PHOENIX �” A House

panel on Wednesday approved

legislation designed

to benefit one man: Cochise

County rancher Roger Barnett.

The measure would spell

out that anyone who is in this

country illegally cannot collect

punitive damages even

after winning a lawsuit.

Voters already approved a

constitutional amendment

doing precisely that in 2006.

But that came nearly two

years too late for Barnett,

who was sued following a

2004 incident when 16 illegal

immigrants said the

rancher illegally imprisoned

them.

HB 2191 makes that ballot

measure retroactive to the

beginning of 2004.

If it survives the legislative

process �” and if it is

found legal �” the change

could save Barnett $60,000,

the amount of punitive damages

four of the plaintiffs

were awarded two years

ago. Rep. Jim Weiers, RPhoenix,

said that’s exactly

what he has in mind.

Jaime Ferrant of the Border

Action Network said the

measure “sets a dangerous

precedent.”

“This bill would establish

that a certain person, or certain

persons, are so important

that we must make sure

that they get their own set of

laws to protect them,” Ferrant

said.

“Mr. Barnett had his day

in court,” Ferrant continued.

“There he brought witnesses,

provided testimony and

was sentenced.”

Weiers was undeterred.

He said nearly 75 percent

of those voting in 2006 approved

the constitutional

change. Weiers said that is a

clear indication of the will of

the people.

And he said that the

amendment, referred to the

ballot by the Legislature,

was a direct reaction to the

fact that lawmakers knew

Barnett was being sued.

“We weren’t smart

enough at that point to understand

that there was going

to be a time lapse,”

Weiers said, making Barnett

unable to take advantage of

the change.

Weiers also said the restriction

makes sense.

“How incredibly silly that

you’ve got people breaking

the law, trespassing, doing

this and that on personal

property, and then you’re

handed punitive damage

awards,” he said.

Tucson attorney David

Hardy, who represents Barnett,

said he and his client

quickly realized that the

2006 change in the constitution

was “no use to us.” But

Hardy said it didn’t have to

be that way.

As approved, the constitutional

provision says that

someone who is present in

Arizona in violation of federal

immigration laws is ineligible

to collect punitive

damages. Hardy said a better

wording �” one that

would have helped his client

�”would have denied punitive

damages to anyone who

was in this country illegally

at the time of the incident,

not when the lawsuit was

filed or the verdict returned.

Rep. Debbie McCune

Davis, D-Phoenix, said

she’s not even sure this

measure will help Barnett,

as that $60,000 verdict came

in a federal court lawsuit.

But federal judges, when

considering issues like this,

generally look to the laws of

the state where the incident

occurred to determine the

standard for awarding damages.

The three Democrats on

the panel voted against the

legislation. Rep. Catherine

Miranda, D-Phoenix, said it

sends the “wrong message.”

Weiers said he believes

the measure will withstand

legal challenges, even

though it effectively seeks to

retroactively change the law

before voters approved the

necessary constitutional

amendment. He also rejected

Ferrant’s contention that

the plan illegally alters

something that voters approved.

The committee action

comes two weeks after the

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

refused to overturn the verdict

against Barnett. The

judges rejected arguments

that the trial judge should

have told jurors they could

consider his claim of self

defense.

Hardy said he will be filing

legal papers today asking

the court to reconsider its

ruling.