Arizona Proposition 314, Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure (2024)

Arizona Proposition 314
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic Immigration and Law enforcement
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin State legislature

Arizona Proposition 314, the Arizona Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure, was on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred state statute on November 5, 2024. The ballot measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported: making it a state crime for noncitizens to enter the state at any location other than the port of entry; allowing for state and local police to arrest noncitizens who cross the border unlawfully; allowing for state judges to order deportations; requiring the use of the E-Verify program in order to determine the immigration status of individuals before the enrollment in a financial aid or public welfare program; making it a Class 6 felony for individuals who submit false information or documents to an employer to evade detection of employment eligibility, or to apply for public benefits, and; making the sale of fentanyl a Class 2 felony if the person knowingly sells fentanyl and it results in the death of another person.

A "no" vote opposed making the above changes to state law regarding immigration, border law enforcement, and sale of fentanyl.

Election results

Arizona Proposition 314
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,949,529	62.59%
No		1,165,237	37.41%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did Proposition 314 do?

See also: Text of measure

Proposition 314 made it a state crime for noncitizens to enter the state directly from a foreign nation other than the official ports of entry and allowed for state and local police to arrest noncitizens who cross the border unlawfully. Under this measure, a person may not be arrested without probable cause, which includes a law enforcement officer witnessing the violation or a technological recording of the violation. The measure also allowed for state judges to order deportations.

The measure required the use of the E-Verify program to determine the immigration status of individuals before enrollment in a financial aid or public welfare program. It also made it a Class 6 felony for individuals who submit false information or documents to an employer to evade detection of employment eligibility under the E-verify program or to apply for public benefits.

Proposition 314 made the sale of fentanyl a Class 2 felony if the person knowingly sells fentanyl and it results in the death of another person.

What were the arguments for and against Proposition 314?

See also: Support and opposition

State Sen. Ken Bennett (R-1), who supported the measure, said, "Given the lack of control of the border, I just feel it’s something the state has to resolve. That’s not stopping someone hundreds of miles inside the inner parts of the state. You got to see them with your own eyes or have technological evidence." State Rep. Ben Toma (R-27) said, "I am an immigrant. This is not anti-immigrant. This is anti-lawlessness. It’s about securing our border, because the federal government has failed to do their job."

Gov. Katie Hobbs (D), who opposed the measure, said, "HCR 2060 will hurt Arizona businesses, send jobs out of state, make it more difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs, and bust the state’s budget. It will not secure our border. Despite strong opposition from business leaders, border law enforcement, and bipartisan local leaders throughout the state, extremists in the legislature have chosen to prioritize their political agendas over finding real solutions." U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego (D) said, "Politicians are refusing to address our border crisis and dragging us backwards to a horrible time. In order to truly secure our border and keep Arizonans safe, we need to hire more border patrol agents, deliver crucial resources to our frontline border communities, and fix our broken asylum system. This bill does none of that."

Did Arizona vote on other immigration-related ballot measures?

See also: Arizona immigration-related ballot measures

Arizona previously voted on five immigration-related ballot measures since 2000. Out of the five measures, voters approved four measures and rejected one.

In 2004, voters approved Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship to register to vote, required a photo ID or two other forms of identification to vote at a polling place, and required the verification of immigration status to receive public benefits. In State of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the provision of Proposition 200 that required proof of citizenship to register to vote.

In 2006, voters approved three measures: Propositions 100, 102, and 300. Proposition 100 expanded the list of non-bailable offenses to include serious felonies carried out by persons who illegally entered or remained in the United States. Proposition 102 supported the denial of civil court punitive damage awards to persons who illegally entered the United States. Proposition 300 prohibited noncitizens and people without legal residential status from receiving in-state college tuition, education financial aid, or state-subsidized childcare assistance.

In 2008, voters rejected Proposition 202, which would have suspended or revoked business licenses for those who intentionally employed people who entered the U.S. illegally, penalized employers who failed to properly report cash wages, and increased the penalty for employment-related identity theft.

Measure design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the ballot measure.

New state laws regarding unlawful border crossing

Proposition 314 makes it a state crime for noncitizens to enter the state at any location other than the lawful port of entry. Affirmative defenses apply to noncitizens who have been granted asylum or lawful presence in the United States, or if the noncitizen’s conduct is not a violation of federal immigration laws. The crime is a class 1 misdemeanor or a class 6 felony if the person was previously convicted of the crime.

Proposition 314 makes it a class 4 felony for noncitizens who enter the state at any location other than the lawful port of entry and who refuse to comply with an order to return to a foreign nation or individual’s nation of origin. The measure allows a court to dismiss a criminal charge against the noncitizen if they agree to return to the foreign nation or nation of origin.

The new state laws do not apply to noncitizens who previously entered the state at an unlawful port of entry before the new laws became enforceable.

Proposition 314 also allows state and local police to arrest citizens who cross the border unlawfully, providing civil immunity to any state or local government entity or employee who enforces the laws that prohibit the noncitizen from entering the state from an unlawful port of entry.

New state laws regarding submission of false information and documents

Proposition 314 makes it a class 6 felony for noncitizens who submit false information or documents to apply for public benefits. In order to verify the validity of the applicant’s documents and eligibility for benefits, an agency that administers the public benefit is required to use the federal government's systematic alien verification for entitlements program or a successor program if the applicant is not a citizen or national of the United States.

The initiative is designed to make it a class 1 misdemeanor if a noncitizen knowingly submits false information or documents in order to evade detection of employment eligibility under the E-Verify program, and makes it a class 6 felony if the person previously submitted false information or documents to an employer.

New penalties regarding sale of fentanyl

Proposition 314 makes the sale of fentanyl a Class 2 felony if the person over 18 years of age knowingly sells fentanyl and it results in the death of another person. Any person receiving a prison sentence for this crime has the sentence increased by five years. Under the measure, it is an affirmative defense to the prosecution of the case if the fentanyl or fentanyl chemicals were manufactured in the United States or lawfully imported into the United States.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

PROPOSITION 314 REFERRED TO THE PEOPLE BY THE LEGISLATURE RELATING TO RESPONSES TO HARMS AT THE BORDER Official Title AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE 1, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 1-503 AND 1-504; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 34, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 13-3424; AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 38, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 35; AMENDING TITLE 23, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 23-215; RELATING TO RESPONSES TO HARMS RELATED TO AN UNSECURED BORDER. Descriptive Title MAKES IT A CRIME FOR PERSONS WITHOUT LAWFUL STATUS IN THE UNITED STATES TO SUBMIT FALSE INFORMATION IN APPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS AND EMPLOYMENT, AND ENTER OR REMAIN IN THE COUNTRY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. MAKES IT A CRIME TO SELL FENTANYL THAT LATER CAUSES THE DEATH OF A PERSON.

”

Ballot summary

The official ballot summary was as follows:

“

A "yes" vote shall have the effect of creating new crimes regarding the following conduct by any person without lawful status in the United States: (1)  applying for a public benefit by submitting a false document; (2) submitting false information to an employer regarding the person’s authorization to work in the United States; (3) entering Arizona from a foreign country at any location other than a lawful port of entry; (4) remaining in the country if the person has been convicted of certain crimes and a court has ordered them to return to their country of origin or entry. Also creates a new crime of selling fentanyl that causes the death of another person. Requires state courts to issue deportation orders against any person convicted of these crimes and authorizes state and local law enforcement to enforce the deportation orders. A "no" vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current criminal laws and the federal government’s exclusive authority over deportation.

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 11, and the FRE is 30. The word count for the ballot title is 118.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 13, and the FRE is 37. The word count for the ballot summary is 157.

Support

Supporters

Officials

• State Sen. Ken Bennett (R)
• State Sen. John Kavanagh (R)
• State Rep. John Gillette (R)
• State Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R)
• State Rep. Ben Toma (R)

Candidates

• Kari Lake (R) - U.S. Sen. candidate

Organizations

• Heritage Action for America

Arguments

• State Sen. Ken Bennett (R-1): "Given the lack of control of the border, I just feel it’s something the state has to resolve. That’s not stopping someone hundreds of miles inside the inner parts of the state. You got to see them with your own eyes or have technological evidence."
• U.S. Sen. candidate Kari Lake (R): "Arizonans are crying out for common sense security measures. I am encouraged that Arizona Republican state legislators are doing their best to deliver it — even if they have to go around Hobbs’ veto to do it."
• State Rep. Ben Toma (R-27): "I am an immigrant. This is not anti-immigrant. This is anti-lawlessness. It’s about securing our border, because the federal government has failed to do their job."
• Nathan Duell, Arizona state director for Heritage Action for America: "Open border policies have allowed 10 million illegal aliens to cross the border into the United States since President Biden took office. American jobs and families are threatened every day by the constant influx of illegal aliens invading the country. Prop 314 is a meaningful, commonsense proposal to protect the safety and well-being of our communities. Arizona spends $2.3 billion a year on expenditures for illegal aliens, according to an estimate from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Prop 314 would limit this strain on social services by ensuring that public benefits are only utilized by those who are lawfully present in the United States."
• Andrew Adams, on behalf of LD14GOP: "In essence, the Secure the Border Act is essential for restoring order and security along Arizona’s border. It establishes a legal framework that enables state authorities to protect their communities, uphold the rule of law, and mitigate the detrimental effects of uncontrolled immigration and drug trafficking."

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego (D)
• Gov. Katie Hobbs (D)
• State Rep. Analise Ortiz (D)
• State Rep. Mariana Sandoval (D)
• Tucson Mayor Regina Romero (D)

Political Parties

• Arizona Working Families Party

Organizations

• American Business Immigration Coalition
• Arizona Catholic Conference Bishops
• Arizona Education Association
• Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• Arizona Public Health Association
• Catholic Bishops of Arizona
• League of Women Voters of Arizona
• Living United For Change In Arizona
• Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix
• Sierra Club

Arguments

• Gov. Katie Hobbs (D): "HCR 2060 will hurt Arizona businesses, send jobs out of state, make it more difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs, and bust the state’s budget. It will not secure our border. Despite strong opposition from business leaders, border law enforcement, and bipartisan local leaders throughout the state, extremists in the legislature have chosen to prioritize their political agendas over finding real solutions."
• U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego (D): "Politicians are refusing to address our border crisis and dragging us backwards to a horrible time. In order to truly secure our border and keep Arizonans safe, we need to hire more border patrol agents, deliver crucial resources to our frontline border communities, and fix our broken asylum system. This bill does none of that."
• Rev. John P. Dolan, Rev. Edward J. Weisenburger, Rev. James S. Wall, Rev. Eduardo Nevares of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix: "Immigration by its nature is a national issue and the regulation of immigration extends beyond the purview of individual states. Rather than holding the federal government accountable, Proposition 314 will only create further disorder and confusion, placing unworkable and unrealistic expectations on state judicial officers and law enforcement personnel."
• Alejandra Gomez, executive director of LUCHA (Living United for Change in Arizona): "If Prop. 314 reaches the ballot box this November, many Arizonans will be disproportionately targeted and subjected to suspicion and persecution. This discriminatory legislation will lead to over-policing in every community across our state. Arizonans, even those hundreds of miles from the border, will be under the intense scrutiny of law enforcement. A routine traffic stop could quickly escalate into an inquiry about citizenship status and possible detainment based solely on the color of your skin and your last name."
• Catholic Bishops of Arizona: "Although proponents argue that Proposition 314 is about border security, the reality is that its passage will create real fear within Arizona communities that will have harmful consequences. In particular, by having state and local law enforcement responsible for enforcing what should be the role of federal immigration authorities, many crime victims and witnesses will be afraid to go to law enforcement and report crimes. As a result, dangerous criminals will not be apprehended, and public safety will be threatened. Additionally, immigration by its nature is a national issue and the regulation of immigration extends beyond the purview of individual states, points consistently affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Rather than holding the federal government accountable, Proposition 314 will only create further disorder and confusion, placing unworkable and unrealistic expectations on state judicial officers and law enforcement personnel."
• Chris Nanos, sheriff of Pima County: "If I book a migrant in my county jail, I’m paying for those costs without any funding from the state. Who wants to do this silly law with no funding from the federal government? But here’s another caveat that I’ve seen for a couple of decades: the federal government on the border doesn’t have enough courts, therefore they don’t have enough judges, they don’t have enough attorneys. I’m not going to allow my deputies to be on that border, to arrest people, to book them in our jail when we have a federal government that has that responsibility."
• San Luis Mayor Nieves Riedel: "Our policemen and women are not federal agents. They’re not trained. What’s going to happen to our safety and security if they’re acting like Border Patrol agents?"

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Arizona ballot measures

Ballotpedia did not identify ballot measure committees registered to support or oppose the ballot measure.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

Polls

See also: 2024 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Arizona Proposition 314, Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure (2024)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Noble Predictive Insights	8/12/24-8/16/24	1003 RV	± 3.09%	63%	16%	16%
	Question: "Proposition 314, the Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure, would require employers to verify the immigration status of their workers, determine how migrants obtain public benefits, and make the seller of a drug containing fentanyl legally responsible for the death of any person who consumes it. If the election were held today, how would you vote on this ballot measure?"

Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Background

Federal laws regarding unlawful entry by noncitizens

Title 8 of the U.S. Code had two federal criminal offenses pertaining to immigration and the border:

• 8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the United States. This applies to people who do not enter at an official port of entry, avoid examination or inspection, or who make false statements while entering. The first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1326 makes it a crime to unlawfully reenter the United States after being deported, removed, or denied admission. This offense is punishable as a felony with a maximum sentence of two years in prison. If a person was previously removed after being convicted of certain crimes, the sentences could be up to 10 years for a felony conviction or three misdemeanor convictions involving drugs or crimes against a person, and up to 20 years for an aggravated felony conviction.

The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was responsible for apprehending individuals attempting to enter the country unlawfully.

Arizona immigration-related ballot measures

The following table provides a list of immigration-related ballot measures in Arizona.

Year	Measure	Summary	Yes	No	Outcome
2004	Proposition 200	Require proof of citizenship to register to vote, a photo ID or two other forms of identification to vote, and the verification of immigration status to receive public benefits	55.64%	44.36%	a
2006	Proposition 100	Expand the list of non-bailable offenses to include serious felonies carried out by those that have illegally entered the United States	77.89%	22.11%	a
2006	Proposition 102	Provide for the denial of civil court punitive damage awards to persons who have illegally entered the United States	74.23%	25.77%	a
2006	Proposition 300	Prohibits education financial assistance and in-state college tuition for non-citizens	71.44%	28.56%	a
2008	Proposition 202	Suspend business licenses for those who intentionally employ people who entered the U.S. illegally	40.85%	59.15%	d

Path to the ballot

A simple majority vote is required during one legislative session for the Arizona State Legislature to place a state statute on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 31 votes in the Arizona House of Representatives and 16 votes in the Arizona State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Statutes do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.

The measure, HCR 2060, was introduced to the Arizona House of Representatives on February 14, 2024. It passed the House on February 22, 2024 by a 31-28 vote. The measure was amended in the Arizona State Senate and passed the Senate on May 22, 2024 by 16-13. The measure passed the House again by 31-29 on June 4, 2024.

Vote in the Arizona State Senate May 22, 2024
Requirement:
Number of yes votes required: 16  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	16	13	1
Total percent	53.3%	43.3%	3.3%
Democrat	0	13	1
Republican	16	0	0

Vote in the Arizona House of Representatives June 4, 2024
Requirement:
Number of yes votes required: 31  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	31	29	0
Total percent	51.6%	48.3%	0%
Democrat	0	29	0
Republican	31	0	0

Lawsuit

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does the ballot measure violate the single subject requirement?
Court: Arizona Superior Court of Maricopa County
Ruling: The measure complies with the single subject requirement
Plaintiff(s): Living United for Change in Arizona	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Adrian Fontes

  Source: Courthouse News

On June 5, 2024, Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) filed a lawsuit against Secretary Adrian Fontes over the passage of HCR 2060, saying the ballot measure violated the single subject requirement. On June 6, Poder in Action, Phoenix Legal Action Network and Florence Immigrant also filed a lawsuit saying that the measure violated the single-subject requirement. On June 11, the two lawsuits were consolidated as one. On July 12, 2024, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the measure complied with the single subject rule.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Arizona

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Arizona.

How to vote in Arizona

Poll times

In Arizona, all polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in Arizona, one must be a citizen of the United States and a resident of an Arizona county. A voter must be 18 years or older on or before Election Day. Arizona also requires voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to vote for state and local elections

To be eligible to vote in an election one must register at least 29 days prior to the election. Individuals can register online, in person at the county recorder's office, or by mail.

Automatic registration

Arizona does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Arizona has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Arizona does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

Arizona law requires 29 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Arizona requires voters to submit proof of citizenship with their voter registration application to vote in state and local elections. According to the Arizona Secretary of State's website: "A registrant who attests to being a citizen but fails to provide proof of citizenship and whose citizenship is not otherwise verified will be eligible to vote only in federal elections (known as being a 'federal only' voter)." Accepted proof of citizenship include:

• An Arizona Driver's License/Identification Number
• Indian Census Number, Bureau of Indian Affairs Card Number, Tribal Treaty Card Number, or Tribal Enrollment Number
• A photocopy of U.S. naturalization documents
• A photocopy of a birth certificate and supporting legal documentation (i.e., marriage certificate) if the name on the birth certificate is not the same as your current legal name.
• A photocopy of a U.S. passport.
• A photocopy of a Tribal Certificate of Indian Blood or Bureau of Indian Affairs Affidavit of Birth.

On August 22, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order partially granting the Republican National Committee and Arizona Republicans' request to enforce a 2022 law related to proof of citizenship requirements. The court allowed the enforcement of the provision requiring the state to reject state voter registration forms submitted without proof of citizenship. Previously, a person who submitted a state voter registration form without proof of citizenship could still be a federal only voter. After the court's ruling, a person unable to provide proof of citizenship would need to submit a federal voter registration form in order to vote in federal elections. Read more about legal challenges to this law here.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The Arizona Voter Information Portal, run by the Arizona Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Arizona requires voters to present photo identification or two forms of non-photo identification while voting.

The following were accepted forms of identification as of July 2024: Click here for the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission's page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

Voters can present one of the following forms of ID that contain the voter’s photograph, name, and address:

• Arizona driver’s license
• U.S. federal, state, or local government-issued ID, issued with printed name and address
• Arizona ID card
• Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal ID

If a voter does not have one of the above forms of ID, the voter can present two of the following forms of ID that contain the voter’s name and address:

• Utility bill in the voter's name
• Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
• Valid Arizona vehicle registration
• Arizona vehicle insurance card
• Indian census card
• Property tax statement
• Recorder's certificate or voter registration card
• Tribal enrollment card or other tribal ID
• Valid U.S. federal, state, or local government-issued ID with a printed name and address or
• Any mailing in the voter's name that is labeled "official election material"  

Additionally, if a voter presents photo ID that does not list an address within the precinct in which he or she wants to cast a vote, that person may present the photo ID with one non-photo identification material from the second list above. The identification material should include the voter’s address.

See also

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• Immigration on the ballot

Arizona

• Arizona ballot measures
• Arizona ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• HCR 2060