Background
Arizona voters passed Proposition 314, the Secure the Border Act, in November 2024. The measure requires public-benefit agencies to verify applicants’ immigration status through the federal SAVE program, establishes state illegal-entry offenses and related custody and transport provisions, and delays enforcement of that illegal-entry system until a similar law has been in effect in another state for 60 consecutive days.
Two organizations and two individuals sued the State, alleging that the measure violated Arizona’s Revenue Source Rule by requiring unfunded spending, improperly allowed the Legislature to define probable cause, and delegated Arizona’s legislative authority to Texas through its trigger provision. The Maricopa County Superior Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. The SAVE requirement did not violate the Revenue Source Rule because the federal government sets SAVE fees and the program currently cost the State nothing; any fee changes reflect federal policy rather than a cost inherently mandated by the initiative. The plaintiffs also failed to state a facial Revenue Source Rule claim as to transport and custody because local agencies may bear transport costs and state custody is required only when local capacity is unavailable.
The organizational plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the probable-cause provision. Their allegations of possible future misapplication against members sharing immigrants’ race, ethnicity, or national origin were too general, and voluntary spending to educate members was not an actual injury. Finally, the trigger provision was a permissible contingency on enforcement of a complete Arizona law, not an unlawful delegation of lawmaking authority to Texas.
Key Takeaways
- A voter initiative does not require a new revenue source merely because third-party policies may create variable implementation costs.
- Organizations seeking constitutional declaratory relief must allege a concrete present injury or an actual controversy affecting their members.
- Arizona may condition enforcement of a complete statute on an objectively verifiable legal development in another state without delegating legislative power.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves Proposition 314 intact against this facial state-constitutional challenge. It also reinforces Arizona’s distinction between a statute that adopts future outside lawmaking and one that merely uses an external event as a trigger for an already complete state law.