Written Notices of Curbs on Prop. 187 to Be Served : Courts: Judge says she will order state officials to inform workers that key provisions of the measure cannot be enforced until a trial is held.

A federal judge said Friday that she will order state officials to serve written notice on state personnel affected by Proposition 187 that key provisions of the sweeping ballot initiative cannot be enforced until its constitutionality is decided at a trial.

U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer’s order, expected to be signed next week, would require the governor, attorney general, superintendent of public education and departments of Health Services and Social Services to distribute copies of her ruling by Jan. 30 to the affected state employees.

Plaintiffs in four lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the measure saw Pfaelzer’s intended order, reviewed in detail during Friday’s 90-minute hearing, as a victory.

“We couldn’t be happier,” said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which is representing some of the plaintiffs in the suits.

Rosenbaum and other plaintiffs’ attorneys emphasized that formal notices are needed to ensure that certain clients are not deprived of services, while Assistant Atty. Gen. Charlton G. Holland maintained that such notices would cost taxpayers unnecessarily.

Pfaelzer blocked most key provisions of the initiative Dec. 14 after the League of United Latin American Citizens, a group called Children Who Want an Education and two individuals sued the state in federal court. The suits were filed after voters in last year’s election approved the measure by 59%.

The judge’s decision blocked bans in the measure on public education, social services and non-emergency health care for illegal immigrants.

The ruling also barred implementation of a provision requiring law enforcement officers to check the legal statuses of arrestees and of mandates that social workers, educators and health administrators report suspected illegal immigrants to authorities.

During the hearing Friday, Pfaelzer repeatedly told lawyers that she wants the case involving the four suits to go to trial as soon as possible.

“There is no reason . . . to delay,” she said from the bench. “A trial date must be in 1995 and well in advance of the end of the year. I don’t want (the case) to become unduly expensive.”

But Holland suggested that it would be more appropriate to await the outcome of a parallel case challenging the legality of the measure under the California Constitution before proceeding with the federal case.

Holland also indicated that the state might appeal the judge’s ruling or ask that parts of her order be rescinded.

Outside the federal courthouse, Elisa Fernandez Cabello, a staff attorney at the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, welcomed the judge’s intended decision as “a recognition that the state has a responsibility to clarify to the public that it cannot implement Proposition 187.”