Judge Lets City Join Prop. 187 Lawsuit : Court: Los Angeles, which argued that it simply wants to clarify the new law’s effects, will be part of the opposition to the measure’s implementation.

Despite indicating that she was perplexed by the vague position being staked out by the city of Los Angeles, a federal court judge nonetheless granted the city permission Monday to intervene in a major legal challenge to Proposition 187.

U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer notified the city late Monday afternoon that it can join a lawsuit brought by civil rights groups, which have attacked the constitutionality of the measure approved by voters last month. A written order explaining her decision is expected to be released today.

Deputy City Atty. Francisco L. Orozco said the upshot is that the city will be represented in a crucial court hearing Wednesday--and in all future hearings--on the fate of the illegal immigrant ballot initiative.

“It was our goal, and we’ve accomplished that,” Orozco said.

“(But) we were surprised,” he acknowledged. “She seemed so predisposed based on her questions. . . . There was a feeling she was headed in a denial mode.”

City Councilman Joel Wachs, who has led efforts to halt city involvement in anti-Proposition 187 lawsuits, said late Monday that he was disappointed that City Atty. James Hahn continues to move forward in court. But he admitted that he lacks the votes to end Hahn’s involvement.

“Frankly, my reading is a majority of the council wants to put the responsibility onto Hahn and doesn’t want to get any more involved in this,” Wachs said.

At the council’s direction, Hahn sought to join in the legal battle in order to seek clarification of the anti-illegal immigration measure’s impact on public services. The best way to accomplish this, Hahn has said, is to intervene on the side of the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which are seeking to scuttle the ballot measure.

Monday’s hearing began with Judge Pfaelzer asking Orozco to state the city’s position on Proposition 187. “We’re still moving forward,” Orozco replied. Orozco said the city wanted to know how its social service programs would be affected if the ballot measure took effect.

Later, pressed by the judge to clarify, Orozco said the city also believed that the ballot measure, which would bar illegal immigrants from public education, non-emergency health care and social welfare services, was “unduly vague and overbroad.”

Pfaelzer indicated that the city seemed to have a vague position and, at one point, suggested Los Angeles might need to file its own lawsuit.

Why would the city seek to enter on the side of the plaintiffs, Pfaelzer asked Orozco, if it is only seeking an interpretation of the initiative?

“I don’t know what you mean by clarify ,” the judge told Orozco, later adding, “I do have a problem letting the city in when I don’t know what (its) position is.” It was unclear late Monday why the judge ruled in favor of the city.

At the heart of the confusion is a shifting series of directives issued by the City Council on how to react legally to the passage of the divisive initiative.

A day after the November election, the council directed Hahn to pursue any and all legal action necessary to overturn Proposition 187. But after a flurry of heated phone calls from constituents angry about the use of tax dollars, the council softened its position, asking Hahn only to seek clarification in court.

Last week, Hahn presented the council with several additional options, including filing a friend of the court brief asking for clarification of the proposition, asking the attorney general’s office for instructions or requesting that federal agencies specify any conflicts with federal law.

However, the council could reach no consensus to change its request that Hahn, using his discretion, seek clarification of the measure’s legal effect on the city. And so Hahn’s deputies went forward Monday.

The state attorney general’s office, which is defending the ballot measure, asked Pfaelzer not to allow the city to intervene, saying the state is already representing the interests of municipalities across California.

After the judge’s ruling, attorney general’s spokesman David Puglia responded, “We respectfully disagree with the judge.”

An attorney for MALDEF said the civil rights groups would welcome the city’s involvement in the legal fray, noting that the case, which involves four separate lawsuits, would otherwise be tried without the perspective of local governmental entities that would be dramatically affected by Proposition 187.

Judge Pfaelzer is due to rule Wednesday on whether to issue a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the initiative until its legality is determined in lengthy court hearings. Most major portions of Proposition 187 are on hold as a result of a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge W. Matthew Byrne Jr. last month.

The divisive ballot initiative was approved by a nearly 3-2 margin in the Nov. 8 state election.