State high court boots cities' lawsuit

The Arizona Supreme Court refused late Wednesday to block enactment of a new state law that requires public employees to report illegal immigrants.

Without ruling on the merits of the law, the justices said that the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, which had asked that the law be struck down as illegal, had not shown that the issue merited being taken directly to the state's high court.

Ken Strobeck, executive director of the league, said he was "shocked and disappointed'' that the justices did not see fit to weigh in on the question, at least at this point. He said no decision has been made whether to try again, this time by filing the case in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Strobeck said cities are concerned about several provisions of the law, part of a package approved by lawmakers in August to help balance the budget.

He specifically cited sections on illegal immigration which spell out what documents applicants for various public services must provide to prove they are in this country legally.

It also says that any public employee who fails to report discovered violations of federal immigration law are guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. That carries a potential of four months in jail and a $750 fine.

That same penalty would apply to the worker's supervisor if he or she knew of the failure to report the illegal immigrant and did not direct the worker to file the report.

And the law allows state residents who believe the law has been broken to file suit.

Strobeck said cities are concerned about the liability of their workers and the potential to become embroiled in lawsuits.

But in challenging the law, the cities dealt not with the merits of the law but the way it was enacted.

Specifically, the lawsuit points out that the August special session was called to deal with budget issues. And the measure in which the illegal immigration language was included deals with changes in policy related to state spending.

That, the league's lawsuit claims, makes the provisions about illegal immigration unconstitutional because they have nothing to do with the budget. Strobeck said cities have no interest in providing services to illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit also uses the same arguments to void other non-budget provisions in the same bill, including one that retroactively freezes any increase in "impact fees'' that cities can charge developers.

Yuma Mayor Larry Nelson, who serves as the secretary-treasurer of the league, said he voted against proceeding with the lawsuit because the bill's moratorium on impact fees would not affect the city of Yuma.

"We already froze our fees," he said.

He does, however, take exception to what he sees as the state trying to dictate to cities through the provision. "I think cities should have control over such issues as impact fees."

House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, has defended the changes, saying that they relate to money the government spends on providing services. Lawmakers also have argued that the freeze on impact fees, saying that move could help stimulate the home building industry which affects total state revenues.

Those arguments now will have to be presented to a trial court judge — if the league decides to pursue the case. Strobeck acknowledged that it could be years before the case gets through a trial, goes to the court of appeals and eventually winds up back before the state Supreme Court.

---
Yuma Sun Staff Writer Joyce Lobeck contributed to this report.