset.
