Examining the Deliberative Process of
S.B. 1070: “Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”
Jeanine E. Kraybill
WPSA Conference
Portland, OR
March 2012
1
On April 19, 2010, the Arizona State Legislature passed one of the toughest illegal immigration
laws in the United States, the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.” This
approved piece of legislation was subsequently transmitted to Governor, Jan Brewer and executed into
law on April 23, 2010.1 Due to its restrictivist nature regarding illegal immigrants, this piece of
legislation captured national attention. To date, the controversy and legal battle over S.B. 1070
continues. This being said, it makes for an interesting study to analyze how deliberative the legislative
process was in passing this bill. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine the passage of S.B.
1070, specifically evaluating how deliberative the process was. This analysis will demonstrate that,
despite its controversial nature, this bill was argued and passed on the merits of public policy and
satisfies principles of deliberative democracy.
Before discussing the relevant literature on deliberative democracy, it is important to provide
some context to what the state has experienced in terms of illegal immigration and why supporters of
the bill made efforts to get it passed. Arizona is considered the biggest gateway state into the United
States for illegal immigration. Estimates show that the state is home to approximately 460,000 illegal
immigrants, which is a population larger than cities such as, Cleveland, St. Louis and New Orleans. Data
also shows that over the past three years, Border Patrol agents have made approximately 990,000
arrests of immigrants crossing the Arizona state border illegally, which averages to about 900 arrests per
day.2 This violence seemed to come to a climatic point, when in March of 2010, rancher Rob Krentz was
murdered, along with his dog, outside of his home, which is 19 miles from the Arizona-Mexico border.
1
Bill Status Overview for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session.
Retrieved November 2, 2010 from:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070o.asp
2
Gottlieb, Carl. (April 2005). Analysis: Why Arizona Passed Tough Illegal Immigration Law. News Now:
WUSA9.com. Retrieved September 3, 2010 from: http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=1000603
2
Speculation that it may have been an illegal immigrant who shot Krentz, further inflamed conservatives
in the state legislature and the public.3 However, public sentiment, as demonstrated through polling
data, has shown that over the past several years many Arizonians have been supportive of various illegal
immigration restrictions. For example, in a poll taken in February of 2006, 65% of those who responded
supported charging undocumented immigrants with criminal trespassing. 4
Some have argued that as a result of the events stated above, along with former Democratic
Governor Janet Napolitano leaving her position to serve in President Obama’s cabinet that the
Republican majority in the state legislature was finally in the position to pass strict immigration
legislation, such as S.B. 1070.5 The law, which “requires officials and agencies of the state and political
subdivisions to fully comply with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws,”6 was
introduced by Republican State Senator, Russell Pearce, who has been one of Arizona’s most vocal critics
regarding immigration policy. 7
Literature Review
In examining the passage of S.B. 1070, it is important to look at literature on deliberative
democracy that is most relevant to the objectives of this paper. In his work, The Mild Voice of Reason,
Joseph Bessette discusses the foundations of deliberative democracy and explains that the intention of
the Founders was to create a system where authority was vested with the deliberative majority opinion.
A republic system of government, where representatives would foster informed and reasoned
3
Ibid
Immigration Facts: Arizona. (2010). FAIR: Federation for American Immigration Reform. Retrieved September
18, 2010 from: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/facts/state_data_AZ
5
Gottlieb, Carl. (April 2005). Analysis: Why Arizona Passed Tough Illegal Immigration Law. News Now:
WUSA9.com. Retrieved September 3, 2010 from: http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_article.aspx?storyid=1000603
6
Final Amended Fact Sheet for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session.
Retrieved September 18, 2010 from: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm
7
Ibid
4
3
judgments regarding public policy.8 Bessette argues that the deliberation that lies at the center of the
type of republican system that the framers created “can be defined most simply as reasoning on the
merits of public policy.”9 Defining this process, Bessette states,
“As commonly and traditionally understood, deliberation is a reasoning process in which the
participants seriously consider substantive information and arguments and seek to decide
individually and to persuade each other as to what constitutes good public policy. Thus,
deliberation includes a variety of activities often called ‘problem solving’ or ‘analytic’: the
investigation and identification of social, economic, or governmental problems: the evaluation
of current policies or programs; the consideration of various and competing proposals; and the
formulation of legislative or administrative remedies. “10
Bessette argues that every deliberative process not only encompasses the definition above, but
involves three key elements: information, arguments and persuasion.11 These key elements can be
found at various points of the deliberative process and will be discussed in this paper, along with
Bessette’s discussion on the detailed and extensive nature of committees’ and their contributions to the
deliberative process.12
Gary Mucciaroni and Paul J. Quirk, in their work, Deliberative Choices: Debating Public Policy in
Congress also discusses the concept of deliberative democracy. Their goal is to assess how Congress
deliberates about public policy and how informed they are when considering legislation.13 In analyzing
these factors, Mucciaroni and Quirk discuss how floor debates are crucial to the deliberative process,
since they provide a means for legislators to obtain information about the merits of public policy
decisions.14 Through their case studies, Mucciaroni and Quirk uncover characteristics of what they
8
Bessette, J. (1994). The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. (p.1).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
9
Ibid, p.10
10
Ibid, p.46
11
Ibid, p.49
12
Ibid, p. 156
13
Mucciaroni, G. & Quirk, P.J. (2006). Deliberative Choices: Debating Public Policy in Congress. (p. 13). Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press
14
Ibid, p. 6
4
consider effective debate and develop a range of strategies and claims legislators employ during
deliberation.15
Finally, an additional piece of literature that is relevant to this research paper deals with federal
versus state enforcement of immigration policy. Miriam Wells, in her article, “The Grassroots
Reconfiguration of U.S. Immigration Policy,” discusses that despite the increasing constriction of
immigrants’ rights’ at the federal level, local and state responses to immigration policy have been more
divergent and varied. Wells attributes this to the multi-layered structure of U.S. nation-state/federal
system.16
Wells also addresses the question of whose responsibility citizenship enforcement is, the federal
or state and local governments. Wells explains the position that immigration enforcement is a federal
responsibility and stems from Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants the federal
government the exclusive authority to regulate immigration and from the supremacy clause, which
precludes state and local governments from taking action in the realm of immigration enforcement.17
Research Methodology & Explanation of Data
The scope of this paper will be limited to the committee hearings, floor debates and voting
explanations that took place regarding S.B. 1070.18 Employing a qualitative approach, Joseph Bessette’s
definition and principles of deliberative democracy, as well as Gary Mucciaroni and Paul J. Quirk’s
evaluation of congressional floor debates, I will determine whether or not the Arizona State Legislature
exercised principles of deliberative democracy in the process of passing S.B. 1070.
15
Ibid, p.33
Wells, Miriam. (Winter, 2004). “The Grassroots Reconfiguration of U.S. Immigration Policy.” International
Migration Review. 38 (4), p.1308-1311.
17
Ibid, p.1313
18
In future research, other elements will be examined, such as partisanship and public opinion polls. However,
due to current time and the length requirements of this assignment, only committee and floor debates will be
analyzed.
16
5
The first piece of data to be examined will be the committee hearings that involved
deliberation of S.B. 1070. As Bessette states, “By design it is in committees and subcommittees that the
most detailed and extensive policy deliberation occurs within Congress.”19 Even though these hearing
were conducted at the state level, the point made by Bessette still holds true, since the Arizona State
Legislature is closely modeled after the U.S. Congress. The committee hearings on S.B. 1070 in the
Arizona State Legislature also provided time for public testimony. Bessette discusses the importance of
public hearings, by arguing that these forums are suited for analyzing the merits of pending legislation
and discusses how this process promotes visibility, along with time for witness and expert testimony,
enabling a wide range of views to be heard.20
The data on committees is provided on the Arizona State Legislature website, where hearing
videos are streamed for public viewing.21 The committees that debated S.B. 1070 and whose videos
were available to view will be examined are as follows:



The Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee (January 20, 2010)
The House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee (March 31, 2010)
The House Rules Committee (April 5, 2010)
Floor debates will also be examined in this research paper. In their examination of floor
debates, Gary Mucciaroni and Paul J. Quirk argue that debate is a crucial part of deliberation, because it
provides an opportunity for legislators to obtain information about the merits of policy decisions. The
following is a list of the debates that occurred and will be examined in this paper:22
19
Bessette, J. (1994). The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. (p.
156). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
20
Ibid, p.156-157
21
Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session.
Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070&Session_ID=93
22
Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session.
Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070&Session_ID=93
6




Senate Third Reading #1—Floor Vote (February 15, 2010)
House Committee of the Whole #1—Floor Debate (April 13, 2010)
House Third Reading #1—Voting and Explanation of Votes (April 13, 2010)
Senate Final Reading #1—Voting and Explanation of Votes (April 19, 2010)
It should be noted that floor voting sessions are also included in the above list and will be considered as
floor debate, because legislators had the opportunity to explain their voting positions, which took on a
“debate form” in each chamber.
Lastly, in the context of these variables and the research methodology, it is important to take
into account the chronology of this process. Through the discussion of the committee hearings, floor
debates and votes, this chronology will come to light (however, please refer to appendix 1, for a detailed
list of the legislative chronology on S.B. 1070).
Key Points of S.B. 1070
Before discussing each of the committee hearings that were available to view, it is important to
first provide some discussion of the bill and its intent. As previously mentioned, Republican State
Senator Russell Pearce was the lead sponsor of S.B. 1070, and introduced the bill during the Second
Session of the Forty-Ninth Legislature in the State of Arizona, where it was first read by the Senate on
January 13, 2010.
The first version of this bill included proposed points to deal with the problem of illegal
immigration that Arizona was facing.23 For example, the bill stated that no official or agency in the
state, a county, city or town or other political subdivision could adopt a policy that limited or restricted
enforcement of federal immigration laws then less to their fullest extent. It also enabled any legitimate
contact to be made by an official or agency of the state or county, city, town or political subdivision in
23
Please note that is not practical to list the full context of the bill in this paper, and therefore, only key points will
be discussed. To access the various versions of the bill, please visit the website for S.B. 1070, which is on the
Arizona State Legislatures website
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070&Session_ID=93.
7
order to determine if a person is an “alien” where ”reasonable suspicious exists.” From this point, the
proposed bill called for a “reasonable attempt” to be made to determine the status of immigration and
permit that it be verified with the federal government.24
The proposal further stated that if an “alien” was convicted in violation of state or local law, that
upon being discharged, he or she was to be transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
or Border Protection. The bill went on to state that a law enforcement agency had the authority to
transport an “alien” to a federal facility within Arizona or to another point of transfer into federal
custody, that would be outside the jurisdiction of state and local law enforcement. The bill also
permitted law enforcement officers to arrest a person without a warrant, if the officer had “probable
cause” to believe that the individual had committed an offense that makes a person removable from the
country.25
Furthermore, the proposed legislation also required individuals to be able to provide proof of
their legal status, permitted a person to bring an action in superior court to challenge any law
enforcement agency in the state that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration law to
less than its fullest extent permitted by federal law, made it illegal for an occupant of a motor vehicle
that is stopped on a road way or street to attempt to hire or pick up passengers for work at a different
location or for a person to enter a motor vehicle that is stopped on the street in an attempt to be hired
or be picked up for work at a different location, and made it unlawful for a person who is unlawfully
present in the state to apply for work.26 It also made it illegal to conceal, harbor, or shield an alien from
24
Introduce Version of S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved
October 29, 2010 from: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070p.htm.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
8
detection in the state and required employers to utilize the e-verify program when determining an
individuals’ work status.27
These areas capture the main elements of the bill that were discussed in the committee and
public hearings and floor debates. The preceding discussion will cover these points in the context of the
committee hearings and what changes were made to the bill.
Analysis of Deliberation
Committee Hearings, Floor Debates and Votes
Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee. The bill was first referred to the Senate’s
Public Safety and Human Services Committee. On January 19, 2010, before the hearing took place, the
committee did make an amendment to the bill changing some of its language. These changes were part
of the committee’s hearing. These language changes were not substantive overhauls and therefore,
were very similar to the underlying bill.28 The committee’s hearing took place on January 20, 2010. The
hearing consisted of both Senators deliberating on the proposal, as well as testimony provided by
several individuals and organizations both for and against the bill. In total there were twelve speakers
providing testimony, five of whom supported the bill, six whom were in opposition and one who was
neutral. Out of these twelve individuals, three were members of the Senate. The entire hearing lasted
27
Ibid.
Please note that is not practical to detail/enclose the amendments of this bill in this paper, and therefore, only
key issues pertaining to the amendment(s) as discussed in the committee hearing will be discussed. To access this
particular this amendment (which was passed by in committee) dated January 19, 2010 please visit the Arizona
State Legislatures website at
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=%2Flegtext%2F49leg%2F2r%2Fadopted%2Fs%2E1070pshs%2
Edoc%2Ehtm.
28
9
one hour and twenty-five minutes (see appendix 2 for information on the length of each committee
hearing, floor debate and vote). 29
The hearing began with the reading of the bill, followed by sponsor, Senator Russell Pearce
defending the legislation. Senator Pearce argued that the bill took the “political handcuffs” off of law
enforcement. Regarding this point, Pearce argued that the federal government had a right to set policy,
but that states had an inherent authority to enforce it. He also argued that day laborers have virtually
shut down business and that this legislation was critical, because it removed provisions for sanctuary
cities.30 Senator Pearce was joined in support of the bill by, fellow Republican State Senator Al Melvin,
who argued that the state’s budget “woes” would be eliminated by enforcing this piece of legislation,
since he argued that between 20% to 30% of the state’s students, patients and inmates are “illegal
aliens” who cost the state $2 billion dollars a year. The last legislator to speak about the bill, Democratic
Senator Rios, first recommended to the chair that a full hearing be permitted even though there was a
time issue, so that all sides could be heard regarding this proposal. Senator Rios made a brief comment
stating that she had concerns with some of the language of the bill.31
From this point, testimony on the bill from various organizations and individuals began. The
Arizona Chamber of Commerce was represented by Allison Bell. Bell stated that the Chamber was
neutral, but they would like to request that the language of the bill be changed so that businesses using
e-verify would not be considered predisposed to hiring illegal aliens.32
Five organizations/individuals provided testimony against the bill. Jennifer Allen, President of
the Border Action Network emphasized general concerns. For example, she argued that the bill would
29
Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate,
Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=6415.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
10
cost the state in terms of liability; and argued that the bill was a “grab bag” of former bills that had
previously failed in the legislature. Small business owner, Fernando Gonzales also raised concerns,
stating he feared it would cause animosity, alienate the Hispanic community within the state and deter
business from coming to Arizona. Gonzales also argued that the law would require police officers to
have 287g33 training in order to enforce illegal immigration policy and that would be costly to the
state.34
John Thomas of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police also spoke out against the bill.
Thomas’ major concern stemmed from the provision of the law that stated that no official agency may
adopt of policy that limits or restricts federal immigration law to less than its fullest extent. Thomas
recalled that the legislation stated that if this did not occur, it allowed for anyone to sue the law
enforcement entity or political subdivision for not complying and therefore, leave law enforcement
liability and open to cost. Joe Seek with the Arizona Farm Bureau addressed concerns with the e-verify
system, arguing that employers could be at fault if they ran an employee’s paperwork that at the time
passed through the system, but later found out that the person was not lawfully permitted to work in
the United States. Chairman Allen corrected his testimony, by arguing that if the employer went
through the process in this case, they would not be liable since they complied with the law by using everify. Lastly, Alessandra Soler Meetze with the ACLU discussed that other cities, such as Chandler, AZ
who has had to pay $400,000.00 a to U.S. citizen who had been illegally detained because of similar
33
According to the Department of Homeland Security, the 287g program is defined as “one of ICE’s top partnership
initiatives, allows a state and local law enforcement entity to enter into a partnership with ICE, under a joint
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The state or local entity receives delegated authority for immigration
enforcement within their jurisdictions.” Department of Homeland Security. Delegation of Immigration Authority
Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from: http://www.ice.gov/287g/.
34
Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate,
Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=6415.
11
policies, along with Hazelton, PN who reportedly owed $2million in legal fees as a result of similar
policies.35
Three organization/ individuals also spoke out in favor of the bill. Mark Spencer, President of
Phoenix Law Enforcement, read the names of officers stemming from the 1990s, who had lost their lives
while on duty at the hands of illegal immigrants. Rob Haney, the Republican Party Chairman for
Maricopa County also spoke in support of the bill, arguing that the county had already passed two
resolutions that were similar to the bill. Lastly attorney, Tom Husband spoke in support of the bill,
arguing that not supporting and complying with S.B. 1070 was “willful” ignorance.36
The committee meeting ended with Senator Russell Pearce providing a final rebuttal. He argued
that a lot of misinformation was provided in the testimony against the bill and noted that 287g training
was not necessary for arresting authority, but only for post arrest. He further argued that the 5th, 6th,
8th, 9th and 10th Circuit Courts all ruled that states have an inherent authority to enforce federal
immigration laws. After his rebuttal, the committee passed S.B. 1070 and by a vote of four ayes and
three nays.37
Overall, the Public Safety and Human Services committee hearing was consistent with the
principles of deliberative democracy. The members of the committee did deliberate on the merits of
public policy, by listening to testimony and even making points and rebuttals of their own regarding the
merits of the bill. As Bessette states, “deliberative democracy also demands, however, that the
representatives of the people share the basic values and goals of their constituents; their own
deliberations about public policy must be firmly rooted in popular interests and inclinations.”38
35
Ibid.
Ibid.
37
Ibid.
38
Bessette, J. (1994). The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. (p. 2).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
36
12
Essentially, by taking testimony that revealed various constituent groups’ opinions on the issue of illegal
immigration and S.B.1070, the committee was in fact attempting to hear the public’s interests, values
and goals.
Furthermore, two of the three essential elements of deliberative democracy discussed by
Bessette, information and argument were present. Bessette states,
“Reasoning on the merits of public policy requires at a minimum that serious consideration be
given to pertinent substantive information on policy issues. Such information may include basic
facts and figures on some social, economic or national security issue…details and evaluations of
current or past legislative or administrative policies (possibly including experiences at the state
and local level or in other countries), and the content of those policies.”39
An example of this can be seen from both the opposition’s testimony and those who supported the bill.
For example, Alessandra Soler Meetze with the Arizona ACLU provided information, facts and figures on
past policies and experiences other localities were facing with similar policies. On the other hand,
Senator Russell Pearce also provided information on Federal District Courts who have supported state
enforcement of federal immigration policy, along with information on 287g training.40 By reading the
points of all the testimony above, the information and argument requirements of the principles of
deliberative democracy appear to be sufficiently satisfied.
Senate Third Reading #1 Floor Vote. Before moving to the Senate for a vote, S.B. 1070 was
considered by both majority and minority caucuses in the Senate.41 The Rules Committee approved the
bill and the Pearce Floor Amendment, which addressed some of the language concerns in the Senate
Public Safety and Human Services Committee.42 The floor vote by the Senate took place on February 15,
39
Ibid, p. 49
Ibid, p. 51
41
Please note again that the scope of this paper is limited to analyzing the deliberative nature of the committees
and floor debates/votes, not specifically the caucuses. The committee report that was sent to caucus can be
viewed at http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs_caucusfloor.doc.htm.
42
Please visit the Arizona State Legislature website to view the slight changes that were made to the bill via the
Pearce Floor Amendment
40
13
2010 and was brief, lasting only two minutes and eighteen seconds. The majority of Senate, with
seventeen ayes versus thirteen nays passed S.B. 1070 and transmitted it to the House for
consideration.43
Even though no debate took place at this particular floor session, it does not discount that a
deliberative process did occur. As stated above, the Public Health and Human Services Committee had
already deliberated on the bill, passed amendments, and the bill was referred to both the majority and
minority causes, before the Senate took its floor vote. This entails that a deliberative process occurred
proceeding up to the floor vote. This being said, the floor debate does capture a principle of
deliberative democracy, which is to promote the rule of deliberate majorities. 44 Also, the Senate Public
Safety and Human Services Committee did file several reports and summaries, known as “fact sheets”
that outlined the bill and amendments made, which were available the to both the caucuses and to the
Senate before the floor vote.45 These summaries and reports help provide information to fellow
legislators on the committee’s work and the recommendations. Regarding this point, Bessette states,
“The committee’s obligation to explain and justify its actions through a formal report to the full
body signifies the deliberative aspect of the division of labor affected through the committee
system. In principle, the committee does merely act, or will, for the parent body, but reasons,
or deliberates, for it.”46
Based on the committee deliberations and the filed report, it appears that a deliberative process did in
fact occur in order for the Senate to take this floor vote.
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=%2Flegtext%2F49leg%2F2r%2Fadopted%2Fs%2E1070pearce4
41%2Edoc%2Ehtm.
43
Senate Third Reading Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second
Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=6755.
44
Bessette, J. (1994). The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. (p. 3).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
45
Bill Summaries and Fact Sheets for S.B. 1070. Senate Public Safety and Human Services Committee: For Caucus
and Floor Action. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved October 29,
2010 from: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs_caucusfloor.doc.htm.
46
Ibid, p. 89
14
House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee. The second version of S.B. 1070 was
transmitted to the House directly after the Senate floor vote, on February 15, 2010. On March 23, 2010,
the first reading of the bill occurred in the House and on March 24, 2010, the second reading occurred.
The bill was assigned to both the House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee and the House
Rules Committee on March 23, 2010. On March 31, 2010, the Military Affairs and Public Safety
Committee held their hearing, which consisted of testimony from individuals and organizations, as well
as debates between members on the merits of the bill. In total, fourteen people spoke on the bill, six in
favor and eight opposed. Out of the six who spoke in favor, four were legislators and two were
individuals providing testimony. Of the eight who spoke in opposition of the bill, two were legislators
and six were individuals providing testimony. This hearing lasted three hours and twenty-seven
minutes.47
The hearing began with the committee moving to pass a recommendation on the bill, which
encompassed a “strike-everything” amendment that members of the committee drafted before the
hearing, which was very similar to underlying version of the bill. This was introduced by Rene Gene, a
member of the Majority Research Staff in the Arizona State Legislature. Gene affirmed that the “striker”
did result in a very similar bill and that the changes to the bill included the following points: (1) a status
of an individual is to be determined before they are released; (2) upon implementation of the bill, race,
color or national origin cannot be solely considered; (3) that an Arizona driver’s license, non-operating
identification card, a tribal enrollment I.D. or other tribal forms of identification or a federal, state or
local I.D. may be considered valid; (4) changed the trespassing clause to “willful failure” to comply to
carry an identification card or alien registration document; (5) that it would not be considered
transporting, concealing or harboring an “illegal alien” if the purpose of transports was done for a
47
House Military Affairs and Public Safety Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth
Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=7286.
15
medical or health emergency; (6) clarifies that the act is not to be construed to implement the Real I.D.
Act.48
With these changes being stated, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Russell Pearce spoke before
the committee. Pearce began this time speaking about Rob Krentz, the Arizona Rancher who recently
lost his life at the hands of an alleged illegal immigrant. Pearce went on to reiterate his comments that
he shared before the Senate’s Public Safety and Human Services Committee. Republican House
Representative Seal (who ended up supporting the bill), commented that regarding arrest, his concern
was that an individual’s loss of liberty could occur if he in fact had legal status, but it could not be
determined at the time of an arrest. Senator Pearce stated that if someone is lawfully in the state, one
call to ICE would resolve that issue. Other House members raised a few concerns as well. For example,
Republican Representative Reeve (who also supported the bill) posed the question of what would
happen to an individual if he was lawfully in the country or state, but was waiting on his paper work.
Democrat House Representative, Pat Fleming also raised similar concerns.49
Most of the debate actually took place between Senator Pearce and Democratic House
Representative and committee member, Krysten Sinema. Throughout the hearing, Representative
Sinema raised many concerns about the bill’s language, such as the possible loss of liberty issue,
protection for victims and witnesses when reporting a crime (this is based on the notion that an illegal
alien may not report a crime if he or she fears being detained and subsequently deported), the ability of
law enforcement to transport an alleged “illegal alien” outside of their jurisdiction, guidelines for
determining status, the language that allows an individual to sue if he feels that an officer and/or
48
49
Ibid.
Ibid.
16
agency was not enforcing federal immigration legislation to the fullest extent of the law, and, overall,
that enforcing immigration law was the sole responsibility of the federal government.50
As mentioned above, outside testimony was heard from organizations on both sides of the
issues. For example, Dale Wiebusch with The League of Arizona Cities and Towns spoke out against the
bill, stating that local law enforcement in Arizona already collaborated with ICE and so there was no
need for the bill. Once again, John Thomas with the Arizona Chief of Police spoke against the bill
stressing his concerns with the language that would allow an individual to bring suit against a law
enforcement agency.51
Ron Johnson, with the Catholic Conference spoke against the bill, expressing the concern the
organization had with provisions in the bill that they felt did not do enough to protect witness or victims
in reporting a crime. Once again, Jennifer Allen, with the Arizona Border Action Group spoke out in
opposition of the bill and argued that S.B. 1070 would not fix the state and federal government’s broken
immigration system, but only cause problems through expensive litigation. Fr. Glenn Jencks with Valley
Inter Faith also emphasized that the bill would bring forth legal challenges. Finally, Tom Landfree with
the Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform, argued that to pay for the enforcement of S.B. 1070,
taxes could potentially increase and that it could create a negative incentive for business.52
As noted above, out of the six individuals who spoke in support of the bill, two were not
members of the Arizona State Legislature. One of these individuals was Mr. Levy Bolton of the Phoenix
Law Enforcement Association. Levy Bolton attempted to address the concerns about law enforcement’s
ability to quickly determine the status of someone who may not have identification on him. He assured
the committee that this type of scenario happens daily with law enforcement and all it entails is making
50
Ibid.
Ibid.
52
Ibid.
51
17
a quick phone call to ICE or the proper federal authority. He shared that he served as a police officer for
thirty-two years and conducted approximately three hundred of these types of incidences and that not
once did he make a mistake and not once did someone lose any of his liberty unnecessarily. Mark
Spencer with Phoenix Police Department spoke on the bill’s behalf, once again emphasizing the law
enforcement officers who had lost their lives at the hands of illegal immigrants in Phoenix.53
At the end of the testimony, Senator Russell Pearce was once again given time for a rebuttal to
address some of the claims in the testimony. Senator Pearce and Representative Sinemea engaged in
debate on the language of the bill, specifically on the issues of training and law suits. Once this
concluded, the committee passed the bill by a vote of five to three.54
This particular committee session did demonstrate principles of deliberative democracy and
strategies. There was for example, a significant effort by those participating to challenge claims made
by others. As noted above, several of those who spoke out in opposition to the bill discussed their
concerns about the potential for people to bring forth lawsuits. In an effort to challenge this claim,
Russell Pearce and Mr. Spencer of the Phoenix Police Department argued that the clause in the bill was
made in an effort to give law enforcement more discretion to contact ICE. 55 Mucciaroni and Quirk
argue that this kind of exchange helps to foster better information. They argue that an effort to
challenge information “provides an attentive listener some protection from being misled.”56
Furthermore, Mucciaroni and Quirk also discuss how the element of time can help foster more informed
debate. “Perhaps the strongest predictor of how well Congress informs it audience is simply how much
time it spends discussing an issue. If legislators spend more time debating an issue, they also make
53
Ibid.
Ibid.
55
Ibid.
56
Mucciaroni, G. & Quirk, P.J. (2006). Deliberative Choices: Debating Public Policy in Congress. (p. 181). Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
54
18
more supportable claims.”
57
This particular committee spent the most time deliberating over S.B. 1070
than any other committee or floor debate that occurred.58
As a result of the House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee hearing, the “strikeeverything” amendment (essentially the second version of the bill) was adopted with a do pass
recommendation. Once again, the essence and underlying purpose of the bill stayed the same. 59 The
committee also filed several reports and summaries that outlined the amendment made.60
House Rules Committee. On April 5, 2010, S.B. 1070 was presented before the House Rules
Committee. This particular session lasted four minutes and seventeen seconds. The Rules Committee
agreed that S.B. 1070 as amended by the Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee was
“constitutional and in proper order” and therefore, moved for the bill to be voted on the House floor.61
Even though no deliberation or debate took place in the House Rules Committee on the
amendment version of S.B. 1070, it does not mean that it was lacking in the deliberative process.
Receiving a do pass recommendation by the Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee, the bill was
following the proper legislative course by being sent to the House Rules Committee, where it’s form and
57
Ibid, p.198
House Military Affairs and Public Safety Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth
Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=7286.
59
Please note that it is not practical to specifically list the full amended bill by the Committee on Military Affairs
and Public Safety. The full amended bill can be viewed through the Arizona State Legislatures website:
Committee on Military Affairs and Public Safety: House Representative Amendments to S.B. 1070. Arizona State
Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=%2Flegtext%2F49leg%2F2r%2Fadopted%2Fh%2E1070%2Dse
%2Dmaps%2Edoc%2Ehtm.
60
Bill Summaries and Fact Sheets for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular
Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070&Session_ID=93.
61
House Rules Committee: Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second
Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=7363.
58
19
constitutionality were verified. Once that process was over, the bill was sent to both the House Majority
and Minority Caucus on April 6, 2010, just before the House’s floor debate and vote.62
House Committee of the Whole #1—Floor Debate. The amended version of the S.B. 1070 moved
to the House floor on April 13, 2010. During this debate the Military Affairs and Public Safety
Committee “strike-everything” amendment was considered, along with a new item, the Biggs Floor
Amendment. Republican House Representative, Andy Biggs had worked with several other legislators
on additional changes to the bill and proposed they be adopted on the floor. This debate lasted thirtyone minutes and fifteen seconds. During the debate four members of the House spoke in favor of the
proposal and two spoke in opposition.63
The debate started with Representative Biggs explaining his amendment. He explained that the
amendment did the following: (1) reinserted the language regarding harboring and shielding; (2)
clarified that only an Arizona residence can bring an action or claim against sanctuary cities; (3) clarified
that the bill is not an attempt to enforce the Real I.D. Act; (4) allows law enforcement discretion to
determine when it is “practicable” to determine immigration status and whether determining status will
hinder or obstruct an investigation and if so, then the officer is alleviated from having to determine
status; and (4) the amendment would remove the requirement that rural counties must immediately
transport unlawful aliens to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents.64
62
Again, please note that this purpose of this paper is to closely examine the committee hearings and floor
debates/votes, which are video archived on the State of Arizona Legislature’s website; therefore, the deliberation
that occurred in the caucuses is not being analyzed; nor is a complete report of all the various caucuses and their
activities available. The report that was sent the House Majority and Minority Causes can be viewed via the
Arizona State Legislature’s website at
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070&Session_ID=93.
63
House Committee of the Whole: Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature,
Second Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=7467.
64
Ibid.
20
Once the amendments were clarified, debate began. Representative Sinemea raised opposition
on what she referred to as “constitutional” issues. She argued that it was solely the federal
government’s responsibility to enforce immigration policy and that S.B. 1070 brought forth an unfunded
mandate to the State of Arizona to enforce immigration policy. Democratic Representative Ben Miranda
also spoke against the bill, arguing that it would not see implementation, because of the law suits that
will be brought against it and claimed that the proposal also did not prioritize what types of crimes the
law would go after. Lastly in opposition, Democratic Representative Tom Chabin argued that the bill
was morally wrong and demonized immigrant labor.65
Speaking in support of the proposal, Representative John Kavahagh argued that if the legislature
did not pass this bill, then illegal immigration would still be a problem and urged his colleagues to
support the proposal. In support, Republican Representative Debbie Lesko claimed that two years ago
illegal immigration was the number one issue to her constituents and that this year it is as well.
Republican Representative Ray Barnes argued in support of bill, sharing that he had a Haitian daughter
and chose to get her to Arizona legally.66 Finally, Representative Biggs reiterated the points of his
amendment and cited Gonzales v. Peoria, a case in which he stated the 9th Circuit Federal Court upheld
that local police had a right to arrest an illegal alien in violation of criminal provisions under state law.67
The House then moved passed the amendments by voice vote and moved the bill to a final floor vote in
the House.68
Again, this process does entail principles of deliberative democracy. For example, through this
floor debate the elements of problem solving and analysis were present. Bessette argues that these
65
Ibid.
Ibid.
67
Ibid.
68
Ibid.
66
21
elements are important components of deliberate democracy.69 This debate addressed various social
and economic issues, such as the concern about the possible financial cost to train officers, which types
of crimes police would prioritize and the cost of potential law suits. Representative Biggs also took the
time at the outset of the debate, to demonstrate how his amendment attempted to resolve some of the
issues that were of concern in committee, such as the officer’s ability to utilize discretion when
determining when it is “practical” to inquire into a person’s immigration status.70 This debate took the
time to examine the political, social and economic problem of illegal immigration in Arizona and put
forth possible solutions.
House Third Reading#1—Floor Vote & Explanation of Votes. Immediately after the Biggs and the
House Military Affairs and Public Safety amendments were adopted by the House Committee of the
Whole, it went to a floor vote. During this time, both members of the House had the opportunity to
explain their vote before formally casting it. This demonstrated that they still debated on the issues and
merits of the bill and urged their colleagues to either vote in support or opposition. This particular floor
vote took one hour, twenty minutes and twelve seconds. A total of sixteen members of the House of
Representatives decided to provide an explanation of their vote, nine of whom supported the bill and
seven of whom were opposed. 71
Due to the number of legislators who explained their vote and the similar reasons they gave
either in support or in opposition, only a few examples will be discussed here (please see appendix three
for a full list of all Representatives that explained their vote). One of the supporters that explained their
69
Bessette, J. (1994). The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. (p. 46).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
70
House Committee of the Whole: Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature,
Second Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=7467.
71
House Third Read#1: Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second
Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=7469.
22
vote, Representative Cecil Ash, argued that she believed that the bill’s sponsor, Senator Russell Pearce,
had addressed the issues that had been of concern to people and he had worked with many groups in
changing the relevant language of the bill. Republican Representative Russell Jones also discussed this
point and emphasized Senator Pearce’s efforts. Republican Representative Stevens urged his colleagues
to vote for the bill and insisted that it was a step in the right direction. Republican Representative Biggs
argued that those who were in opposition to the bill failed to demonstrate evidence of why it should be
opposed and have played on prejudice, fear and hate.72
Those explaining their vote in opposition also shared similar reasons. Democratic
Representative Sinema, once again rose in opposition of the bill, explaining that she could not vote for
it, because it violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the
enforcement of immigration law was a federal issue. Democratic Representative, Chad Campbell
explained he was voting no, because he too felt that immigration enforcement was a federal issue.
Democratic Representative Daniel Patterson also expressed similar reasons for voting against S.B. 1070
and reminded the House that several organizations, such as the Arizona Association of Chief of Police,
Valley Interfaith Project and The League of Cities and Towns opposed the bill.73
After these legislators provided their explanations, the floor vote concluded and S.B. 1070
passed with thirty-fives ayes, four no votes and twenty-one nays. From this point, the bill (no in its third
and final version) was transmitted to the Senate for a final vote.
This process demonstrates that by the time the floor vote occurred, the House did deliberate on
the merits of the bill, addressed their concerns and the concerns of various constituencies. In the end
72
73
Ibid.
Ibid.
23
the deliberative majority prevailed in passing the bill.74 Also, there did appear to be shared goals among
the majority of the legislators. For example, those in the House supporting the bill truly believed that
enforcing federal immigration law was what was best for Arizona and collaborated with the lead
sponsor and other members, to address concerns and create what Russell Pearce referred to as a
“better bill.”75 Bessette also discusses collaboration and effort as an element of deliberative democracy
when he states, “Collective deliberation, however, necessarily requires some sharing of goals, purpose,
or values. If legislators are to reason together about the merits of public policy, there must be some
common ground for the arguments and appeals essential to deliberation.”76
Senate Final Reading #1—Floor Vote & Explanation of Votes. Once the floor vote took
place in the House on April 13, 2010, S.B. 1070 was immediately transmitted to the Senate. On April 15
2010, the bill went to both the Senate Majority and Minority Caucuses.77 On April 19, 2010 the Senate
voted on the bill and fifteen Senators provided explanations for their vote, nine of whom supported the
bill and six of whom were opposed. Because legislators gave similar reasons for supporting or opposing
the bill, only a few examples will be discussed below (please see appendix four, for a full list of all
Senators that explained their vote). At the end of this floor vote, S.B. 1070 passed through the Senate
with a vote of thirty-five ayes, four not present votes (no votes) and twenty-one nays.78
In support, Republican Senator, John Huppenthal explained that by following good policy the
Phoenix Police Department had seen the murder rate cut in half over the last year and that he viewed
74
Bessette, J. (1994). The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. (p. 3).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
75
House Military Affairs and Public Safety Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth
Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=7286.
76
Bessette, J. (1994). The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. (p. 48).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
77
Bill Summaries and Fact Sheets for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular
Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070&Session_ID=93
78
Ibid.
24
S.B.1070 as continuing “good policy” in protecting the people of Arizona. Republican Senator David
Braswell explained that he supported the bill, because of the evidence that demonstrated that states
have the right to protect themselves and enforce federal immigration policy. Republican Senator Linda
Gray explained that she had twenty-one reasons for voting for S.B. 1070 and then proceeded to read
twenty-one names of deceased police officers that had died at the hands of illegal immigrants.
Republican Senator and sponsor, Russell Pearce explained that illegal immigration is not a race issue; but
a criminal issue and reiterated the notion that states have inherent authority to enforce federal
immigration laws. Senator Pearce also stated that in 2006, the people of Arizona passed four
propositions dealing with illegal immigration that were similar to the concerns S.B. 1070 addressed.
Pearce argued that 75% of Arizonians supported these measures and 60% of the Hispanic community
did as well.79
Again, several senators rose in opposition to explain their vote. For example, Democratic
Senator Ken Cheuvront addressed the looming concern that immigration enforcement was solely a
federal issue. Senator Cheuvront also warned that Arizona would possibly face boycotts as a result of
passing S.B. 1070. Democratic Senator Richard Miranda also discussed the potential economic impact
that the state could face as a result of this legislation. For example, he gave an antidote stating that
perhaps organizations from out-of-state would no longer choose Arizona as a place to hold conferences,
due to the state’s restrictivits immigration policies. He also warned about the potential threat of
boycotts by fellow states. Democratic State Senator, Rebecca Rios also discussed the potential negative
economic impact that the state may face due to the ability of people to bring forth litigation.80 Overall,
79
Senate Final Read #1: Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second
Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=7519.
80
Ibid.
25
the opposition’s concerns tended to focus on the economic impact and the negative attitudes outside
states and organizations would take towards Arizona.
For many of the same reasons stated in the House floor vote, the Senate floor vote
demonstrated principles of deliberative democracy and elements discussed by Mucciaroni and Quirk.
For example, in their work on deliberation, Mucciaroni and Quirk argue that,
“Legislators more often make predictive rather than descriptive claims. They emphasize
descriptive claims, however, if they want to frame the policy decision as either approving or
disapproving current conditions…we might expect speakers to favor predictive claims because
they are more difficult for the audience to evaluate critically or for the other side to rebut
convincingly…nevertheless, legislators will focus on current conditions if they provide the basis
for powerful claims.”81
In the case of the Senate’s floor vote, predictive claims were made by both Senators Cheuvront
and Miranda, regarding the possibility that Arizona may face boycotts by other states as a result of
passing S.B. 1070. In this case, it is more difficult for the audience or even a fellow member to evaluate
this claim, since it had not occurred yet. In the floor debates and votes, legislators also focused on
current conditions to support their claim for the need to pass S.B. 1070. For instance, Senator Russell
Pearce provided evidence of Arizona voters already supporting measures similar to S.B. 1070 in the 2006
election.82 As noted by Mucciaroni and Quirk, making claims about present conditions can assistance in
gaining disapproval about the current state of affairs.83
Conclusion
Once the Senate had their final reading and vote on the bill, the third and final version of the bill
was transmitted to Governor Brewer on April 19, 2010. On April 23, 2010, Governor Brewer signed the
81
Mucciaroni, G. & Quirk, P.J. (2006). Deliberative Choices: Debating Public Policy in Congress. (p. 160). Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press
82
Senate Final Read #1: Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second
Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=7519.
83
Mucciaroni, G. & Quirk, P.J. (2006). Deliberative Choices: Debating Public Policy in Congress. (p. 160). Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
26
bill into law. The entire process took approximately three months. The amount of time that was spent
deliberating in committees, floor debates and votes on the bill (outside of caucus) was seven hours,
fifty-one minutes and thirty six seconds84 (see appendix 2). The final billed closely resembled the first
two versions of the bill, especially the main provisions mandating law enforcement officials, agencies
and political subdivisions of the state to enforce federal immigration law to the fullest extent permitted
by law, with the ability to make a reasonable attempt, when practicable, to determine the immigration
status of a person.85
Overall, I would argue that even though some could state that three months of deliberation is a
brief period, that the legislative process of passing S.B. 1070 entailed principles of deliberative
democracy, as stated in each section on the committee hearings, floor debates and voting sections of
this paper. The legislature demonstrated the institutional capacity to fully deliberate on the proposal,
address concerns and develop collective reasoning. Also, many of the legislators discussed the concerns
of their constituents, such as the ranchers on the state’s border, local law enforcement and their general
district populations. This demonstrated that their deliberations seriously took into consideration the
popular interest.86 The legislature deliberation fulfilled two principles that Bessette discusses in his work
on deliberative democracy: “(1) that our governing institutions must have the capacity to deliberate
well, to make informed and wise judgments about public policy; and (2) that those deliberations must
be firmly grounded in the interest and desires of the American citizenry.”87
84
Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved
October 29, 2010 from: http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070&Session_ID=93.
85
Bill Versions: House Engrossed (Chaptered Version). Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second
Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm.
86
Bessette, J. (1994). The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. (p. 2).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
87
Ibid, p.5
27
Furthermore, throughout the process information was presented to legislatures, arguments
were made on the merits of the bill in an effort to persuade members to vote either in support or
opposition of the bill. As previously mentioned, Bessette argues that these three elements are essential
components of deliberative democracy.88 However, it should be noted that through this analysis, it was
difficult to determine which legislators were persuaded by fellow members’ arguments and public
testimony. As Bessette notes,
“While it cannot be disputed that floor debate focuses attention on the information and
arguments supporting a committee’s policy recommendations, what is less clear is whether real
persuasion occurs as a result of what is said on the floor. Such persuasion is most easily
discerned when legislators actually change their minds after listening to or participating in floor
debate.”89
Again, it was not evident on the floor if any legislators changed their minds, if anything, it seems as
though their positions were reinforced or their minds were made up due to the discussions that took
place in prior committee and debate sessions, which does not necessarily discount the deliberative
nature of the process.
Another element that demonstrates the deliberate character of this debate, is the willingness of
legislators to take political risks in supporting S.B. 1070. It was evident by the amount of time that,
sponsor Senator Russell Pearce worked on the bill, that he was willing to take political risk in supporting
it throughout the entire process. He attended the committee hearings, provided testimony, and worked
with fellow legislators, organizations and constituency groups who had concerns about some of the bill’s
language. He took on the challenge of publically debating colleagues in the legislator whom admittedly
opposed him and argued that he had a personal agenda.90 Regarding some of “the principal
characteristics of those who engage in serious lawmaking,” Bessette states, “Although they wish and
88
Ibid, p.49
Ibid, p.166
90
Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved
October 29, 2010 from: http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070&Session_ID=93
89
28
seek reelection to Congress, they are, nonetheless, willing to take some political risks for the sake of
good public policy.”91 Through watching Senator Pearce’s involvement in the hearings and floor
debates, it became evident that he believed he was advocating good public policy for the State of
Arizona and was willing to take political risks to do so.
Moreover, even though the scope of this paper was limited to analyzing how deliberative the
committee hearings, floor debates and voting procedures were regarding S.B. 1070, it would be remiss,
not to at least briefly address the obvious partisan divide on this legislation and how it may have
affected the deliberative nature of the process. For example, the Arizona State Legislature has a
majority of Republican members, fifty-nine to thirty-seven.92 Republicans in both the House and Senate,
overwhelmingly supported and voted for S.B. 1070, meanwhile Democrats in both chambers were
overwhelmingly opposed. For example, 34.9% of Republicans in the House and 45.4% in the Senate cosponsored the bill.93 Not a single Democrat in the entire legislator voted in support of the bill, and only
one Republican, State Senator Carolyn Allen voted against the bill (see appendix 5).94 This is important
to note, because as Mucciaroni and Quirk state, “Severe partisan and ideological conflict generally
reduces information value. Debate is more informative when there is a significant degree of bipartisan
91
Bessette, J. (1994). The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. (p.
135-136). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
92
House Roster for Arizona State Legislature. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session.
Retrieved October 22, 2010 from: http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=H.
Senate Roster for Arizona State Legislature, Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session.
Retrieved October 22, 2010 from: http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=S.
93
Bill Status Overview for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session.
Retrieved October 22, 2010 from:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext49leg/2r/bills/sb1070o.asp.
94
Bill Status Votes for S.B. 1070: Third Reading House Vote. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second
Regular Session. Retrieved October 22, 2010 from:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070.hthird.1.asp.
Bill Status Votes for S.B. 1070: Final Reading Senate Vote. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second
Regular Session. Retrieved October 22, 2010 from:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070.sfinal.1.asp.
29
support for a proposal.”95 Debate on S.B. 1070 in the Arizona Legislature did not signify a bipartisan
effort. As demonstrated in the discussions on the committee hearings and floor activity, it was very
apparent that any legislator who spoke out in support of the bill was Republican and any member who
spoke out in opposition was a Democratic. However, as discussed, all other evidence does demonstrate
that a deliberative process did occur and that the merits of public policy were deliberated upon.
Mucciaroni and Quirk do concede that, “partisanship and ideological conflict enhances the informationvalue of debate up to a certain point, however. Party competition provides a powerful incentive to
rebut claims made by opponents. It impels speakers to put forth their strongest case and correct he
weaknesses in their opponents’ case.” 96 This being said, even though no Republicans persuaded their
Democratic colleagues in the legislature to support S.B. 1070, the deliberative process helped to bring
about the language changes to the bill that legislators and outside organizations and constituency
groups advocated, as demonstrated in the debates and committee hearings discussed above.
The overall debate that took place in the Arizona State Legislature on S.B. 1070 involved evident
principles of deliberative democracy as discussed in the work by Joseph Bessette. The deliberations also
highlighted various claims and strategies employed by legislators in the debating process, as discussed
by Mucciaroni and Quirk. Overall, the record and evidence show that the process was deliberative and
that the quality fits best with Mucciaroni and Quirk’s category of “good debates.” Mucciaroni and Quirk
define this category of debate as “mostly informed. Audience receives a mostly accurate and complete
account. Preponderance of elements of debate are credible and consistent with best available
evidence. Inaccurate and incomplete information is substantially corrected.”97 For example, both
supporters and opponents brought forth empirical evidence and informed testimony in arguing their
95
Mucciaroni, G. & Quirk, P.J. (2006). Deliberative Choices: Debating Public Policy in Congress. (p. 187). Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
96
Ibid, p.189
97
Ibid, p.52
30
case (such as arrests data, crime statistics, economic impact costs, and arguments on federal versus
state responsibility in enforcing immigration law and law enforcement training).
There was an attempt
to correct inaccurate claims, for example, as was seen in the vigorous debate that took place between
Republican Senator Russell Pearce and Democratic House Representative Kyrsten Sinemea in the House
Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee hearing. In this hearing, Senator Pearce corrected the claim
by Representative Sinemea that 287g training was needed to make arrest and he went on to clarify and
discuss “illegal alien” crime statistics, former court rulings that upheld state enforcement of immigration
law, and the cost of illegal immigration for Arizona.98
Again, based on the evidence examined, which entailed the committee hearings, floor debates
and voting explanations that took place on S.B. 1070, the Arizona State Legislature deliberated on the
merits of public policy, which involved “reasoning about some public good—some good external to the
decision makers themselves.”99 However, there is room for future research on this particular issue. For
example, there was less than eight hours of debate and even though the discourse involved key
elements of deliberative democracy such as information, argument and persuasion, one may further
investigate whether there is enough time to ensure good public policy decisions. Also, future research
may analyze further how the partisan divide relates to deliberation. Since Republicans and Democrats
differ on substantive policy issues, members of each party can reach different conclusions through the
deliberative process. It would be interesting to research further the effects of such partisan divides on
controversial topics like S.B. 1070, and its impact on the deliberative policy making process.
98
House Military Affairs and Public Safety Bill Video Archives for S.B. 1070. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth
Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved October 29, 2010 from:
http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=7286.
99
Bessette, J. (1994). The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. (p. 48).
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
31
Appendix 1
SB1070 Chronology
 Drafted by State Senator Russell
 1/13/10—1st read by Senate
 1/14/10—2nd read by Senate
 Assigned to Senate committees
o 1/13/10 Public Safety/Human Services
o 1/13/10 Rules
o 1/20/10 DPA (Due Pass Recommendation)
 Majority & Majority Caucuses 2/9/10
 Amendments
o PSHS ref bill adopted
o RULES ref PSHS adopted
o Pearce R ref bill adopted
 Third Read →results in Senate Vote
o 2/15/10
o Passed: 17 Ayes, 13 Nays
 Transmitted to House on 2/15/10 after it passed the Senate
 3/23/10—1st read by House
 3/24/10—2nd ready by House
 Assigned to Committees
o 3/23/10 Military Affairs/Public Safety
o 3/23/10 Rules
o 3/31/10 DPA (Due Pass Recommendation)
o 4/5/10 C&P
 Majority & Minority Caucuses 4/6/10
 Amendments
o MAPS—passed as amended
o Floor Amend to MAPS-Biggs-passed
 Third Read →House Vote
o 4/13/10
o Passed: 35 Ayes; 4 NV; 21 Nays
 Transmitted to Senate on 4/13/10
 Majority & Minority Caucuses 4/15/10
 Senate Final Read Date → Senate Final Vote
o 4/19/10
o Passed: 17 Ayes; 11 Nays; 2 NV
 Transmitted to Governor on 4/19/10
 Signed by Governor 4/23/10
32
Appendix 2
Time of Hearing, Debates and Votes
Date
01/20/2010
02/15/2010
03/31/2010
04/05/2010
04/13/2010
04/13/2010
04/19/2010
Name
Senate Public Safety and Human Services
(Hearing)
Senate Third Reading #1 (Vote)
House Military Affairs and Public Safety (Hearing)
House Rules Committee
House Committee of the Whole #1 (Debate)
House Third Reading #1 (Vote)
Senate Final Reading #1 (Vote)
Total Time:
33
Time
1hour, 25 minutes
2 minutes, 18 seconds
3 hours, 27 minutes
4 minutes, 17 seconds
31 minutes, 15 seconds
1 hour, 20 minutes, 12 seconds
1 hour, 1 minute, 34 seconds
7 hours, 51 minutes, 36 seconds
Appendix 3
Members of the Arizona State House of Representatives –Floor Vote Explained
Supporters Who Explained Vote









Cecil Ash, Republican
Ray Barnes, Republican
Nancy Barto, Republican
Andy Biggs, Republican
Rich Crandall, Republican
Russell Jones, Republican
Bill Konopnicke, Republican
Lucy Mason, Republican
David Stevens, Republican
Opponents Who Explained Vote







Edward Albeser, Democrat
Chad Campbell, Democrat
Tom Chabin, Democrat
Barbara McGuire, Democrat
Ben Miranda, Democrat
Daniel Patterson, Democrat
Krysten Sinemea, Democrat
34
Appendix 4
Members of the Arizona State Senate –Floor Vote Explained
Supporters Who Explained Vote









Sylvia Allen, Republican
David Braswell, Republican
Linda Gray, Republican
Ron Gould, Republican
Jack Harper, Republican
John Huppenthal, Republican
Al Melvin, Republican
Russell Pearce, Republican
Thayer Verschoor, Republican
Opponents Who Explained Vote






Paula Aboud, Democrat
Ken Cheuvront, Democrat
Leah Landrum Taylor, Democrat
Linda Lopez, Democrat
Richard Miranda, Democrat
Rebecca Rios, Democrat
35
Appendix 5
Partisan Breakdown
Table 1: Party Breakdown of Arizona State Legislature100
Chamber Republican
Count
House
38
Senate
21
Democratic
Count
25
12
Percentage
Republican
60.3%
63.6%
Percentage
Democrat
39.6%
36.3%
*Total Arizona State Legislature Count: 96 (63 members of the House and 33 members of the Senate)
Table 2: Sponsorship Breakdown of SB1070 by Party101
Chamber
Republicans
House
Senate
22
15
Democrats Percentage of
Republicans
0
34.9%
0
45.4%
*Total percentage of sponsorship out of entire body: 38.5% [All Republicans]
*Total percentage of Republican Senators who sponsored bill: 71.4%
*Total percentage of Republican House Representatives who sponsored bill: 57.8%
Table 3: Final Floor Vote for SB1070-House Engrossed Version [bill transmitted to the governor]102
Chamber Ayes
House
35
Senate
17
Nays
21
11
No Votes
4
2
Vacancies
3
3
*55.5% of House voted in favor of the bill
*51.5% of Senate voted in favor of the bill
*Note only one Republican member of the Senate voted ‘nay’ for the bill, Carolyn S. Allen
*Note all Republicans in House present for ‘aye’ for the bill
100
Senate and House Rosters. Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved
October 22, 2010 from: http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=S and
http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=H.
101
Bill Status Overview: Sponsors. . Arizona State Senate, Forty-ninth Legislature, Second Regular Session.
Retrieved October 22, 2010 from:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070o.asp.
102
Bill Status Overview: Senate Vote—Final Reading, House Vote—Third Reading. Arizona State Senate, Fortyninth Legislature, Second Regular Session. Retrieved October 22, 2010 from:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070.sfinal.1.asp and
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070.hthird.1.asp.
36