LAUSD Suit Against Prop. 187 Fulfills Duty

I was greatly bemused by the article by Bob Scott, identified as an “attorney in Sherman Oaks,” berating the elected officials of the City Council and particularly of the Los Angeles Unified School District because of their participation in the testing of Proposition 187’s constitutionality. Mr. Scott attacked the two bodies from a political point of view rather than one in which his professional status would have given his article some basis of validity.

Proposition 187 raised questions which affected municipalities, counties and school districts in ways which need to be clarified. Legally, these taxing bodies are separate public corporations serving differentiated constituencies which are not necessarily synonymous with the constituency represented in the passage of Proposition 187. The ramifications of this proposition upon their respective budgets, etc., put them in an adversary position to that taken by the state of California.

If there is a recall of Mark Slavkin or any other elected official because a county, city, school district, etc., calls for the judicial testing of the proposition, it is an effort to hamstring these public corporations from protecting interests that they perceive to be endangered by the proposition’s enactment.

Slavkin and the other officials who are testing the constitutionality of the proposition are doing their legal and fiduciary duty, and these officials are not among the throngs of lily-livered pols who populate too many chairs in too many legislative bodies throughout this state. These are the ones refusing to do their legislative duty, and causing much bad law to be pushed through by means of the initiative.

The pro-Proposition 187 zealots complain that tax money is spent to test Proposition 187’s constitutionality under the legal system. But they are willing to commit the system to another expenditure to recall Mr. Slavkin. Now that is talking out of both sides of one’s mouth.

JERRY BLAZ

Tarzana