... which, like earlier California Prop 167, denies welfare/medicaid and other social services benefits to people who are residing in the US illegally. This is the second time such a measure has been approved by voters, and also will be the second time that such a measure will be dragged through the courts (the California court declared it unconstitutional, and required that California taxpayers continue to fund welfare/medicaid benefits for illegal aliens residing in the state).
However what's different this time is that, in light of republican election victories, the Arizona courts are much less likely to strike down this measure. As a result, it's a virtual certainty that liberal law groups will appeal to Federal courts. When that happens, it opens the door for every single state as well as the Federal gov't to require that welfare/medicaid benefits only be paid out to legal residents.
Lawyers gear up for fight over immigrant measure
03:32 PM Mountain Standard Time on Friday, November 5, 2004
Associated Press Report
PHOENIX (AP) -- Lawyers are gearing up to explain, challenge and defend Proposition 200, a voter-approved measure intended to keep illegal immigrants from voting or receiving some government services.
Also Online
Prop. 200 sends fear through immigrant community
Poll: Prop. 200 won support from blue-collar workers
Arizonans pass Proposition 200
Lawyers analyze Arizona immigration measure to determine impact
Proposition 200 opponents said Friday they will file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court to challenge on constitutional grounds all provisions of the initiative measure, which voters approved Tuesday, 56 percent to 44 percent.
"We lost the battle, but we're not going to lose the war," attorney Danny Ortega said. "We should have beaten at the polls, but I truthfully and honestly believe we will beat in the courts."
Proposition 200's provisions include a requirement that Arizonans provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and that they provide ID when voting at polls. It also would require proof of citizenship or legal immigration status to obtain some government services. Finally, it would make it a misdemeanor for public employees to not report illegal immigrants trying to obtain some public services.
Ortega said the challenge will be filed soon after state officials canvass the election results, expected on Nov. 22. Once the canvass has taken place, Gov. Janet Napolitano has said she will sign a proclamation declaring it law.
Ortega declined to name the specific legal grounds for the challenge, which he said has drawn numerous offers from lawyers willing to work on it for free.
In other Proposition 200 legal developments:
- A spokeswoman for Attorney General Terry Goddard said his office will issue a legal opinion before Nov. 22 to answer the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System's question on what "state and local public benefits" are covered. AHCCCS provides health care, mostly under the federal Medicaid program for low-income people.
Goddard will try to craft an opinion that also provides guidance to other state agencies, spokeswoman Andrea Esquer said.
Goddard opposed passage of Proposition 200 but will defend it in court now that voters have passed it, Esquer said. "That's our job once a decision has been made and something's become law."
- A group that supported Proposition 200 said it will seek to intervene in the legal challenges to help Goddard's office defend Proposition 200 law.
Randy Pullen, chairman of Yes on 200, said he expects Goddard to mount a strong defense. "That being said, it's such a critical issue that you don't want to leave anything to chance."
Pullen said the voter provisions are "pretty straight forward," particularly since other states already require voters to show ID, but there is a lack of clarity on what public services are covered. "That's going to be adjudicated."
- The Phoenix City Council on Wednesday will consider whether to authorize the city to defend any of the city's 14,000 employees who may be accused of violating a Proposition 200 provision that requires public workers to check immigration eligibility of applicants for public services.
Though the city is developing policies and procedures to comply with the law, there is debate about its provisions.
"If city employees are acting in good faith in attempting to follow the law, and following city policies and procedures with respect to the law, they should not be required to defend themselves or pay the legal costs associated with implementing this proposition," the request to the council said.
Sheryl Sculley, assistant city manager, said Phoenix has asked Goddard to provide a legal opinion on Proposition 200's impact on city services and that city officials expect that guidance by Nov. 22.
"We know that Proposition 200 will affect city operations, but it's complicated and we don't know what city operations it will impact as yet," Sculley said.
The City Council is prepared to let the city attorney go to court for a judicial interpretation of Proposition 200's requirements, but the city attorney so far does not feel there is a need to do that, Sculley said.




Bookmarks