SALT LAKE CITY — Utah Rep. Stephen Sandstrom isn't just going forward with new immigration legislation modeled after an Arizona law that's being challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice.
He's joining the court battle.
"In no way, shape or form am I stopping," Sandstrom said Wednesday.
The Orem Republican said he plans to file a brief in support of the Arizona law and called Tuesday's lawsuit "more of a political stunt or maneuver" by Democratic President Barack Obama's administration.
Even though Sandstrom expects a protracted legal fight that will send the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said he's still planning to unveil his immigration bill during the Utah Legislature's September interim meetings, with hopes of getting it passed in the 2011 session.
But the head of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics, Kirk Jowers, said it might be better to wait on any new legislation until the case is settled.
"It would be irresponsible with our state funds to press forward on similar legislation while the courts were still deciding its constitutionality," said Jowers, who also serves as an adviser to Gov. Gary Herbert.
Proyecto Latino director Tony Yapias agreed. Yapias said Sandstrom's "continued commitment to pass an immigration bill in Utah is irresponsible, a waste of time, energy and resources to Utah taxpayers. It appears that Rep. Sandstrom is pulling a 'political stunt' himself."
The governor has raised his own questions about the constitutionality of the Arizona law and canceled plans to call lawmakers into special session to make a fix to an unrelated immigration bill, citing the need to spend more time on what he termed "a hot topic." Herbert is continuing with his plans to host a roundtable discussion on the state's role in immigration reform, despite the lawsuit.
The Arizona law requires law enforcement to question immigration status when there's reasonable suspicion a person stopped for another offense is in the U.S. illegally. Herbert has said that could lead to accusations of racial profiling.
While Jowers said "it's important for individuals from all sides to weigh in" to help the court understand the impact of the law, Sandstrom may be on his own in getting involved in the federal lawsuit against Arizona, at least for now.
The governor has not discussed joining the case, his spokeswoman, Angie Welling, said Wednesday. The Legislative Management Committee, which would have to decide whether the Legislature will also file a brief, is not scheduled to meet until mid-August, And Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff is out of the office this week.
Sandstrom predicts that the federal government will have a hard time overturning the Arizona law, which is slated to take effect July 29. But he said the losing side will probably appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I think that precedence and past court rulings will favor Arizona," Sandstrom said, adding that states are allowed generally to have stricter requirements than the federal government and that states can enforce federal law.
The Justice Department contends that immigration is a federal issue and the federal government should make immigration laws.
Jowers said that unlike many of the subjects on which Utah lawmakers clash with the federal government, immigration is not being seen as a states' rights issue.
"Most people would like the federal government to step in and take action, but it's just proven a very complex political and policy and human issue," Jowers said. "This whole dispute just shows a great benefit of our federalist model. One state, Arizona, has taken on the issue in their own way. The courts will decide if they did it appropriately."
e-mail: jdougherty@desnews.com; lisa@desnews.com
twitter: dnewspolitics