Yet another Arizona immigration law dies
The state's no-bail law is no more.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday let stand a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that tossed out the state law denying bail to undocumented immigrants accused of certain felony crimes.
In fact, it wouldn't even hear the appeal – a move that Justice Clarence Thomas said showed "insufficient respect to the State of Arizona, its voters, and its Constitution,"
The law was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2006, one of several initiatives approved at the peak of the furor over illegal immigration. It then came under fire from critics who say it unfairly singles out Latino immigrants as flight risks while allowing others to await trial while free.
The 9th Circuit threw out the law last year, ruling that it violates the due-process rights of the immigrants by imposing punishment before trial.
The Supreme Court this morning let that ruling stand, denying Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's appeal. Montgomery argues that immigrants who are here illegally are not likely to show up for court if set free. But he presented no statistics to the appellate court to back up that claim.
Prop. 100, approved by 78 percent of voters, said that anyone in the country illegally who is accused of a serious crime should be denied bail. It was crafted by former state Senate President Russell Pearce – at the time a state representative – who argued that anyone who has crossed the border illegally probably has few ties to this country. That, he said, automatically makes them at greater risk of fleeing before trial.
At the time, that made sense to me. A person who commits murder, mayhem or some other serious crime is naturally going to head for the hills (or in this case, the border) if he or she is looking at serious prison time.
Then the Legislature then defined "serious" as any class four felony or above.
Then, then-Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas started using the no-bail law as leverage to win low-level felony guilty pleas from those who didn't want to spend endless months in jail awaiting trial on offenses that are punishable by probation. Those convictions then lead to deportation and a likely bar to any chance to return the legal way.
The purpose of the no-bail law wasn't to make prosecutors' lives easier. It was to protect the public and ensure that people charged with serious crimes showed up for their day in court.
Given the no-bail law, people actually have been forgoing their day in court.
Even with Prop. 100 now gone, a person who is accused of a truly serious crime won't be released. Offenses such as first-degree murder and rape are already non-bondable. Bond is also not allowed if you're already charged with another felony or when public safety is at risk, be appealed.
If you're charged with other crimes, a judge can already set a high bond should he or she determine that you're a flight risk.
The question at hand: should a person accused of shoplifting automatically be treated the same as a person accused of murder – with no chance for a hearing to determine whether they should be released?
The high court today has answered that question. The answer: no.