Analysis: Why Ducey backed off from ‘sanctuary cities’ ban

Gov. Doug Ducey announced a plan last month to cement a ban on sanctuary cities in the state constitution, he painted the effort as a gift to voteral ers.

Pointing to an unsuccessful effort last year to make Tucson a sanctuary city in violation of state law, Ducey said it was time for “all Arizonans to make their voices heard” on whether local officials should be permitted to defy fedWhen immigration authorities.

“This November, let’s give all Arizona voters the opportunity to say ‘Yes’ to the rule of law and ‘No’ to sanctuary cities,” Ducey said during his January State of the State address.

It seems voters’ enthusiasm didn’t match the governor’s, however.

After weeks of pushback from the business community, a series of public hearings that devolved into chaos, and testy exchanges about U.S.-Mexico

partnerships Ducey had worked to cultivate, the Republican governor abandoned the effort.

“Any time you’re pushing a policy, the stars need to align. And on this one, we came to the conclusion that the stars were not aligning,” Ducey spokesman Patrick Ptak said Friday.

The night before, he’d confirmed the governor made a “joint decision” with legislative leaders to halt the sanctuary city resolutions he’d asked GOP lawmakers to carry in both chambers, just hours before one was set to get a public hearing in the House.

“Part of leadership is listening,” Ptak said. “Given everything on our plate … we decided that our energy was better spent somewhere else.”

Déjà vu?

Sanctuary cities have been illegal in Arizona for nearly a decade.

They were banned under 2010’s Senate Bill 1070, which also requires law enforcement to try to determine the citizenship status of anyone they have reasonable suspicion to believe is in the country illegally.

The hardline immigration law, since weakened by the courts, had plenty of support at the time of its passage. But it also spurred widespread protests and boycotts from opponents within and outside of Arizona.

Unlike with the sanctuary cities legislation, the local business community largely stayed out of the public SB 1070 debate until after its passage. But business leaders changed tactics with future immigration efforts, becoming more proactive earlier in the legislative process.

Almost immediately after Ducey shared plans to refer a sanctuary city ban to the voters this year, officials and the public split along the same lines seen during the SB 1070 era.

Supporters contended sanctuary city policies sanction undocumented immigration and said a constitutional amendment was necessary to make the existing ban more “concrete.”

Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane called respect for the rule of law “a core Arizona and American value” and said “establishing so-called ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ is both unwise policy and contrary to the rule of law.”

Maricopa County Attorney Allister Adel said law enforcement “must be able to collaborate with federal, state and local partners without the risk of losing much-needed financial resources,” alluding to the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to give cities that cooperate with immigration officials preferential grant-funding treatment.

Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels, an ally of Ducey’s, put out a statement saying sanctuary policies “only serve to erode the rule of law and provide a sheltered-venue for criminals to prey upon our good citizens” and applauding the governor’s efforts.

Critics, on the other hand, warned that the resolutions could mark a return to “one of the darkest years in Arizona history,” arguing that GOP leaders were risking residents’ safety and the state’s reputation for an election-year ploy.

“In defiance of history, experience, and common sense, the Arizona Legislature is once again set to pass a set of anti-immigrant and anti-Latino bills,” national Latino advocacy group UnidosUS said in a statement. “(Arizona’s) government and business sectors took a decade to undo the damage of its last misguided attempt at anti-immigrant legislation, SB 1070.”

Phoenix-based Chicanos Por La Causa took a similar position, arguing that the “state’s focus and energy would be much better spent on pragmatic public policy than polarizing politics.”

“Arizona has made real progress over the last 10 years since SB 1070, and any effort to further divide Arizona voters on such emotive issues only serves a giant setback in reliving the past,” CPLC said in a statement.

Democratic presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, along with their former challenger Kamala Harris, blasted the measures on Twitter.

Sides clash at hearings

Tensions between the two sides boiled over at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

When migrant-rights advocates showed up to protest the Senate referendum, calling it “divisive” and “racist,” Sen. Eddie Farnsworth, who supported the proposal, bristled.

The Gilbert Republican and committee chairman cut off public testimony, prompting activists to began chanting, “Let the people speak!” Farnsworth called security on several members of Living United for Change in Arizona, who were threatened with arrest.

Another public hearing devolved into chaos Tuesday when Randy Perez, LUCHA’s democracy director, challenged an election bill he claimed would disenfranchise immigrant voters and people of color.

Alluding to the sanctuary city resolutions, Perez put the election bill “in the broader context of what’s happening this week and last week with the Legislature,” angering Rep. Kelly Townsend, the House Elections Committee chair.

Townsend, R-Mesa, abruptly halted the hearing, came down from her seat and threw Perez out of the room before proceeding to cut off public testimony on the bill.

At least two legislative ethics complaints have been filed over the hearings.

“I think the governor opened a can of worms he didn’t understand when he made this proclamation,” Marilyn Rodriguez, a Democratic lobbyist whose firm represents LUCHA, said Friday. “This was a political stunt.”

Strategist: Plan ‘didn’t pencil out’

Republican consultant Lisa James commended the governor for “taking off his political hat and putting on his governor hat” in response to pushback from community leaders and activists.

“I think he listened to the conversations that were going on and decided this isn’t worth the battle that it’s going to take,” she said. “Tucson’s not exactly a bastion of conservatism, and they rejected sanctuary cities. We’ve already got a law banning them. He probably decided, ‘I have bigger issues to deal with at the moment.’”

Doug Cole, a Republican strategist, said Ducey likely saw a threat to the years of work he’d done to restore the state’s relationship “not only with Sonora but with the whole Republic of Mexico.”

Jorge Mendoza Yescas, the Consul General of Mexico, and Jesús Seade, the country’s chief North American trade negotiator, visited the Arizona Capitol this week.

“The Mexico relationship has been a cornerstone of this governor’s administration, and he has done a great job,” Cole said. “Mexico is our No. 1 trading partner and our friends south of the border look at the optics of issues. I think that played into the decision that was made by the governor (not to move forward with the proposals).”

Cole also pointed to some of the feedback Ducey had received from Arizona’s business community.

Though the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry didn’t publicly oppose the governor’s proposal, president Glenn Hamer had expressed concerns in conversations with reporters.

Given the post-SB 1070 blowback, “I would say it’s fair to say we need to be extra, extra careful,” he said.

Thomas Barr, executive director of 3,000-business coalition Local First Arizona, took a more aggressive stance, penning a letter calling the sanctuary city resolutions “divisive” and “destabilizing.”

“These bills are bad for business,” Barr wrote. “They will broadcast a negative image of Arizona that will inflict significant damage to our state’s fiscal opportunities and will haunt our tourism industry for decades to come.”

Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce President Monica Villalobos also issued a statement, saying the proposals were “specifically designed to divide our communities.”

She said her organization “supports law enforcement efforts that provide safety to our communities and protect the public,” but deemed new sanctuary city measures “not needed.”

“Latinos contribute more than $50 billion to our state’s economy,” Villalobos said. “Our elected leaders should acknowledge and celebrate the significant contributions the Latino community makes to the economic, cultural, and social fabric of Arizona. Placing this referendum on the ballot will do exactly the opposite.”

Ptak, Ducey’s spokesman, described the governor as “receptive” to concerns from business leaders, among others, and said that “part of leadership is taking that input and letting it inform your decision-making.”

“We also have a lot of other things we need to focus on,” he said.

Voters do, too, Republican lobbyist Kevin DeMenna said, from Arizona’s upcoming U.S Senate race to a citizens initiative on recreational marijuana.

“To say the lanes are crowded on the November ballot would be an understatement,” he said.

He also said the sanctuary city issue wouldn’t woo undecided voters to the polls, as some party leaders hoped.

“I mean, whose position would it alter? Every consultant in Arizona is hunting for the same 15 moderate women who have yet to make up their minds,” DeMenna said.

“I think that when he put the costs and the benefits alongside each other, it just didn’t pencil out.”