For over two decades, emergent bilingual students in Arizona have languished under the state's English-only Structured English Immersion policies. Using Theo Van Leeuwan's (2007) legitimation in discourse framework, this study longitudinally tracks shifts in legitimation tactics across the four iterations of the policy--its inception with Proposition 203, its strengthening with House Bill 2064, the introduction of a multiple pathways framework--which included a dual language immersion (DLI) model--with Senate Bill 1019, and the reelection of Tom Horne followed by the legal challenge of the newly approved DLI model. Analysis shows how changing policy contexts and the provision of counterevidence--both empirical and anecdotal--have delegitimized initial arguments for the policy. Yet, despite this, English-only education still maintains its grip on emergent bilingual students. The reason for this is found in the words of Tom Horne, "We all have to obey the law." This single form of impersonal authorization renders all counterevidence and delegitimating tactics moot. Constitutional protection allowed policymakers to strengthen a failed English-only policy in 2006 with the passage of HB 2064, and the same protection has seemingly derailed the attempt to implement DLI with the unanimous passage of SB 1019. More empirical counterevidence will not change this failed policy, nor can bipartisan legislative support. I argue that the only path forward is to change the law that single-handedly legitimizes the policy--something that can only be done through another voter-initiated proposal.