Go back to Election '94 pageSAN FRANCISCO -- As Proposition 187's victory became clear on election night Tuesday, opponents were already putting the finishing touches on lawsuits to block the anti-undocumented immigrant measure.
The lawsuits will challenge virtually every aspect of the sweeping proposition to deny undocumented immigrants public health services and education in California.
Prop. 187 was one of the most contentious campaign issues on the ballot this year, sparking ethnic tension and high emotion on both sides. Despite eleventh-hour polls showing the race in a dead heat, the measure was approved by 59 percent of the electorate.
But with at least a half dozen lawsuits expected to be filed on Wednesday, the issue is far from dead. Though proponents were happy with their victory, opponents of the measure said they hoped to get immediate temporary injunctions preventing the law from taking effect.
"We don't want people not to go to school or not to go to the doctor," said Ignatius Bau of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights. "The important message we want to get out is that people not panic."
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund is expected to file for an injunction in a Los Angeles federal court . The suit, on behalf of undocumented children, will challenge the state's right to set policy on a federal issue like immigration. It will also ask the court to uphold a 1982 Supreme Court decision that said school districts could not bar undocumented immigrant children from the classroom.
In San Francisco, civil rights lawyers were prepared to seek a restraining order from a Superior Court judge. Their lawsuit will be similar to MALDEF's, but will also appeal to the California constitution's declaration that education is a "fundamental right."
The California Medical Association will contend in a federal lawsuit that the new law conflicts with federal statutes governing emergency medical care and state laws designed to safeguard public health.
"We're going to be in court to make sure the irrational parts of this do not ever see the light of day," said CMA president-elect Eugene Ogrod.
Supporters appeared unfazed by the prospect of multiple legal challenges, insisting that judges are likely to take a harder line against illegal immigration than during the 1980s.
"The opponents admitted during the campaign that illegal immigration was a problem. I hope the opponents . . . come in with suggestions about what kind of rules and regulations you need," said Alan Nelson, author of Prop. 187 and a former Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner.
"I knew we were going to win. I've been telling the media this would win," said Bette Hammond, northern California spokeswoman for the pro-187 Save Our State Committee.
Though opponents knew Prop. 187 would be hard to defeat, they were crushed by the margin of its victory -- especially after polls showed voters turning away from it. "There were a lot of people who said they weren't going to vote for this, and they did, understanding that it was racist and directed at a particular group. I think that's a sad commentary," said Martha Jimenez, attorney at MALDEF in San Francisco.
Bruce Cain, UC-Berkeley political scientist, said the passage of Prop. 187 could be part of conservative sentiment that swept the country on election day. "In issues dealing with race," he added, "people tend not to tell pollsters the truth. But when they get into the voting booth, they let their inhibitions down."
An KPIX exit poll taken early Tuesday showed that ethnicity apparently mattered in the voting booth: early indications showed the measure was favored by 50 percent of black voters, 57 percent of whites and only 23 percent of Hispanic voters.
Critics have claimed that Prop. 187 will result in discrimination toward ethnic minorities, because it requires school and hospital officials to report "suspected" illegal immigrants. Opponents tried to persuade voters that the measure would do little to stop undocumented immigrants from searching for work, but would cause a backlash against all immigrants. "I think the public was smart enough to see through that," Nelson said. "The voters understand the issue was illegal immigration."
Ruth Picon, vice president of the San Francisco Latino Democratic Club, said Prop. 187 appealed to voters because it offered a "scapegoat" for economic hard times. She blamed her own party for not offering alternatives to Prop. 187 and for not campaigning as vigorously against the measure as Governor Pete Wilson campaigned for it.
Mario Salgado, chair of Californians United Against 187, said, "It's sad that Governor Wilson can get away with what he did. I think Proposition 187 has divided the state, and I think a lot of us are going to experience discrimination personally."
Attorney General Dan Lungren, who was re-elected Tueday, has promised to defend the new law against any court challenges, although he has indicated he would not prosecute school or hospital officials who fail to comply with the requirement that they turn in suspected illegal immigrants. Many school superintendents oppose the new law and some, including newly elected state superintendent of schools Delaine Eastin have said they will not enforce it.
Cain says that voters may have approved the measure as a message, but he suspects there is little enthusiasm among educators and public health workers for taking on the task for identifying undocumented immigrants.
"My guess is wherever this is implemented, it's going to be viewed as a pain in the ass," said Cain.
Go back to Election '94 page