Monday, April 30, 2018 | 2 a.m.
An anti-sanctuary ballot measure that seeks to ban laws that interfere with immigration enforcement is heading to court again after a judge blocked it from appearing on the ballot.
The political action committee behind the measure is appealing a January court decision that blocked the measure because it was too broad. Opponents of the measure expected the case to be appealed, said ACLU of Nevada spokesman Wesley Juhl. The ACLU was among the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case. The Nevada Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the appeal on May 8.
“If we’re going to actually take this issue to the voters, we need to explain to them,” Juhl said. “Does it include hospitals and schools? Does it include local police? Does it include courthouses? The devil’s really in the details when it comes to immigration law.”
For the petition to qualify for the November ballot, supporters not only need to clear the legal hurdle, but also collect more than 112,500 signatures by June 19. Lawyers defending the petition said in a court filing that the January ruling has created “a significant disadvantage in terms of generating enthusiasm for the petition and fundraising to gather the required signatures.”
District Judge James Russell wrote in his order blocking the initiative that the measure deals with more than one subject, contrary to state law limiting the scope of petitions to a single topic. The measure also failed to adequately explain impacts of the proposal, he said.
“The ‘immigration laws of the United States’ encompasses many subjects, including removal of immigrants convicted of certain crimes, refugee and asylum law, student-visa applications, and even international treaties,” the order said. “Further, laws, ordinances, or policies that may impact the enforcement of federal immigration law encompass even more subjects, including law enforcement, public education, and provision of social services.”
Jeremy Hughes, president of Prevent Sanctuary Cities, did not respond to a request for comment. The ballot measure was introduced after a bill supporting sanctuary policies failed to move forward in the 2017 Legislature.
Republican state Sen. Michael Roberson, honorary chairman of the Prevent Sanctuary Cities PAC, has called the failed legislation reckless. He said Nevada could follow California, where a sanctuary state law has spurred several communities to join a Trump administration lawsuit against the state, the AP reported.
Opponents of sanctuary laws say these policies harm public safety by giving deportation protection to immigrants living in the country illegally. Supporters, however, say this kind of law actually promotes public safety by allowing immigrants to feel safe enough to report crimes.
“If there is someone who’s convicted of a violent crime and is a danger to the community, (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) can still go in there and get them,” Juhl said. “It’s just a matter of controlling what state and local resources are used.”
Juhl said he’s not aware of any other ballot measures that are being litigated in court ahead of the 2018 election. In 2017, a judge in Washington state issued a preliminary injunction against a city ballot initiative that sought to repeal a sanctuary policy, the Seattle Times reported. The judge said the measure was too broad and didn’t follow petition rules.
Cases where the federal government has targeted communities with sanctuary laws have generally not held up in court, Juhl said. An appeals court recently upheld an April ruling blocking the Trump administration from withholding grants from communities that do not cooperate with immigration enforcement, the Associated Press reported.
“At the end of the day, the federal government just doesn’t have the right to control state resources like that,” Juhl said.
