Tucson, Arizona, Proposition 205, Sanctuary City Initiative (November 2019)

• Text of measure
  • Ballot question
• Path to the ballot
• See also
  • External links
  • Footnotes
• More
  • Local ballot measures
  • State ballot measures
  • Local politics

Proposition 205: Tucson Sanctuary City Initiative
The basics
Election date:
November 5, 2019
Status:
d Defeated
Topic:
Local law enforcement
Related articles
Local law enforcement on the ballot November 5, 2019 ballot measures in Arizona Pima County, Arizona ballot measures
See also
Tucson, Arizona Santuary city

Proposition 205, a citizen initiative designed to declare Tucson a sanctuary city, was on the ballot for Tucson voters in Pima County, Arizona, on November 5, 2019. It was defeated.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of the following: declaring in city code that Tucson is a sanctuary city; restricting law enforcement officers from actions to determine a person's immigration status under certain conditions; prohibiting officers from contacting federal law enforcement agencies to determine a person's immigration status; and prohibiting city employees from inquiring about a person's immigration status, among other policies.

A no vote was a vote against declaring in city code that Tucson is a sanctuary city and restricting actions of police officers regarding the determination of immigration status

The name of the initiative used by proponents and included as the official title on the petition was Tucson Families Free and Together.

If Proposition 205 had been approved by a majority of voters, Tucson would have become the first city with sanctuary city policies in Arizona.

Election results

Tucson Proposition 205
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		29,285	30.22%
No		67,631	69.78%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Initiative design

Section 1 of the initiative would have enacted a declaration of policy designating Tucson as a sanctuary for all persons.

Section 2 would have established the following:

• Rules restricting officers from taking actions with the purpose of determining immigration status for persons who have not been detained or arrested
• Rules for what officers can and cannot do to determine immigration status for detained or arrested persons
• Rules restricting collaboration with federal law enforcement agencies
• Rules restricting city officials' inquiry of immigration status
• Rules regarding law enforcement certifications for alleged crime victims
• Provisions allowing people to bring legal action against city officers, agencies, and employees and prescribing civil penalties.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 205 was as follows:

“

PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 17 OF THE TUCSON CODE TO PROHIBIT TUCSON POLICE PARTICIPATION IN ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING IMMIGRATION STATUS; LIMIT OFFICERS' AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE ABOUT A PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS; LIMIT FACTORS THAT OFFICERS MAY CONSIDER IN DETERMINING A PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS; RESTRICT TUCSON POLICE OFFICERS' CONTACTS WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO DETERMINE A DETAINEE'S OR ARRESTEE'S IMMIGRATION STATUS; LIMIT JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS BETWEEN TUCSON POLICE AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES; CREATE A PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR ASSERTED VIOLATIONS OF THESE PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDE FOR SEVERABILITY AND CONSTRUCTION.

”

Descriptive title

The descriptive title for Proposition 205 was as follows:

“

AMENDING TUCSON CODE TO ESTABLISH SANCTUARY POLICIES; PROHIBIT TUCSON POLICE PARTICIPATION IN ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING IMMIGRATION STATUS; LIMIT OFFICERS' AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE ABOUT IMMIGRATION STATUS OR CONTACT FEDERAL AGENCIES TO DETERMINE STATUS; AND LIMIT JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS BETWEEN TUCSON POLICE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES. A "YES" vote shall have the effect of amending Tucson Code to limit Tucson Police officers' participation in any law enforcement activity the purpose of which is to determine a person's immigration status. A "NO" vote shall have the effect of rejecting the proposed amendment to Tucson Code, Chapter 17.

”

Full text

The full text of the initiative petition is available here.

Support

Tucson Families Free & Together led the campaign in support of Proposition 205. The People's Defense Initiative organized the campaign.

Supporters

Tucson Families Free & Together provided a list of partnering organizations on the campaign’s website, which is available here.

Officials

• Rep. Andres Cano (D-3)
• Supervisor Richard Elias (D), Pima County
• Superintendent Dustin Williams (D), Pima County

Parties

• Pima County Democratic Party
• Arizona Democratic Party Progressive Caucus
• Green Party of Pima County
• Progressive Democrats of America
• Progressive Democrats of Southern Arizona

Organizations

• ACLU of Arizona
• American Friends Service Committee
• Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Tucson
• Jobs with Justice
• National Lawayers Guild
• No More Deaths
• Planned Parenthood
• Standing Up for Racial Justice

Unions

• Pima Area Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

Arguments

• The People's Defense Initiative, which organized the campaign Tucson Families Free & Together, stated, "By protecting all people’s constitutional and civil rights through reducing arrests, creating strong directives against profiling and strong separations between immigration enforcement and local government functions, we can ensure a community where everyone can thrive without fear of deportation or detention. Our intention is to translate the historically diverse and inclusive spirit of our community to real and legal protections for our neighbors."

Opposition

Citizens for a Safe & Prosperous Tucson led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 205. Joseph Morgan (R), a candidate for Arizona's 2nd Congressional District in 2020, was the campaign's chairperson.

Opponents

Officials

• Gov. Doug Ducey (R)
• U.S. Sen. Martha McSally (R)
• Mark Kelly (D), candidate for U.S. Senate in 2020
• Mayor Jonathan Rothschild (D), Tucson
• Councilmember Regina Romero (D), candidate for mayor in 2019
• Councilmember Steve Kozachik (D), Tucson
• Councilmember Richard Fimbres (D), Tucson
• Councilmember Paul Durham (D), Tucson
• Ed Ackerley (I), candidate for mayor in 2019
• Chris Magnus, police chief of Tucson

Former officials

• Gov. Jan Brewer (R)
• Sen. Steve Farley (D-9)

Arguments

• Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild (D) said, "Tucson stands united in opposition to the cruel and illegal immigration policies of the current administration in Washington. But Proposition 205 would do irreparable harm to this community in ways that have nothing to do with immigration. ... Proposition 205 would make it far more difficult for TPD to catch criminals, making us far less safe."

Media editorials

Support

Ballotpedia did not locate media editorial boards supporting the ballot measure. If you are aware of an editorial, please email the article to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

• Arizona Daily Star: "The Arizona Daily Star Editorial Board supports the goal and mission of Prop. 205, but we cannot support this specific initiative. There is another way, albeit an imperfect way, to accomplish many of the Tucson Families Free and Together goals: Work with the Tucson Police Department, the various TPD advisory boards, community groups and the Tucson City Council to revise the TPD general orders that govern how the force operates."

Background

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (2010)

In 2010, the Arizona State Legislature passed Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070), which Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed on April 23, 2010. SB 1070 created a misdemeanor offense for a non-citizen who fails to possess registration documents, as federal law required. SB 1070 also required law enforcement to attempt to determine an individual's document-registration status when making a lawful stop, detention, or arrest, if a reasonable suspicion of a violation exists.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed litigation against the state, stating that four provisions of SB 1070 usurped the federal government's power to regulate immigration. On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-3 decision, that federal law preempted three provisions of SB 1070. The provision that was upheld required law enforcement officers to determine the legal status of individuals who are arrested or detained.

Tucson's immigration policies

In 2012, the Tucson City Council voted 6-1 to pass a resolution identifying Tucson as immigrant welcoming and declaring the city's opposition to the provisions of SB 1070 that were not struck down in Arizona v. United States.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in Arizona

• The group People's Defense Initiative launched the citizen initiative petition effort on January 12, 2019.
• According to the Tucson city clerk, proponents needed to collect 9,241 signatures by July 5, 2019, to qualify the initiative for the November general election ballot.
  • The signature requirement was based on 15% of the votes cast for mayoral candidates in the previous mayoral election.
  • The signature requirement established by the city clerk was challenged in court by the Pima County Republican Party and several Tucson voters.
• On July 3, 2019, proponents submitted about 18,200 unverified signatures to election officials.
• The Pima County Recorder eliminated 798 signatures from the petition. Through a random sampling of 871 signatures, the Pima County Recorder certified on July 15, 2019, that a projected 71.8% of the remaining submitted signatures were valid and certified a projected total of 12,488 signatures.
• After signatures are certified for an initiative in Tucson, the measure goes before the city council.
• The city council has two options: approve the initiative, precluding an election, or send the initiative to the ballot.
• On August 6, 2019, the city council voted to put the initiative on the ballot for the November 2019 election.
  • If the city council had approved the initiative and the mayor had signed it, the measure would have become law without an election.
• Several Tucson voters with assistance from the Pima County Republican Party filed a legal challenge against the sufficiency of the initiative petition based on the number of valid signatures required, the percentage of submitted signatures counted as valid, and the number of signatures eliminated from the petition prior to the random sampling.
• On August 16, 2019, Pima County Superior Court Judge Douglas Metcalf ruled against plaintiffs, keeping the initiative on the ballot.

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Signature validity; whether enough submitted signatures were valid and whether the signature requirement calculated by the city clerk is legally valid
Court: Pima County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping the initiative on the November 2019 ballot
Plaintiff(s): Tucson city voters Betty White, Ann Harris, and Mike Ebert	Defendant(s): Roger Randolph, as city clerk; F. Ann Rodriguez, as county recorder; The People's Defense Committee; and other city and county officials and initiative sponsors
Plaintiff argument: The signature requirement calculated and enforced by the city clerk violated state law and was too low; signatures declared valid by Pima County were, in fact, invalid; and the process of signature verification was not carried out according to the law.	Defendant argument: The signature requirement calculated and enforced by the city clerk was calculated properly according to the rules in the city charter as authorized by the Arizona Constitution and state statute, and the process for signature verification was carried out properly according to the law.

  Source: Pima Superior Court

On July 19, 2019, Tucson city voters with assistance from the Pima County Republican Party filed this lawsuit in Pima Superior Court challenging the sufficiency of the signature petition submitted by proponents of the initiative.

On August 16, 2019, Pima County Superior Court Judge Douglas Metcalf ruled against plaintiffs, keeping the initiative on the ballot.

The arguments

Plaintiffs:

The lawsuit argued that the signature requirement calculated by the city clerk for the initiative of 9,241 was too low and that, according to state law, the requirement should be 12,821. Plaintiffs argued that, based on state statute sections 19-143 and 19-141 (provisions quoted below), the city charter's basis for calculating required signatures on the number of votes cast for mayoral candidates in the preceding mayoral election violated state law and that the requirement should be based on the total number of votes cast in the city's 2017 general election.

The lawsuit also argued that the Pima County Recorder "only conducted a cursory review of the signatures submitted by the Petitioners, failed to satisfy his statutorily defined duties, and only disqualified 798 signatures despite thousands of facially invalid signatures."

The lawsuit also brought multiple counts against specific petition sheets and specific circulators, arguing that some petitions weren't filled out correctly and that certain circulators were not qualified to gather signatures for the initiative.

Defendants:

City Attorney Mike Rankin said, “The city will defend the city clerk’s calculation of the number of valid signatures required to place the initiative on the ballot. That calculation was made based on the plain language of the Arizona Constitution, state statutes and the city charter and code.”

The facts of the case

• Article IV, Part I, of the Arizona Constitution says, "Such incorporated cities, towns, and counties may prescribe the manner of exercising said powers [initiative and referendum] within the restrictions of general laws. Under the power of the initiative fifteen per centum of the qualified electors may propose measures on such local, city, town, or county matters, and ten per centum of the electors may propose the referendum on legislation enacted within and by such city, town, or county. Until provided by general law, said cities and towns may prescribe the basis on which said percentages shall be computed."

• Arizona Revised Statutes Section 19-143 says, "The whole number of votes cast at the city or town election at which a mayor or councilman was chosen last preceding the submission of the application for an initiative petition is the basis for computing the number of qualified electors of the city or town required to sign the petition unless the city or town by charter or ordinance provides an alternative basis for computing the number of necessary signatures."

• Arizona Revised Statutes Section 19-141(D) says, "The procedure with respect to municipal and county legislation shall be as nearly as practicable the same as the procedure relating to initiative and referendum provided for the state at large, except the procedure for verifying signatures on initiative or referendum petitions may be established by a city or town by charter or ordinance."

• The Tucson City Charter, Chapter XIX, says, "Any proposed ordinance may be submitted to the mayor and council, by a petition signed by fifteen (15) percent of the qualified electors of the city, computed on the vote for the candidates for mayor at the last preceding general municipal election at which a mayor was elected."

• In the last mayoral election in Tucson in 2015, the only mayoral candidate—Jonathan Rothschild (D)—received 61,358 votes. There were also 4,327 write-in votes.

• 15% of 61,358 is 9203.7. Based on this, the Tucson city clerk calculated the signature requirement for this citizen initiative to be 9,204.

• In the last city council election in 2017, a total of 85,468 votes were cast, and 15% of 85,468 is 12,820.2.

• Initiative proponents filed 18,200 signatures with the county clerk. A random sampling of 871 signatures were tested, and, based on the rate of validity in the sample, the Pima County Recorder certified 12,488 of the submitted signatures as valid.

Ruling

On August 16, 2019, Pima County Superior Court Judge Douglas Metcalf rejected the lawsuit brought against the signature petition for this initiative, keeping the initiative on the November 2019 ballot. Metcalf's ruling stated, "The Court has determined that Plaintiffs' complaint fails as a matter of law."

Related measures

• Humboldt County, California, Measure K, Sanctuary Initiative (November 2018)

See also

Local measures

• Local measures in 2019
• Local law enforcement on the ballot
• Local immigration on the ballot
• Pima County measures

Arizona

• November 5, 2019 measures in Arizona
• Local ballot measures, Arizona
• Tucson, Arizona

News and analysis

• State and local preemption conflicts
• Measures advancing national agendas
• Sanctuary jurisdiction policies by state

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic
• Pima County Elections Office website

Support

• People's Defense Initiative campaign website
• People's Defense Initiative Facebook page
• People's Defense Initiative Twitter page

Opposition

• Citizens for a Safe and Prosperous Tucson campaign website