More questions than answers greeted the employer sanctions bill in the Senate, but one thing is clear among Republican leaders — they would rather have the bill passed, even if they disagree with some of its provisions, than let it go to the ballot.
“I would, quite frankly, say that my biggest concern in this is that this [will] get on the ballot, and if it’s on the ballot it passes and then we can’t fix it,” Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor said. “I would rather pass out of here something statutorily that probably I don’t agree with everything, but at the same time I will have the ability, when we see the problems, to come back and fix them.”
Rep. Russell Pearce, R-18, the sponsor of the employer sanctions legislation, has vowed to organize an initiative campaign to have the voters institute employer sanctions in 2008 if his bill is either weakened or vetoed by the governor.
Lawmakers are opposed to creating sanctions at the ballot box because of a ballot measure voters approved in 1998 that prohibits the Legislature from repealing or amending any voter-approved law unless three-fourths of the members of each house of the Legislature vote to amend the measure.
There is little disagreement among Republicans in both the House and Senate about the need to penalize businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. However, with the bill now in the Senate — H2779 passed the House on March 15 by a 46-13 vote — Republicans there are reviewing the legislation and identifying problems in it.
Verschoor, a District 22 Republican, says he sees a lot of things that he does not like in the bill, primarily the negative effect it may have on small businesses.
The legislation would require all businesses to file an affidavit with the Secretary of State’s Office declaring they will not hire illegal workers. Businesses found to be in violation of the affidavit will face increasing civil and criminal penalties. Three-time offenders could be fined up to $150,000 and the loss of their business license.
Sen. Tom O’Halleran, R-1, says there is no need to require all businesses, including those that currently follow the law, to fill out a sworn statement when a 20-year-old federal law that prohibits businesses from knowingly employing illegal immigrants is already on the books.
“Why are we putting [businesses] through all of this when all we have to do is enforce current federal law?” he asked.
Burden of proof
The way the bill is written, O’Halleran said, puts the burden of proof on the shoulders of businesses instead of on the government. If a business is investigated, it is responsible for proving it took steps to follow the federal law when it hired its employees. He called it an “entrapment philosophy” that will snare business that didn’t purposely hire illegal immigrants.
“The whole precedent of having every employer in the state have to sign an affidavit is mind-boggling,” he said. “It’s such a bad precedent for Arizona. It’s not needed.”
The bill has been assigned to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Chairman Bob Burns, R-9, said the bill will be heard, but he couldn’t guarantee when it would happen, as there are questions about the legislation. Getting the answers, he said, may take some time.
Burns also said Republicans won’t be the only senators involved in deliberations on the bill.
“I’m sure that the Democrat caucus is going to want to know the answer of those same types of questions,” he said.
Sen. Robert Blendu, R-12, said the Senate will take all the time it needs before acting on the bill to make sure it is sound legislation.
“We are just now taking a look at it. There is a lot of stuff in there. And that requires a lot of questions. So I know that some people want things like that fast tracked,” he said. “I think the general thinking right now is we’d like to have a good look at that and see what it really means in real life.”
Verschoor said the bill will likely not receive any major changes in the Senate.
“I think it has already been made clear to me there are people who want some changes in this bill, and I understand and appreciate it, but I think you have to weigh everything and I hope we are taking into consideration what is actually at risk here as we go through this process,” he said. “I hope there are no major changes because the last thing I want to see is something on the ballot.”
Pearce says Senate Republican leaders are committed to voting on the bill in its current form and he expects “zero” amendments.
“Leadership is quite aware that bill is well written,” he said. “To tweak and mess with it is inappropriate.
“Leadership is in agreement with me and would like the bill to be unamended and go straight to the governor.”
With the threat of taking the issue to the ballot next year, Pearce is able to have the one thing he wanted this year: control over what happens to his bill. For Verschoor, that trumps the bill’s shortcomings.
“Do I have concerns, things maybe I wouldn’t like to see on the bill? Yes, but at this point again, I’m going to be quite clear on that,” he said. “There is probably stuff in there that I don’t like, but if it goes to the ballot, that stuff is going to be on a ballot measure that I don’t like and I won’t ever be able to come back and address those issues.”
Senate reporter Luige del Puerto contributed to this article.