Spreading the Word on Prop. 187 : Immigration: Activists plan campaign to dispel uncertainty over measure's status in wake of federal ruling that put it on hold.

By PATRICK J. McDONNELL and PAUL FELDMAN

Dec. 16, 1994 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITERS

One day after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction barring implementation of key portions of Proposition 187, activists statewide were mobilizing to get the word out that the hotly debated ballot measure on immigration is on hold indefinitely.

They plan public service announcements, neighborhood forums, distribution of pamphlets and notices in the Spanish-language media and other ethnic publications and broadcast programs.

“This gives us a chance to get into the parishes, the barrios, the trade unions, and let people know that there’s no reason to be afraid,” said Bert Corona, national director of Hermandad Mexicana, a Los Angeles-based Mexican American rights group.

Widespread uncertainty about the measure’s status has generated great anxiety in California’s immigrant community, activists say, prompting some people to forgo medical treatment and even take their children out of school.

One Eastside clinic that saw a sharp decline in the number of clients after Election Day plans to send 200 volunteers door to door to reassure residents who are afraid that they or relatives will be turned in to immigration officials if they seek care.

Proposition 187, approved overwhelmingly by California voters Nov. 8, would bar illegal immigrants from receiving public education and most taxpayer-financed non-emergency health care and social services. Educators, social workers, health professionals and law enforcement authorities would be required to report suspected illegal immigrants.

Acting on a series of lawsuits challenging Proposition 187’s constitutionality, U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer in Los Angeles enjoined most of its provisions from becoming effective until a trial determines their legality. Much of the initiative will now probably be bottled up in court for months or years--if it ever takes effect.

On Thursday, Gov. Pete Wilson--who made passage of Proposition 187 a cornerstone of his successful reelection campaign--blasted the judge’s ruling, declaring: “I will not tolerate this. The voters of California will not tolerate this.”

But beyond continuing the court battle, it is unclear what the governor can do. State regulators continue to draft guidelines governing prospective implementation of Proposition 187, but such directives cannot be disseminated or put into effect without court sanction.

California authorities have argued that the regulations, once issued, would resolve questions about Proposition 187’s constitutionality. But attorneys challenging the measure disagree, and Pfaelzer, in issuing her preliminary injunction, also expressed doubts that regulatory moves alone could allay constitutional concerns.

A state appeal of the judge’s ruling is possible. An appeal, though, is far from a guaranteed success and may further delay the proposition’s implementation.

Buoyed by their success in court, Proposition 187 opponents may request that Pfaelzer also enjoin a provision that bars illegal immigrants from state-funded colleges and universities. The judge excluded that section from her injunction, although she ruled that undocumented youngsters may continue attending public elementary and secondary schools. (Implementation of the post-secondary educational provisions remains on hold pending resolution of a separate lawsuit filed in state court in San Francisco.)

Pfaelzer also let stand two sections of Proposition 187 that increase penalties for the manufacture, sale and use of false documents to conceal citizenship or immigration status--the sole provisions of the ballot measure now in effect.

In the months leading up to trial on Proposition 187’s fate, lawyers plan to take depositions from state and federal officials about the measure’s potential effects on California’s health, educational and law enforcement infrastructure, said Peter A. Schey, one of the lead attorneys in the federal court challenge. Lawyers challenging the proposition predict adverse consequences if it is implemented, including a rise in contagious diseases and crime--scenarios dismissed by proposition advocates as alarmist.

Meantime, proposition advocates--outraged about their rebuff in federal court--said Thursday that they are considering whether to step up efforts to intervene in the case. The main purpose would be to clarify the intent of the 10-member committee that drafted the measure, said Ron Prince, who chaired the Proposition 187 campaign.

“We want to be sure this initiative is adequately defended,” Prince said.

Lawyers challenging Proposition 187 contend that its sponsors illegally stitched together a state scheme to regulate immigration--a task reserved for the federal government. Proposition framers deny such intentions.