Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Last Friday after the Accidental Governor signed S.B. 1070 into law, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon made national news when he said he would move that the Phoenix City Council file a lawsuit to challenge S.B. 1070. By Tuesday of this week, the Mayor discovered that he did not have the votes on the Phoenix City Council to pass a resolution to file a lawsuit due to Republican opposition. (Whatever happened to that "nonpartisan" city council crap we hear so much about here in Tucson?)
Mayor Gordon said Tuesday he will bypass the City Council and invoke a section of the city charter that gives him the power to sue the state in an effort to block Arizona's new immigration law. Arizona immigration law: Mayor Gordon still pushing lawsuit:
"Under the charter as mayor of the city of Phoenix," Gordon told reporters, "I have now retained legal counsel to prepare a lawsuit to file on behalf of the city."
One council opponent, however, disputed the mayor's interpretation, saying the council alone had the authority in all litigation matters. City Attorney Gary Verburg has been asked to provide a legal opinion.
Earlier, during a public meeting that drew more than 120 people, Gordon pulled from the agenda an item that would have asked the council as a whole to consider litigation against the state. Many had submitted comment cards, but no one was allowed to speak on the item.
The mayor's decision came after The Arizona Republic reported Monday that a majority of the nine-member council didn't support the mayor's proposed suit.
Gordon, however, vowed to bring a privately funded suit on behalf of the city seeking an injunction against the law.
* * *
The mayor said the city charter gives him the authority to sue on behalf of the city. He cited Chapter 5, Section 3, which states the mayor "shall be recognized as the official head of the City by the courts for the purpose of . . . the instituting of any action or proceeding at law or equity for and in behalf of the City."
But Councilman Sal DiCiccio, who supports the immigration law, pointed to a competing provision, Chapter 21, Section 6, which states, "the council shall have control over all litigation of the city."
So Phoenix is waiting upon a legal opinion from its City Attorney.
The Flagstaff City Council also considered S.B. 1070 on Tuesday, unanimously coming out against the law. Council readies to fight SB1070:
But the council, with Scott Overton absent, did not decide specifically how to oppose the immigration law, known as SB 1070, during their Tuesday night meeting. The city attorney said she was unwilling to lay out legal options for the city council publicly without doing some research.
The council is expected to review its legal options against the measure next Tuesday.
So Flagstaff is also waiting upon a legal opinion from its City Attorney.
By the way, the Flagstaff City Council has received a death threat for their unanimous decision to oppose the state's controversial new illegal immigration law. Council threatened over opposition to SB 1070:
"Each of you should be arrested, tried in court, found guilty of treason and hanged from the nearest tree!" stated the author of the e-mail.
The person suggested the council cared more about "foreign nationalists" than the "safety and jobs and the future of your own citizens."
The author ended the e-mail "Death to traitors!"
The death threat was one of many messages sent to the Flagstaff City Council critical of their opposition to the new immigration law, or SB 1070. Of the 39 phone calls received by the city, only three were supportive of the council's decision.
At least one of the callers said they were made aware of the council action by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
The Tucson City Council also discussed opposing the new state immigration law but made no decision on Tuesday after getting legal advice in executive session. No action was taken because it was not an item on the agenda. It is on the agenda for next Tuesday. Immigration briefs:
Three Tucson City Council members are calling for the city to bring a legal challenge against the state for Senate Bill 1070, contending the bill is unconstitutional.
Council members Karin Uhlich, Regina Romero and Richard Fimbres are asking the other council members to join them to approve a legal challenge. The three council members need another vote to pursue a legal challenge.
* * *
Councilman Steve Kozachik didn't back the call for a lawsuit, but did issue a call to Gov. Jan Brewer to immediately release $8 million in discretionary federal stimulus dollars to the Tucson Police Department "to help offset the additional operational burdens she has imposed on that agency as a result of her signature to SB1070."
"The Koz" had a lot more than that to say about S.B. 1070 in an e-mail statement he sent to Ward 6 residents:
SB 1070 has been signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer and is scheduled to go into effect 90 days after the end of the current legislative session.
The bill includes several elements that cause me concern. First, it creates an untenable situation for our public safety officers, in terms of understanding how to enforce it without violating citizens’ civil rights. The bill is unacceptable without the provision of a standard for enforcement that prohibits racial profiling.
Second, I’m concerned about the impact on our City’s resources and our ability to provide an adequate level of public safety. The bill will create an increase in the workload of our public safety personnel,straining agencies that have already suffered significant budget and staffing cuts.
In addition, there is a provision in the bill that opens the door for private individuals to file lawsuits if they feel the new bill is not being enforced properly. I am concerned that this portion of the bill contains the potential for a flood of litigation that may have little or no merit and impose a further drain on the already limited resources of our judicial and public safety system. For those reasons I am not supporting the bill in its present form.
Since the bill was signed by Governor Brewer, the emotions in our community, and throughout the state, have been at fever pitch on both sides of the issue. We need to de-escalate reactions. One result of the heated discussion was the call by Congressman Raúl M.Grijalva for what amounts to an economic boycott on our state.
Our region and our state are heavily dependent on tourism for our economic well-being. Many of the workers in the tourism industry are exactly the constituents Congressman Grijalva expresses concern over as it relates to the impact of SB1070. His call for the boycott is ill-considered and inappropriate, and may well injure those whom he says he wants to protect.
In her State of the State speech on January 15, 2010, Governor Brewer announced that "Public safety cannot be compromised, and my recommendation honors that principle…recognizing that budgets are strained at all levels of government, I will use $20 million in discretionary federal stimulus dollars to fund grants for local public safety to help cities and towns struggling to provide these critical functions in these difficult economic times."
I call on Governor Brewer to immediately release $8 million of those discretionary dollars and allocate them to the Tucson Police Department to help offset the additional operational burdens she has imposed on that agency as a result of her signature to SB1070.Since the call for an economic boycott on our state by Congressman Grijalva, numerous hoteliers have announced cancellations of previously booked travel into Tucson. In addition, the University of Arizona has announced that families of a number of out-of-state honors students have advised University Admissions that they are changing their plans and will be sending their children to universities in other states. If Congressman Grijalva believes these results of a call for a boycott reflect a productive manner in which to represent his constituents, he and I must simply disagree.
I call on Congressman Grijalva to rescind his call for an economic boycott of the State of Arizona and reverse his rhetoric by encouraging travel into our state in order that those coming support the jobs our citizens need to feed their families and support our economy. The citizens of our state are not racist and the Representative needs to communicate that fact in his speech and actions.
Finally, the Federal Government has yet to allocate nearly $300 million in COPS funding that is to be earmarked to support local public safety agencies. Leaders at both the City and County level should immediately lobby our Congressional delegation to get a significant amount of those dollars awarded to Tucson in support of our public safety personnel.
Passage of SB1070 has placed our first responders in the middle of a heated debate that legitimately raises concerns over the civil rights of our citizens. Public officials must now call upon those who have their hands on the monies needed to support our public safety workers to release funding and thereby assist those who are on the front lines of this debate to ensure that they are fully trained and staffed to properly enforce the provisions of this new law.
Sincerely,
Council Member Steve Kozachik
He could not just have said "The Koz votes nay"? The Koz is a little big for his britches issuing edicts to Arizona's Congressional delegation and the Governor. Dude, you're a newbee city councilman, you have no power.
We know that spineless wonder Mayor Bob Walkup is never going to vote against something approved by a Republican Legislature (unless he has made his decision to retire).
So the fourth vote is going to have to come from Democratic Councilmember Shirley Scott, or the newest member of the City Council to be appointed at Tuesday's City Council meeting. How would you like to have this be the first controversial vote you have to cast immediately after being sworn in? Whomever is appointed to the Ward 2 Council seat is going to have a very big day on Tuesday.
Are you sure you want this job?
Contact Councilmember Shirley Scott:
Phone: (520) 791-3199
FAX: (520) 791-4717
E-Mail: ward4@tucsonaz.gov
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Let’s start with the supremacy clause. The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over immigration. Federal law is supreme over state law. Then there is the 14th Amendment regarding the privileges and immunities of citizens, equal protection and due process of law.
The Arizona law is written so broadly that it is certain to infringe upon the rights of citizens. As in a citizen can be charged with an offense subjecting them to imprisonment and fine simply for not having proof of citizenship on their person at the time they are stopped and questioned by a law enforcement officer on a “Terry Stop” or for violation of even a civil city ordinance (noise abatement, garbage, etc.) Almost no American citizen carries proof of citizenship within the U.S. Under federal law, it is sufficient to declare that you are a U.S. citizen (this is why you only have to answer this question and not present documents when you drive through a border checkpoint. Until recently, a passport was not even required for U.S. citizens to come and go across the border freely).
Arizona’s law moves us one step closer to having to carry a biometric I.D. card, something to which conservatives and libertarians previously have been opposed. And law enforcement having the authority to demand “papers please” from citizens on a whim moves us one step closer to an authoritarian police state. Where are the Tea Party types up in arms protesting this “big brother” threat to their constitutional civil liberties?
What constitutional grounds?
Not a boycott, a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the law.
It is not necessary to call for a boycott. I don’t know anyone who would bring a group here and risk even one person being stopped in response to the provisions of this law.