On Feb. 16, several residents of the Cottonwood area asked Cottonwood City Council to discuss what they described as “an alarming erosion of our rights, codified into the national Bill of Rights.”
Members of the public requested that the council declare Cottonwood a “Bill of Rights Sanctuary,” reaffirming support for the first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
On Tuesday, April 20, the Cottonwood City Council discussed a formal resolution to that effect, but rejected it 3-3 after discussing it. Tie votes automatically fail.
Mayor Tim Elinski and Councilwomen Debbie Wilden, Tosca Henry voted in opposition, while Vice Mayor Doug Hulse, Councilman Michael Mathews, and Councilwoman Helaine Kurot voted in favor. Councilwoman Jackie Nairn was absent.
“Be it resolved that the Cottonwood City Council, by the authority granted to it by the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona and the people of Cottonwood, Arizona, do hereby commit to support and defend all of our citizens’ rights and liberties as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, by all lawful means, and irrespective of their political affiliations,” the rejected Resolution 3094 reads. “Be it further resolved that the Cottonwood City Council hereby affirms its support of the Bill of Rights, as set forth in Amendments 1 through 10 of the United States Constitution, and hereby declares the city of Cottonwood, Arizona, to be a Bill of Rights Sanctuary City; and as such it shall not take or authorize any action, or appropriate any public funds or other resources, in violation of any of the rights secured to the citizens and residents of the City under the Bill of Rights.”
Members of the public who spoke in favor of the resolution expressed dire but unspecific warnings about the state of our country and the need for the resolution.
“Without our rights, we’re nothing. Our rights are the most important thing that we have,” Dyson Boatman said. “I will fight and I will fight and I will fight, peacefully, for my rights and your rights, and everybody else’s rights. We cannot let this administration bring us down. We’ve been here too long and accomplished way too much.”
“There are a lot of things going wrong in the world, I just want to address that,” Tina Tudor said. “It just feels like — what team are we on? We’re all human. It feels as if communism is forming right before our eyes, and I’m very concerned about that. I respect our freedoms, and it really feels very uncomfortable. I don’t understand if anyone else is feeling this or if it’s just me. I would rather spread some love around and make a community. Our community — why can’t we be a good example for other communities? To care about our homelessness, to care about each other, and make it real, and just unite instead of separate and causing division. It really weighs on my heart very strongly.”
“I’m just trying to understand,” Mayor Elinski said to Tudor. “Are you in favor or in opposition of the proposition as proposed?”
“I’m in favor of our freedom,” Tudor replied. “I don’t really understand technical terms, but I’m in favor of our freedom.”
All members of the city council who spoke, either in support or opposition of the resolution, expressed a commitment to the values of the Bill of Rights.
“The Constitution was intended as an impediment,” Mathews said, speaking in favor of the resolution. “It is to protect us from our government. In light of that, I have been a bit shocked by the unprecedented execution of power by the government the last 12 months — issuing unilateral decrees, ordering the closure of churches, schools and businesses, mandating behavior, restricting personal movement and indefinitely restricting personal freedoms.”
However, the resolution’s opponents, especially Elinski, questioned the value of a resolution which would reaffirm the constitutional statutes that the city is expected to affirm by default, and saying that in the case of the city being faced with an unconstitutional law by Congress or the state of Arizona, the proper response would be a lawsuit filed by City Attorney Steve Horton.
City code is devolved from the Arizona State Constitution, which is itself devolved from the U.S. Constitution, making the Bill of Rights already de facto law in Cottonwood.
“I’ve been asked on several occasions to support becoming a sanctuary city for a variety of reasons,” Elinski said. “It typically happens when the pendulum swings from one presidential administration to the next. My answer has always been fairly consistent in that we are a political subdivision of the state. What we do really well is fix potholes. I don’t like to get involved in these sorts of issues because I don’t think it’s really our role.
“We have been granted the authority to operate as a political subdivision by our state constitution, so our role is fairly restricted. I’ve never been very comfortable with trying to be the interpreters of our constitution because I just don’t feel like that’s our role.”
“I’m also deeply concerned with any type of movement to alter or modify any of the 10 amendments,” Elinski said. “I’m as concerned as anyone else here, but in my mind the solution to that is to elect representatives that you feel uphold the values of our Constitution and who will in turn appoint justices that will do the same. But for Cottonwood to essentially say that we won’t uphold the Constitution, I think is in itself unlawful and unconstitutional, and I’d be really, really concerned in getting ourselves embroiled in an argument that we frankly can’t afford. So that’s been my position all along.”
Supporters made the case that this resolution, even if it is just symbolic, would be akin to, in the words of Mathews, “the same as a married couple renewing their vows.”
However, the council ended up rejecting that argument.
“I know this is important to a lot of you out there. It’s important to us up here as well,” Elinski said after the resolution was voted down. “I think you can guarantee that if there is anything that comes down that is a violation — that we feel as a council — of our constitutional rights, we will absolutely have our attorney file a lawsuit to address that in a court of law. And that’s, in my mind at least, how issues should be handled.”
