The lawsuit filed by a coalition of businessmen only adds fuel to the initiative that seeks even harsher penalties against employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers, according to a key architect of the controversial employers’ sanctions law.
Sen. Bob Burns, R-9, who worked with Rep. Russell Pearce, R-18, in shepherding the language of the law, said businessmen who think voters are only “focused on illegal aliens as opposed to the illegal employer” are “misreading the voters.”
While the lawsuit is hardly unexpected — Burns said he could hardly blame businesses for the fear the new law has spawned — it might have undermined one of their goals when they passed Pearce’s H2779.
“The thing is now that the lawsuit is there I think it probably energizes the people that are working on the initiative,” Burns said. “Part of the goal for us was that if we got a bill out maybe we could maybe cool down the support for the initiative and get something on the street that we could field test and find out how it worked and make changes to it if necessary.”
Fear of voter initiative was motivating factor in passage
Indeed, fear of the initiative was a recurrent theme in the crafting of the law. Policy makers referred to it during debates on and off the floor, in discussions with media, and during caucus meetings. Besides the merits of H2779 itself, arguments were formed and cast knowing that if the Legislature failed to pass a bill, an initiative was likely to find its way to the ballot.
Many lawmakers agreed—and they emphasized so in public—that it was better to pass a bill that, while it might contain flaws, could be fixed through future legislation. An initiative would have virtually tied the hands of lawmakers; the public approved in 1998 a proposal to require a three fourths vote by each chamber of the Legislature to amend a voter approved proposition. Also, the changes to the measure must only further its intent.
State senators said they were also convinced that if the initiative, harsher because it would pull business licenses out on first offense, would be overwhelmingly approved by voters, whom they described as frustrated over the federal government’s inaction on illegal immigration, a pressing and emotional issue in border states like Arizona.
Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor demonstrated the complicated choice that he and his colleagues faced when he had raised concerns about how H2779, which at the time carried the affidavit provision, could affect small businesses that did not have the resources to check the background of people they employ, like bigger firms with human resources staff do.
Still Verschoor remarked, “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.”
Other policy makers argued that the Legislature should not pass a bill just because of the threat of an initiative; they should approve a measure if, by their assessment, it is the best solution at hand. Yet in the end only a handful of lawmakers—four in the Senate and 11 in the House—opposed H2279. Many of those who had raised concerns against it eventually backed the bill.
Voters hungry for illegal immigration action
Lawmakers don’t have to look very far for proof that voters clamor for action on the illegal immigration front. Last year, the public overwhelmingly passed four immigration-related ballot initiatives, including a proposal to make English the state’s official language and a measure to deny bail to illegal residents accused of serious felonies.
Observers said lawmakers’ fear at the initiative was substantiated when the public approved a proposal establishing a minimum wage of $6.75 per hour. The ballot initiative, however, did not exempt companies or organizations that employ disabled workers. As a result, companies fear they would be sued for violating the law. The initiative led to a debate among advocates of the disabled, some arguing the law could force those with diminished capabilities out of work and others saying the handicapped community should get equal wages.
Indeed, a recent effort to amend the state’s initiative laws was soundly defeated in committee, revealing a deep skeptical regard against any attempt to change the initiative system, which grassroots groups defend as a salient point of the state Constitution.
“People talk about the fact that the Legislature had a gun to their head because of the initiative. But there’s more to it than that,” Burns said in a recent interview.
The overriding reason why an initiative against employers who hire undocumented workers is out there is because the public wants something done about illegal immigration, he said. The initiative is harsher than the newly signed law since the former requires the revocation of a business license after just one conviction. The law, on the other hand, only mandates the revocation of a license on a second offense within three years.
Burns: don’t underestimate power of voter sentiment
Burns warned against underestimating voters’ sentiment on the issue.
Cash is necessary in any campaign, but the size of one’s war chest alone does not decide the outcome of the race, according to him.
“I think if the initiative goes to the ballot, which I think it probably will, based on what I’m hearing of the success they are having with collecting signatures, it will qualify for the ballot. If it will qualify for the ballot, I believe it will pass,” he said.
Burns said it proves that money that makes the difference because the opponents of the initiative are organized, and will have the war chest to fight it.