The Protect Arizona Now initiative has survived its first legal challenge (by the SEIU), and will probably appear on Nov. 2's ballot. The report "Immigration referendum survives union court challenge" unwittingly sums up the problem:

[PAN] has strong support in public opinion polls, despite facing opposition from the state's political establishment, unions, Hispanic groups and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce.

The Arizona Republic's "Migrant issue OK'd for ballot" has more on this unholy alliance:

Mainstream business, political and labor leaders will take over the battle against the state's anti-illegal-immigration initiative under a new strategy calling Protect Arizona Now a danger to the state's economy...

The groups opposing the measure plan to spend $1 million to $2 million on an advertising blitz to begin on radio and television in Arizona within the next few weeks, emphasizing the potential loss of tourism and convention business. A goal of the new strategy is to avoid the racial overtones played out in discussions of the initiative so far and expand the debate beyond illegal immigration.

"We don't want parades in south Phoenix brandishing the Mexican flag," said Bank One Vice President Ruben Ramos, a leading figure in the fight against the measure. "We need to leave emotions out of this campaign."

...Opponents say that the state's economy would suffer because the plan would cost too much to implement and that some large conventions would be reluctant to come to the state. The theory is that Arizona would lose tourism and convention business as it did after voters turned down a paid holiday honoring the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. more than a decade ago...

[... "Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano and Republican Sen. John McCain" might be involved in the anti-PAN campaign...]

The main players in the campaign include the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, the Service Employees International Union, the National Council of La Raza and other groups...

The estimates [of the cost of PAN], prepared at the request of Napolitano, showed that at least $20 million would be spent each year to check immigration papers of everyone who sought any type of public benefits or assistance...

Even if that's accurate, it's probably a few orders of magnitude less than Arizona spends subsidizing those who employ all those illegals.

And, you'll note that, unlike past reports, they've toned down the inflammatory language. However, in one instance they refer to "Proposition 202" when what's being discussed is "Proposition 200." A harmless error, or an attempt to confuse potential voters?