HCR 2060’s Day at the Senate
I have seen spent some interesting days at the Arizona State Legislature over the last few years, but I think Wednesday, May 22nd’s Senate vote on HCR2060 (click for bill text) was the most intense I’ve seen.
For those of you who don’t know, HCR2060 is the ballot referral which would, if approved by voters in the November election, make crossing the Arizona border anywhere other than an official port of entry a state crime. It is strikingly similar to 2010’s SB1070, which resulted in a wave of racial profiling, a downturn in Arizona’s economy, and, eventually, a ruling from the supreme court deeming it unconstitutional— immigration falls under federal jurisdiction, and usually, state law enforcement doesn’t have the ability to enforce federal laws.
This proposal claims to target fentanyl trafficking across the Arizona-Mexico border, but much of the text does not deal with the crime of drug smuggling, instead casting a much wider net and granting all law enforcement agencies in the state to arrest anyone who crosses the border illegally. A wide variety of groups, including business owners, immigrant rights groups, and many people of faith have campaigned in opposition to this policy; some worry about the negative economic outcomes of this policy, others wish to prevent the fear and turmoil that will befall families under this law. Various advocacy groups are also united in the concerns over this bill’s constitutionality, the additional funding it would require, and the lack of genuine focus on the fentanyl crisis. At LAMA, we are particularly worried about the way this bill would impact hunger through people’s ability to work and fear around claiming the nutritional assistance their families are entitled to.
You can read everything we’ve shared about HCR2060 here.
Day at the Senate
On May 22nd, I made my way down to the Arizona Senate, joining our friends and partners from the Arizona Faith Network. I arrived around 11:00 am though the vote was not scheduled to start until 1:00 pm. The parking lot and capitol grounds were already full of news vans, reporters, cameras, and tents from radio stations. It seemed that everyone was prepared for a big day— even the Senators I saw stepping out in the courtyard for some fresh air before convening.
I made my way across the grassy lawns, through the shade of the awnings in front of the Senate building, and up to the third floor. In the gallery, I found a AFN director Rev. Katie Sexton-Wood, along with several clergy and congregants from around the valley. I sat next to Rev. Christine Dance, head minister at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Phoenix, and one of her congregants. As we waited for 1:00 pm to draw near, Rev. Christine and I chatted while she crocheted a blue prayer shawl. Around us, the gallery filled with other people; a large delegation wearing blue t-shirts from Living United for Change in Arizona arrived, occupying a third of the Senate gallery all on their own. Others wore t-shirts with slogans supporting or identifying themselves as DACA recipients. Interns from the governor’s office and legal groups sat down and opened their laptops to take notes. By the time proceedings were set to begin, the Senate gallery was packed with folks showing the Senators that this vote was important to us and urging them to oppose this ballot referral.
One row or AFN’s delegation
The first major event happened before the body had officially convened. One of the AFN members received a text from her Senator, letting her know that a new amendment had been proposed by Sen. David Gowan (LD 14). Down on the Senate floor, we saw Sen. Ken Bennett (LD01) surrounded by a crowd of reporters, reading from a document that appeared to be the same amendment.
Reports gather around Sen Bennett as he announces new amendment
Sen. Bennett had expressed concerns over certain provisions in HCR 2060, which had delayed the vote by a week, and this amendment was the product of the resulting negotiations. This meant that the first order of business would be a debate and vote on this new amendment.
Shortly after 1:00 pm, Senate President Warren Petersen (LD12) called the body into session. Together we, with the Senators, rose for the pledge of allegiance and a prayer led by a visiting pastor. We prayed for the Senate to receive wisdom and guidance, that they remember their duty to serve, and to remember that God promises to uplift the humble— it was a prayer echoed by all of us in the gallery.
The Votes
After some routine procedure, the Senate then began the process of voting on HCR 2060. First, Sen. Gowan shared his amendment and the floor opened for questions and debate as the amendment must be approved separately from the bill itself.
The new amendment (click here for full text) stipulated that law enforcement officers would need to actually see someone crossing the border illegally, either directly or through a video recording, or have “any other constitutionally sufficient indication of probably cause” in order to enforce this law. The amendment also clarifies that the policy will only be enforced proactively, not retroactively, meaning that DACA recipients should not be targeted by the enforcement of this law (previous amendments had stated that DACA recipients would not be protected from this law if federal DACA protections are overturned).
Law makers asked questions and debated with the amendment’s authors about the outcome of this policy, including several members who practice law, represent districts along the border, and come from immigrant families.
Sen. Gabaldón (LD21) shared about the many times she faced racial profiling as a result of SB1070, despite being a US Citizen. Supporters of HCR2060 argued that the new amendment will protect people from racial profiling since only people who have been seen crossing the border will be affected. Sen. Bennett explained that with this new provision, he felt that the bill would only be in affect at the border itself even though the main text gives all law enforcement agencies throughout the state power to enforce this law.
Other opposed Senators argued that the requirement allowing any other probable cause for arrest leaves enforcement of this law quite open. Sen. Anna Hernandez (LD24) asked if videos of illegal border crossings could be shared with law enforcement across the state and used to pursue suspects after the time of their crossing. Sen Kavanaugh (LD23) clarified that law enforcement would be able to share video recordings, and in fact, he hoped that agencies would do so in order to pursue these “criminals.” More senators followed this by asking if law enforcement would then be able to conduct raids in schools, houses of worship, or elsewhere if they have a video recording of an illegal crossing and suspect to find the person in a specific area. The best answer that anyone could give is that “they didn’t think police would enforce this law that way,” though there is notably nothing stopping law enforcement from doing so.
This back-and-forth question and debate period lasted for nearly an hour and a half as law makers shared personal experiences and concerns from their constituents. It seems that some supporters of HCR 2060 assume that because of this amendment, the law will really only be actively relevant to the border region itself, whereas others hope to see its enforcement pursued throughout the state. Those opposed expressed concern over the vague probable cause requirements, worrying that it would still empower racial profiling in the name of a suspected crime.
Eventually, the lawmakers voted to pass the amendment and moved on to the bill itself. This opened up many more avenues of concern and debate, and the law makers would end up discussing this one policy late into the afternoon.
In Arizona, a ballot referral such as this one must be on one specific, narrow topic, but this draft tackles many things; some lawmakers felt that it was much too broad to be included in one ballot referral. Others attested to the fear that policies such as this one produce: it is well established that families of mixed immigration status hesitate to use services, seek medical treatment, or apply for assistance programs out of fear. This will inarguably result in difficulties for many families and Arizona citizens. More Senators argued that the enacting policies that spark this kind of fear is not conducive to encouraging legal immigration or supporting Arizona’s families; even though this bill does not explicitly discourage families to participate in services nor encourage racial profiling, it is important that the Senate pay attention to and weigh what the actual outcome will be.
On the other hand, some wished that this policy was more aggressive. Senators voiced their disappointment that this policy would not retroactively target illegal immigration and their confusion as to why the body was not united in support of this bill.
In response, opposed law makers shared concerns from their constituents and acknowledged our presence in the gallery as proof that many Arizona voters oppose this bill. Other law makers brought up economic concerns: our state is currently operating in a deficit. Representatives from the Arizona Sheriff’s Association have attested that police forces do not have the capacity to arrest and detain individuals at the scale this law would invite. Despite our state’s budget struggles, President Petersen has stated that additional law enforcement funding will be the top priority if this policy is adopted. One Senator also asked how our state would pay to deport people after their arrest and detention, and it was clarified that the state would not be facilitating deportations, but just requiring that people return to their country of origin upon release. Given the financial situation of many undocumented immigrants, this poses a substantial logistical issue.
Sen. Christine Marsh took the floor to explain her vote against the policy, specifically from the angle of combatting fentanyl use in Arizona. Sen. Marsh lost her son to a fentanyl overdose and treating the crisis has been one of her top priorities since her election in 2020. She has proposed several bills targeting drug trafficking, seeking to bolster the mental health and addiction care system, and other solutions, but they have rarely been heard. She spoke with great frustration about how HCR2060 claims to primarily target the fentanyl crisis without actually treating any of the issues that has caused it. Marsh shared several enlightening facts and statistics: the vast majority of fentanyl brought across the U.S.-Mexico border is trafficked by US citizens, not migrants, and it almost always smuggled through legal ports of entry. People crossing the border at other locations are almost never involved in the drug trade and are instead seeking asylum, safety, or a better life. By targeting these migrants, this bill will do little to actually address fentanyl import into our country, and the Senator expressed deep anger that her colleagues would introduce such a harmful bill in the name of addressing the fentanyl crisis while doing little to actually address it. The bill’s supporters had little to say on this topic.
Tensions ran high during the floor vote on HCR2060, as many such personal stories and perspectives were shared. Frustrations were expressed on both sides of the issue as law makers’ values and highest priorities were put on display. One lawmaker was even made to sit down and yield the explanation of his vote due to the passion with which he argued.
LAMA Letter Read!
For me, the highlight of the day came when Senator Anna Hernandez (LD24) stood to explain her vote against this ballot referral. After explaining a handful of her reasons for objecting to this policy, she shared that many constituents had been contacting her office with concerns over HCR2060. She said she had just received an email that morning, and proceeded to read this letter to the assembly.
This email came from a LAMA member! The constituent identifies themselves as a Lutheran and a faithful Christian and outlines many of the concerns they have about this bill— including the importance of migration to our Lutheran heritage as well as the Bible’s strong commandments to care for the foreigner. Having a LAMA letter read on the floor of the Senate is a huge deal! You can watch Sen. Hernandez read the email below!
Please let us know if you are the author of this email. We are so proud to have had our Lutheran voice represented in the legislature on such a crucial piece of legislation!
What’s Next?
At the end of the day, the Senate narrowly passed this Concurrent Resolution, sending it back to the House to approve Sen. Gowan’s new amendment. Today, June 4th, the House of Representatives voted to approve the Senate’s version of this bill.
While the legislature did not vote the way we had been hoping, our advocacy, through AFN’s presence on the 22nd and beyond, has born an important witness. It is our duty as Christians to stand up for our neighbors, and by advocating against this policy, we have shown that we take that commitment seriously.
HCR2060 will be put on November’s ballot, and our work to oppose it continues.
“Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.” 1 Corinthians 15:58
