Both Sides Assail Lungren Moves on Prop. 187 : Immigration: With key court hearing looming, measure's backers seek stronger defense. Foes say distribution of temporary order blocking provisions was delayed.

Both Sides Assail Lungren Moves on Prop. 187 : Immigration: With key court hearing looming, measure’s backers seek stronger defense. Foes say distribution of temporary order blocking provisions was delayed.

By PAUL FELDMAN

Dec. 8, 1994 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

As the state attorney general’s office prepares to defend Proposition 187 at a critical court hearing next week, its performance was attacked Wednesday by partisans on both ends of the political spectrum.

Sponsors of the anti-illegal immigration initiative, which won by an overwhelming margin in last month’s state election, asked Wednesday to enter the case as “friends of the court,” declaring that they are displeased with the representation of Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren’s office.

“We think the initiative needs to be defended, and we are not satisfied with the work done so far by Dan Lungren,” said Ron Prince, who headed the Save Our State campaign committee.

Meanwhile, lawyers seeking to scuttle Proposition 187 charged that Lungren’s office and other state agencies have failed to abide by terms of a federal court order requiring that copies of that order, which temporarily blocks the initiative, be promptly distributed to health care providers.

Instead, they say, many health providers have only recently received copies of the executive action signed by Gov. Pete Wilson nearly a month ago stating that the initiative approved by state voters Nov. 8 should be put into effect as soon as legally permissible.

“The most generous interpretation is that they have been dragging their heels,” said Mark D. Rosenbaum, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “At minimum, it has sowed enormous confusion in the area of health care.”

Although Judge W. Matthew Byrne Jr. signed the restraining order Nov. 21, the state did not send out copies to health care facilities until this week. The order states that “a verbatim copy of this order shall be promptly sent” to state employees and all health care facilities responsible for implementing the initiative.

Representatives of the attorney general’s office participated in the drafting of the restraining order, but a spokesman said the office did not begin moving forward on distributing notices until Nov. 28, the day an official copy of the court order arrived in the mail. Later that day, spokesman David Puglia said, the office sent an overnight copy to the Department of Health Services.

“That was prompt,” Puglia said.

The Department of Health Services did not finish mailing copies to 90,000 health care providers until a week later, said spokeswoman Shannon Bowman.

“We’re not acting in bad faith and it was not delayed,” Bowman said. “Notifications take time. (Besides), most people it went to already were aware there was a restraining order.”

Opponents of Proposition 187 said they have received queries from health providers who received the governor’s executive order after the restraining order was issued.

“Any time the state of California acts regarding 187 in such a way that it creates confusion, it lends fuel to the fears of people,” said Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund attorney Vibiana Andrade.

Next Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer will decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of Proposition 187 until its legality is determined in extensive court hearings. The proposition would ban illegal immigrants from public education, non-emergency health care and social welfare services.

Meanwhile, in a brief filed on behalf of more than 50 pro-187 individuals and organizations, Santa Monica attorney Richard Knickerbocker asked the court to be allowed to submit legal briefs and participate in oral arguments.

Others joining in the brief include Prince’s campaign co-chairs, Barbara Kiley and Assemblyman Richard L. Mountjoy (R-Arcadia), the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, the American Federation of Police and the Voice of Citizens Together. The pro-187 camp is concerned that Lungren is not adequately pursuing the defense of the initiative.

Puglia said Lungren’s office will not oppose the friend-of-the-court motion, adding that the criticism of Lungren “is to be expected.”

“If any organization wants to convince the court that they be allowed in, there has to be some showing that their perspective is perhaps not entirely 100% the same as those on the same side,” Puglia said. “So it’s the way the game is played.”