Stopping a Monster Camel in Its Tracks : Blockage of Prop. 187 was predictable--and right

A camel has been described as a horse designed by a committee. By that standard, Proposition 187 may be the monster camel of all ballot propositions.

That certainly was the message heard in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer, who issued a preliminary injunction Wednesday enjoining implementation of the November measure’s a) health care, b) social services and c) educations provisions.

That is to say, the judge blocked about 90% of it.

The judge’s action was scarcely a surprise. Before the election, serious legal observers had analyzed the “Save Our State” initiative and concluded that it had so many inconsistencies and ambiguities that it could well have been redubbed “Save Our Lawyers.” For the only people clearly benefiting from its passages would be the many public and private attorneys arguing for and against Proposition 187 in various district and appellate courts.

And that’s exactly what is happening.

Last month, two other judges--Stuart R. Pollak in San Francisco and W. Matthew Byrne Jr. in Los Angeles--had issued orders blocking various major portions of the measure pending legal hearings.

The rocky legal status of the illegal-immigration measure is also hardly mysterious. Some of Proposition 187’s more vociferous proponents may see a conspiracy among “liberal” judges to thwart the will of the people, who on Nov. 8 voted 59% to 41% in support of the measure. But many other “send-’em-a-message” initiatives have met a similar fate.

The problem is threefold. The largest and most ambitious initiatives tend to be put together, literally, by a coalition of forces and interests. Thus, by the time they reach the ballot they read more like a party platform than an amendment to the Constitution. The second aspect is that many of the authors do not have the legal or legislative background to prune out at least the most glaring inconsistencies or, worse yet, unconstitutionalities. Passed by the voters largely in the form they were written, these measures become rich fodder for lawyers once they hit the courts. And the third stumbling block is simply one of scope: The authors try to do too much in one fell swoop.

That’s why it would be far better if California adopted an oft-suggested reform measure of vetting ballot initiatives before putting them on the ballot. This would be in everyone’s best interest, including sponsors of future initiatives, who presumably would like to see their measures implemented.

In the meantime, until the courts sort this mess out, the best thing Californians can do is to sit tight and not try to implement the legally disputed portions of Proposition 187 piece by piece, locality by locality. Let the courts work through the difficult and complex issues it raises and render their final judgments; only then can it be conceivably administered and enforced with prudence, precision and fairness.

Similarly, Congress would be very ill-advised to try to pass anything like a federal version of Proposition 187. Instead, those who are seriously concerned with reducing illegal immigration while not trampling on people’s constitutional rights, much less throwing children out of schools, or sick people out of hospitals, should proceed apace with other, more sensible measures. These would include beefing up border enforcement and working with other countries, including but not exclusively our NAFTA neighbor to the south, on bilateral measures to reduce the economic pressures that cause illegal immigration.