GOP lawmakers sued for barring Latino activists from state legislature

In February, several members of the pro-immigration activist group Living United for Change in Arizona were stopped at the door of the Arizona Senate, where they had planned to speak in opposition to a bill that would require the presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at voting sites. Roughly half a dozen LUCHA members were given nondescript, barebones trespass notices printed on plain white paper, informing them that they were prohibited from entering the building for the rest of the legislative session.

At the time, LUCHA decried the trespass notices as blatant racial and viewpoint discrimination. Now the organization has sued Senate President Warren Petersen and Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro, the Republicans who lead their respective legislative chambers. The lawsuit claims that Petersen and Montenegro, acting in their official capacities, infringed upon their free speech and equal protection rights under the First and 14th Amendments, respectively.

In the suit, LUCHA says its members “have been directly and personally injured by Defendants’ discriminatory and retaliatory bans, which deprive them of their constitutional rights to speech, petition, and assembly.” Eight LUCHA members and employees are also named as plaintiffs. The lawsuit requests that a judge rule the bans unconstitutional, enjoin the Arizona Legislature from barring them from entry and award a variety of damages.

Attorneys for LUCHA did not respond to a request for comment on the suit, nor did spokespersons for the Republican majorities in both chambers of the Arizona Legislature. In an interview with Phoenix New Times, Democratic state Sen. Analise Ortiz said she was grateful that the lawsuit had been filed, calling the trespass notices “a rush to judgment.”

“In this particular circumstance, it had a disproportionate impact on people of color who were in the hearing room that day, and that is an issue for me as a senator who represents the district with the largest Latino population in the entire state,” said Ortiz. “We’re talking about legislation that is directly targeting people of color and my community, and now you have a disproportionate number of Latinos who have been locked out of the People’s House, given no justification as to how they were identified and why they were trespassed. That’s an issue for me.”

Disruptions and trespasses

When the trespasses were first issued in February, Arizona Senate spokesperson Kim Quintero defended them as “not directed at any organization or viewpoint” but “based solely on documented conduct that violated established law and rules that apply equally to everyone in the Capitol.” Quintero was referencing two demonstrations made by LUCHA members during Senate committee hearings in January and February, both of which are chronicled in LUCHA’s lawsuit.

One took place during a Jan. 26 meeting of the Senate Military and Border Affairs Committee, at which a bill to bar people from alerting others to the presence of ICE was set to be discussed. Per the lawsuit, LUCHA employees Miriam Georgina Mendez and Osvaldo Alvarez were in attendance and “expressed their viewpoint that was also in opposition to the bill.” When asked to leave, the lawsuit says, “they respectfully and peacefully complied with the request.” Video of the hearing shows some attendees began blowing whistles and shouting “Shame!” when GOP state Sen. Janae Shamp began speaking, before being asked to leave the meeting. It is not clear from the video who, specifically, was doing so.

Another demonstration occurred on Feb. 18, during a meeting of the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee. During discussion of a bill that would have required an ICE presence at voting sites, committee chairperson and GOP state Sen. Wendy Rogers attempted to cut off a member of the public who was testifying. In response, several LUCHA members in “ICE OUT” shirts stood with their fists raised and began chanting “No justice, no peace, no ICE on our streets!”

Per the lawsuit, LUCHA employees and members Vivian Serafin, Dayne Saldana, Faith Ramon, Leilani Ramos Matu’u, Rocio Patino and Pedro Paredes were among those in attendance. The complaint says some of them — it does not specify which — “stood up in protest to Senator Rogers’ interruption” but were initially “peaceful and silent.” After Rogers demanded their removal, it said, some of them “peacefully expressed their anti-ICE sentiment” before “peacefully and respectfully” leaving the room.

About a week after the Jan. 26 incident, Mendez and Alvarez were denied entry by Senate Sergeant at Arms Joseph Kubacki, according to the lawsuit. The other six plaintiffs were denied entry by Kubacki on Feb. 20. In both instances, the LUCHA protesters were given typed notes on plain white paper that said: “Due to your disorderly behavior in the Senate building and your violation of ARS 41-122(B) you are formally trespassed from the Senate building for the duration of this Legislative Session. If you attempt to enter during this period you will be subject to arrest.”

‘Completely arbitrary and completely excessive’

Petersen previously told The Arizona Republic that the Senate worked with the Arizona Department of Public Safety to identify the disruptors and target them specifically with trespass notices. “If people break the law here on the grounds of the Senate, they will not be permitted to return,” Petersen told the Republic.

However, as the lawsuit notes, the notices did not include any names, were not signed, did not appear on official Arizona Senate letterhead, did not detail the precipitating actions and did not include any information on how to contest the ban. Additionally, Alvarez was trespassed from the Arizona House of Representatives on Feb. 11, the lawsuit says, and was told only that he “was prohibited from entering for activities that Alvarez allegedly engaged in outside of the building.”

“Those trespass notices were completely arbitrary and completely excessive,” Ortiz said. “I asked security if they could provide me a list of names of who they trespassed, and they just never responded to my email, which leads me to believe that they actually didn’t have a list of names. As an elected senator, I have yet to receive any response from the Senate President Warren Petersen or the sergeant at arms about who was trespassed and why they were trespassed. What is the justification?”

LUCHA’s lawsuit alleges that the trespass notices were administered capriciously and in a discriminatory manner. It states that some of the plaintiffs who were trespassed “did not engage in expressive activity during hearings” and that “LUCHA members who are white and who attended events at the Capitol with Plaintiffs in February were not banned.” Additionally, it says, “none of the Plaintiffs were provided adequate notice of the alleged activity
at issue or an opportunity to be heard regarding the alleged ‘disorderly behavior.'”

The Arizona Senate’s rules of decorum, which are posted in its lobby, do note that “disruption of the normal business of the Legislature during session is a criminal violation” and that “loud talking, yelling or applause that may interrupt business that is being conducted anywhere in the Senate is not allowed.” It warns that refusal to leave if asked may result in a trespassing violation, though it does not warn that causing disruptions may lead to being denied entry in the future.