PHOENIX (By Monica Alonzo-Dunsmoor,
Arizona Republic) September 10, 2006 Phoenix residents won't be voting
on a controversial measure that aims to reform the city's immigration
enforcement laws. At least not in November.
Judge Janet Barton of Maricopa County Superior Court on Friday yanked Proposition 405 from Phoenix's Nov. 7 ballot after she ruled that a city charter provision that granted proposition backers extra time to get the needed signatures conflicted with state law.
As a result, the immigration initiative came up more than 600 signatures short of qualifying for the ballot.
Latino community leaders applauded the judge's decision, but proponents of the measure say they will appeal that decision to the Arizona Supreme Court next week.
"We're very elated," said Danny Ortega, one of the attorneys behind the lawsuit. "It's a victory for the Latino community."
The proposal would require police officers to act as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and enforce federal immigration laws. It would also require Phoenix to enter an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security and "designate officers" to act as federal immigration agents.
The measure ended up in court after a coalition of mostly Latino groups joined forces to stop the measure. Three Phoenix residents then filed a lawsuit on Aug. 25 alleging, in part, that a city charter provision violates state law by allowing an extra 10 days for proponents of a measure to turn in additional signatures if they come up short on their first try.
Barton agreed, and it was that decision that rendered invalid the second batch of 892 valid signatures filed in support of the measure. Randy Pullen, leading a group called Protect Our City, had fallen short 684 valid signatures when he first filed.
Even though Phoenix voters approved the "second chance" signatures in early 1970s, city laws can't conflict with state laws, the judge decided. The state gives residents only one shot to gather enough petition signatures.
"The judge was wrong," Pullen said. "We followed the city's rules, and we turned in enough signatures."
City Attorney Gary Verberg said the appeal is important to Phoenix because the Supreme Court's ruling will provide the city direction for future elections on whether the provision is legal.
For Pullen and his group, it will determine whether the measure ends up on a March ballot.
The current policy for Phoenix police officers who encounter undocumented immigrants instructs them not to arrest a person if the person's only violation is of a federal immigration law.
That policy also states that police should not notify immigration officials when an undocumented person is a victim of or witness to a crime, has committed only a minor traffic offense or is seeking medical treatment.
Critics of Pullen's measure fear the proposed law would lead to racial profiling.
They also believe that it would unduly occupy police officers who would otherwise be fighting street crime.
Jake Jacobsen, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, said the initiative is "ill-advised" because it eliminates a police officer's ability to prioritize whom to help or what threat to address based on immediate circumstances.
Pullen has said that if the measure passed and city officials didn't comply with it, he and others would sue the city.
"That is no way to run a Police Department and no way to keep a community safe," Jacobsen said. "The very idea that Randy Pullen will sue individual police officers who fail to agree with his sense of priority is frightening, chilling and a lousy way to say thanks to the men and women who put their lives on the line for us all every day."
Judge Janet Barton of Maricopa County Superior Court on Friday yanked Proposition 405 from Phoenix's Nov. 7 ballot after she ruled that a city charter provision that granted proposition backers extra time to get the needed signatures conflicted with state law.
As a result, the immigration initiative came up more than 600 signatures short of qualifying for the ballot.
Latino community leaders applauded the judge's decision, but proponents of the measure say they will appeal that decision to the Arizona Supreme Court next week.
"We're very elated," said Danny Ortega, one of the attorneys behind the lawsuit. "It's a victory for the Latino community."
The proposal would require police officers to act as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and enforce federal immigration laws. It would also require Phoenix to enter an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security and "designate officers" to act as federal immigration agents.
The measure ended up in court after a coalition of mostly Latino groups joined forces to stop the measure. Three Phoenix residents then filed a lawsuit on Aug. 25 alleging, in part, that a city charter provision violates state law by allowing an extra 10 days for proponents of a measure to turn in additional signatures if they come up short on their first try.
Barton agreed, and it was that decision that rendered invalid the second batch of 892 valid signatures filed in support of the measure. Randy Pullen, leading a group called Protect Our City, had fallen short 684 valid signatures when he first filed.
Even though Phoenix voters approved the "second chance" signatures in early 1970s, city laws can't conflict with state laws, the judge decided. The state gives residents only one shot to gather enough petition signatures.
"The judge was wrong," Pullen said. "We followed the city's rules, and we turned in enough signatures."
City Attorney Gary Verberg said the appeal is important to Phoenix because the Supreme Court's ruling will provide the city direction for future elections on whether the provision is legal.
For Pullen and his group, it will determine whether the measure ends up on a March ballot.
The current policy for Phoenix police officers who encounter undocumented immigrants instructs them not to arrest a person if the person's only violation is of a federal immigration law.
That policy also states that police should not notify immigration officials when an undocumented person is a victim of or witness to a crime, has committed only a minor traffic offense or is seeking medical treatment.
Critics of Pullen's measure fear the proposed law would lead to racial profiling.
They also believe that it would unduly occupy police officers who would otherwise be fighting street crime.
Jake Jacobsen, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, said the initiative is "ill-advised" because it eliminates a police officer's ability to prioritize whom to help or what threat to address based on immediate circumstances.
Pullen has said that if the measure passed and city officials didn't comply with it, he and others would sue the city.
"That is no way to run a Police Department and no way to keep a community safe," Jacobsen said. "The very idea that Randy Pullen will sue individual police officers who fail to agree with his sense of priority is frightening, chilling and a lousy way to say thanks to the men and women who put their lives on the line for us all every day."
