Tucson voters on track to reject sanctuary city measure

Voters were on track to reject a proposal Tuesday to make Tucson Arizona’s only sanctuary city.

Despite the city’s reputation for left-leaning politics and legacy as the birthplace of the modern sanctuary movement, Democrats and Republicans alike opposed Proposition 205, arguing it would interrupt cooperation between local and federal officials on a range of issues and imperil millions of dollars in government funding.

“Tucson stands united in opposi

tion 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,” outgoing Democratic Mayor Jonathan Rothschild wrote in a message to voters.

According to unofficial results, 71% of voters opposed the measure while about 29% supported it.

More Tucsonans appear to have voted in the citywide election than in any other general municipal election in at least the last 20 years. A total of 87,305 votes were cast, according to unofficial results from the city clerk, topping the 86,000 ballots cast in 1999.

The election turnout also was fueled by the mayoral race. Democrat Regina Romero was leading the race for mayor, according to unofficial results. A city councilwoman, Romero won nearly 56% of the vote in the three-way race and would be the first woman to hold the office.

Proposition 205 posed a test for Tucson voters, coming at a time when the federal government has targeted sanctuary cities.

Tucson has already declared itself an immigrant welcoming city, adopting policies to protect immigrants and limit information sharing with immigration authorities.

Backers of Proposition 205 argued the measure would merely put such steps into city code, such as limiting police from asking about immigration status at sensitive locations like courthouses and hospitals or using race or language as a pretext to ask people about their immigration status.

“Prop 205 aimed to fix something that our public officials broke – trust in local enforcement,” said Alessandra Navidad, executive director for the ACLU of Arizona, which supported the measure. “Years of racial profiling practices and attacks on our most vulnerable neighbors have devastated local Tucson communities, separated families and eroded trust with local police.”

In turn, proponents argued Proposition 205 would encourage better relationships between local police and the borderland community they serve.

Critics noted the city still could not stop federal authorities from operating in the city.

Some proponents expected the city would land in court if voters approved the measure, with millions of dollars of state funding on the line as litigation dragged on.

And Republican legislators were already planning new laws to punish Tucson or any other city that codified sanctuary policies.

For example, state Reps. Bret Roberts, R-Maricopa, and John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said they would back legislation to hold municipalities liable for harm or damage caused by undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities under certain circumstances.

Meanwhile, the administration of President Donald Trump has sought to cut off some federal funds for sanctuary cities – an effort stalled in court but which has signaled the federal government’s willingness to challenge local policies meant to offer a measure of reassurance to undocumented immigrants.

Romero and Rothschild opposed the measure. So, too, did the group Chicanos Por La Causa.

“This proposal is poorly drafted and set to ultimately harm more than it will help Tucson, including the very individuals the proposed legislation seeks to assist,” David Adame, president and CEO of Chicanos Por La Causa, wrote in an op-ed opposing the measure.

Political action committees fueled by some large donations from local businesspeople spent more than $200,000 campaigning against Proposition 205 and were on track to top if not double spending by the measure’s supporters.

Backers argued the Tucson government actively aided the opposition campaign, too. Tucson Families Together and Free, the main booster for Proposition 205, sued the city, arguing the city attorney engaged in campaigning by circulating an analysis of the measure that raised a series of concerns about its legality and cost to the local government.

Still, Proposition 205’s supporters say the campaign sent a message from a city caught in the middle of the debate over the border.

“It was the moral and just thing to do at a time when the Trump administration continues to separate families, especially in border communities like ours,” said state Rep. Andrés Cano, D-Tucson.