Petra Falcon, executive director of Promise Arizona, wipes her forehead as Arizona politicians and immigration rights groups react to the United States Supreme Court decision regarding Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB1070, after the decision came down at the Arizona Capitol Monday, June 25, 2012, in Phoenix. The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona’s crackdown on immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion on checking suspects’ status could go forward. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

Ross D. Franklin

Arizona is running out of donations to continue the legal fights over SB 1070.

Andrew Wilder, spokesman for Gov. Jan Brewer, said Monday all the costs of defending the 2010 law have been covered by contributions and that no taxpayer funds have been used. That account accumulated more than $3.8 million since it was formed.

But figures obtained by Capitol Media Services show more than 90 percent of that already has been spent, with less than $310,000 left in the account. The biggest spending has gone to Snell & Wilmer, the private law firm hired by Brewer to defend the law, which alone has collected more than $3 million.

Separately, the state paid $400,000 to Paul Clement to represent Arizona in the one challenge to the law the U.S. Supreme Court did agree to hear in 2012. Of the issues the high court considered, it rejected three and upheld only the one that requires police to check the immigration status of those they have stopped if there is reason to believe they are in this country illegally.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.