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.

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

From the San Fernando Valley to the governor’s office, supporters of the proposition reacted with both anger and strategic acceptance.

Opponents said they plan public service announcements, neighborhood forums, distribution of pamphlets and notices in the Spanish-language media and other ethnic publications and broadcast programs, to publicize the judge’s ruling.

“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 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.

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.

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.”

Glenn Spencer, president of the Sherman Oaks-based Voice for Citizens Together, which backed the proposition, said his phones were ringing all morning with calls from Prop. 187 supporters angry over the federal judge’s decision.

Spencer’s group has sued Los Angeles school board members, arguing that it is illegal for them to use public funds to fight a proposition passed by the voters. Maintaining that they could lose up to $600 million in federal funding and be forced to fire up to 10,000 teachers if the proposition’s education provisions are implemented, the school district has filed a lawsuit against it in a San Francisco state court.

Los Angeles Board of Education President Mark Slavkin said the federal judge’s decision shows the measure was flawed. “Our concerns have been validated,” Slavkin said.

But Spencer, who is launching a recall drive against Slavkin for his role in the fight against the proposition, predicted the courts would ultimately uphold the measure.

Others accepted the challenges philosophically as a long-expected development, saying that no matter what happens in the court cases, the message that much of the electorate is fed up with illegal immigration has been delivered to political leaders with great force.

“That purpose has been served,” said Gerald Curry, president of the San Fernando Valley’s United Chambers of Commerce. “But we’d like to see full implementation,” he added.

But beyond continuing the court battle, it is unclear what pro-187 officeholders like 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.

Pfaelzer 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.