Employer-sanctions act debated

02/01/2008

Employer-sanctions act debated at College

     Parties in a federal-court lawsuit over Arizona’s new Legal Arizona Workers Act disagreed about its constitutionality, enforcement and economic impact on businesses and consumers during a panel discussion on Tuesday, Jan. 29, in the Great Hall.
     “People are very frustrated in Arizona and this country that Congress has not acted – everyone wants border security, everyone wants people to have legal status when they work here,” said Julie Pace, a Phoenix attorney who represents business groups and others in the lawsuit filed in July, shortly after the Arizona Legislature approved a law punishing employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers. “We all stand at the same ground level with these beliefs. The problem is the implementation.” 

2008 Paul Eckstein 
Paul Eckstein 
     Pace, an attorney with Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll and a 1992 graduate of the College of Law, joined Paul Eckstein, a lawyer at Perkins Coie Brown & Bain in raising objections to the act. State Solicitor General Mary O’Grady (Class of `87) and Tim La Sota (Class of `00), a deputy Maricopa County attorney, defended the law at the debate before an audience of about 175.
     The law, which allows the public to make anonymous complaints about businesses employing illegal immigrants, was enacted on Jan. 1. It would penalize employers by suspending their business licenses for 10 days on the first offense and suspending them permanently on the second offense – sanctions that opponents say are the most stringent in the nation and are much harsher than allowed under federal law.
     Arizona’s 15 county attorneys agreed not to take complaints to court until March 1 to give U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake time to rule on the challenge by business and immigrant-rights groups. Wake’s decision is expected in early February.
     Pace said E-Verify, an Internet-based system of the Department of Homeland Security that Arizona employers must use to check the citizenship status of new hires, is a pilot program fraught with problems.
     “It’s not ready for prime time,” Eckstein said.
     He called the act “the trifecta of bad legislation” because it’s a bad policy that is confusing, self-contradictory and unconstitutional.
     “This isn’t the kind of legislation that ought to be done in the state lab because what we’re dealing with is a national problem,” he said.
     Eckstein also said fear of the act has caused workers to move to adjacent states and, along with them, their tax money. Already, Pace said, the law has resulted in businesses losing employees, hiring experts to help them comply with the law, raising prices for goods and services and halting various mergers and acquisitions.
     Responding to concerns that Arizona is overstepping its authority, O’Grady said Congress has given states room to craft their own policies in this area. She said the act gives employers adequate due process by providing them with notices of complaints and opportunities to rebut at hearings in state court.
 2008 Mary O'Grady
Mary O'Grady

     O’Grady also noted that the federal government has sued the state of Illinois for prohibiting the use of E-Verify, but has not sued Arizona for requiring its use.    
     La Sota said the law, which may be amended by state lawmakers this year to correct problems, was approved by a 67-15 bipartisan vote in the Legislature, and signed by Gov. Janet Napolitano, and it had a large margin of public support, according to a KAET-TV poll.
     Maricopa County will offer workshops and other tools to business owners to help them comply with the law, La Sota said. Responding to a question from the audience, he said anonymous, raced-based complaints filed by the public will not be prosecuted in his office.
     “We will enforce it fairly, and we will enforce it robustly,” La Sota said. “But this is will not be `gotcha’ by compliance.” 
« Back