Judge might not stop sanctions law’s start

A federal judge said Thursday he may let the state’s new employer sanctions law take effect while he debates its legality.

Neil Wake agreed to schedule a hearing Tuesday on the request by challengers to block enforcement of the law set to take effect Jan. 1. They need the restraining order because it is virtually impossible for Wake to have a full-blown hearing on the legal merits of the statute before then, much less issue a ruling.

The judge said, though, that situation is no one’s fault but the business groups seeking to overturn the law.

Attorney David Selden said if Wake balks, it will have major financial implications for the businesses he represents.

He noted part of the law requires all firms to sign up with the E-Verify program. That means having or acquiring the necessary computer equipment and training employees to use it. Selden said that could run $1,000 for each of the 150,000 Arizona businesses affected — money he said would be wasted if he eventually gets a ruling the statute is unconstitutional.

“It’s not in anybody’s interest to have the law go into effect before there’s a ruling,” he said.

But Wake pointed out these groups and their lawyers were warned by the Attorney General’s Office in September they may have sued the wrong parties. At that time, state Solicitor General Mary O’Grady said the proper defendants were the state’s 15 county attorneys, actually charged in the statute with enforcing it.

But the business lawyers chose to ignore that warning in challenging the law which allows a judge to suspend or revoke any firm’s state licenses found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers. Wake said that flaw in the legal papers was one reason he threw out the original lawsuit earlier this month.

The business groups filed new motions this week — this time suing the county attorneys.

Selden said he didn’t sue the 15 county attorneys because he didn’t think it was necessary.

But he also said there was a “strategic decision” to keep the case simple and more efficient.

But Wake said if a “tactical decision” by lawyers on how to pursue litigation results in a delay, that decision “evidences a lack of diligence and is grounds for denial” of a restraining order.

The battle over whether to stay enforcement of the law comes as another group of plaintiffs involved in the original case also filed its own new lawsuit asking Wake to void the law — and their own request for a temporary restraining order.

Attorneys representing Valle del Sol, Chicanos Por La Causa and Somos America presented arguments about why they believe the law is illegal. Those centered not on the harm to companies but on arguments that employers, fearful of being punished under the new law, will be less likely to hire foreign-born workers.