Attorney General Terry Goddard is expected to release a formal opinion on the meaning of “public benefits,” the key clause of contention in Prop. 200, before the vote on the measure is canvassed and declared official.

Meantime, a group of opponents of the proposition announced plans to challenge the ballot measure as soon as the governor’s proclamation of the canvass makes it (and all other election results) effective on Nov. 22.

Prop. 200 includes a requirement that state and local government employees who administer public benefits that are not required by the federal government to verify the identity and eligibility of applicants and to refuse to accept an identification card unless the issuing agency verified the immigration status of the applicant

Anthony Rodgers, director of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, requested the formal opinion in a Nov. 3 letter to Mr. Goddard.

Mr. Rodgers wrote:

“In light of the passage by Arizona voters yesterday [Nov. 2] of Prop. 200, I am writing to seek your immediate opinion regarding the meaning of the ‘state and local public benefits’ as the term is used within Prop. 200. Given the short period of time between the election and the likely effective date of Prop. 200, I would appreciate your response as soon as possible so that our agency can properly prepare to implement Prop. 200.”

Andrea Esquer, spokeswoman for Mr. Goddard, said Nov. 9 that the attorney general anticipates having prepared the formal opinion on how to implement Prop. 200 by the time the vote is canvassed.

Mr. Goddard, as attorney general, also will have to defend Prop. 200 in court if the lawsuit against it is filed as promised in a Nov. 5 news conference.

Janet Murguia, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Council of La Raza, said Prop. 200 won in Arizona because it “was a referendum on the problem [of illegal immigration].”

“We all continue to be very frustrated by the immigration situation,” she said, “but we want to remind folks this still is not the answer.”

Legal Challenge

Danny Ortega, a partner in the Phoenix firm of Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega, declined to speak specifically about the legal strategy in challenging the proposition, but he said the lawsuit will seek to have the entire measure declared unconstitutional.

Heading up the challenge is the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which Mr. Ortega said led the successful challenge to California’s Prop. 187, a ballot measure in 1994 that sought to deny illegal immigrants a much broader range of benefits, including federally required benefits.

Mr. Ortega said he is not concerned whether the U.S. Department of Justice might approve a section of Prop. 200 that requires prospective voters to present identification to register to vote and again at the polls before casting a ballot.

The Justice Department will review the proposition only in terms of whether it conforms with the U.S. Voting Rights Act.

“You can still challenge it on the basis of the [U.S.] Constitution,” Mr. Ortega said. “Preclearance [by the Justice Department] doesn’t deal with the constitutional issues.” Arizona is one of several states that must obtain federal approval of any changes to elections.

Prop. 200 also will require government employees to verify eligibility for “state and local public benefits,” including proof of citizenship. But Prop. 200 does not define “public benefits,” so a definition will have to be hashed out in court – assuming the measure survives the court challenge.

Randy Pullen, chairman of the committee that promoted Prop. 200, said his group will seek to be a party to the lawsuit and will not leave the defense to the Attorney General’s Office alone.

He said he could not provide a complete list of what benefits would or would not be covered under the measure but that it was intended to be broader than simply public assistance for the poor that is not required by federal law.

He said some of the benefits that would require proof of citizenship would be occupational licenses, postsecondary education, public housing assistance and certain disability programs.

Rep. Pearce: Measure To Be Placed In Welfare Code

But Rep. Russell Pearce, R-18, said the measure was written to be placed in Title 46, the state welfare code.

“If there’s any question about that, I’m ready to offer a bill in the next session to clear it up,” Mr. Pearce said.

Amending a voter initiative requires a three-quarters majority in both chambers of the Legislature. —