By Howard Fischer
Mail | X: @azcapmedia

Speaker Ben Toma of Peoria appears miffed that a majority of House Republicans are going public with an effort to place a Texas-style border enforcement proposal on the November ballot.

“I definitely don't understand the timing,'' Toma, a Republican, said. "It sounds like they don't know what they're doing and are new at this.''

In a floor speech earlier this week, Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, noted that Gov. Katie Hobbs already vetoed such a proposal. And the Legislature is at a point in the session where no more committees that could review a plan to get around the governor are scheduled to meet.

So, with Toma in the chair, the Kolodin said he and others want "a special committee hearing'' to advance the issue to the November ballot. And he put it in the form of a letter, signed by 25 of the 31 House Republicans.

Kolodin also posted the letter and signatures online.

Toma appeared miffed that Kolodin was making a public issue out of it. And the speaker told Capitol Media Services that he and Senate President Warren Petersen already have been talking about what should and should not go on the ballot.

"I'm not sure what he's doing,'' he said of Kolodin.

"He should have asked before he did it,'' Toma said. "Because, now, it just sort of makes it strange considering we were already planning on having a conversation on border issues and a possible ballot referral.''

Toma said Kolodin and the others who signed the letter were "sort of jumping the gun on things.''

"I'm not sure what the benefit is,'' he said.

Kolodin is a first-term lawmaker as are many of the signers. But the list includes several veterans like Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria, who was first elected in 2012.

Toma said he is sympathetic to the issue. He is even trying to advance his own, separate, border security proposal which, for the moment, is stuck in the Senate.

But as to the Texas-style law, the speaker said the push to send it to voters is premature. And that, Toma said, starts with the fact that the legality of the Texas measure is still being litigated.

That statute, like the one Republican lawmakers here approved earlier this year only to be vetoed by Hobbs, would empower state and local police to arrest anyone who entered this country at anywhere other than an official port of entry. It also would allow judges to suspend prosecution if the person agreed to return to his or her own country.

Democrats said the Arizona proposal would have led to racial profiling, as there would be no way for a police officer who is not standing at the border to know how someone entered this country - or whether they actually are citizens.

Hobbs, in her veto, said the issue is simpler: Problems at the border are a federal issue.

Toma isn't buying that. But he said it makes no sense to push ahead right now.

He pointed out that a federal appeals court in Texas is reviewing the law there after the Department of Justice filed suit. The three-judge panel has put the law on hold, with Chief Judge Priscilla Richman writing that it is the president's role "to decide whether, and if so, how to pursue noncitizens illegally in the United States.''

With the legal issue up in the air, Toma said there is no reason to act now on something that, once approved by the Legislature, would automatically go to voters in November. He said the court could decide, for example, that only some parts of that Texas law that Arizona wants to emulate are constitutional.

"You don't want to rush and put something on the ballot when there is no deadline,'' Toma said, with no sign that the Legislature is anywhere near ending this year's session.

"November is not coming any faster if you put something on the ballot today or you put something on the ballot in a month when we're ready to sine die,'' he said, the Latin phrase that literally means "without a day'' but is used to refer to the last day of the session when lawmakers adjourn without a date to reconvene.

Kolodin, however, questioned the idea of waiting for the appellate court to rule on the Texas law. And regardless of what it rules, he said it won't be the last word, with whoever loses in the fight - whether Texas or the U.S. Department of Justice - virtually certain to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We know we're not going to have a SCOTUS ruling prior to the election,'' Kolodin said. So, he said there's no reason for lawmakers here to wait.

Kolodin is presuming that the high court will allow the Texas law to stand.

That is because the justices, in a divided decision, had agreed to let the Texas law take effect while the case is pending. But the justices did not rule on its constitutionality. And that allowed the appellate court, in the interim, to subsequently issue a stay.

What has to be addressed more immediately, Kolodin said, is the logistical question of how to get such a measure on the ballot here in Arizona. And that has to do with the legislative calendar and rules that preclude introduction of measures and amendments not already in the pipeline

Only thing is, no one ever introduced a formal resolution to enact a Texas-style law, instead putting all their legislative eggs into pushing statutory proposals subject to gubernatorial vetoes.

"The immediate deadline issue is we're past the bill introduction deadline,'' Kolodin said.

Toma, however, said those concerns ignore the fact that there are various procedures to get around that deadline. That includes the power of the Rules Committee in either chamber to allow a late introduction of legislation - and his ability and that of Petersen to allow a committee to meet even though the deadline has passed.

Kolodin, however, said he and the other GOP lawmakers who signed the letter want to push the issue along beyond claims that something could happen.

"There have been talks about this, that or the other thing,'' he told Capitol Media Services. "I haven't heard anything concrete in terms of it.''

What Kolodin said he is trying to do is ensure as soon as possible that there really will be a committee to hear and approve a measure to put the issue on the ballot.

"And I would like to let leadership and everybody else know that that's the desire of the body,'' he said.

Kolodin insisted, though, he wasn't trying to pressure the speaker into calling a special committee hearing.

"I just want him to know that the body would like to see that,'' he said. "That's all.''

But Toma isn't alone in wondering why Kolodin believes that leadership needed to hear that message. Petersen said there has been a plan since before the session began in January.

"Our plan has been to put the rest of the bills on her desk, see what happens with SB 4, and have a 'border security day' where we look at initiatives,'' he said.

"If the governor signs our stuff, great,'' Petersen said. "If the governor vetoes our stuff, then we're looking forward to putting an initiative'' on the ballot.

And the public push?

"I didn't understand the letter when we've already talked about it,'' Petersen said.

He also said that what eventually makes it to the ballot on border security may go beyond SB 4. What is also still pending is HCR 2060.

This measure, crafted by Toma, seeks to put teeth into existing laws that require employers to use the federal E-Verify system to determine if job applicants are in the country. And it would extend the requirement to use E-Verify to applicants for certain public benefits.

HCR 2060 cleared the state House. But it never got a hearing in the Senate before the deadline for committees to hear bills amid questions about its effects on some businesses.

Petersen, however, said there is still the possibility of resurrecting some of the provisions and putting them into a single border plan - along with the Texas-style law - that would go on the November ballot.

The key, he said, is getting something that is acceptable to the 16 Republican senators and 31 House Republicans.

We’d like to invite our readers to submit their civil comments on this issue. Email AZOpinions@iniusa.org.