State Asks Judge to Dismiss Prop. 187 Case

State attorneys, further ratcheting up their efforts to remove the Proposition 187 legal battle from a federal judge in Los Angeles who has blocked much of the ballot measure, filed legal papers Friday asking the judge to dismiss the case or abstain from hearing it until state courts first determine the initiative’s legality.

In a 42-page memo filed before U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer, the state attorney general’s office asks the judge to bow out of the case, at least temporarily, after a hearing in her court Feb. 27.

“It is well-settled that it is the province of the state courts to construe state law,” wrote Assistant Atty. Gen. Charlton G. Holland III in the legal papers. “ . . . If this court refuses to abstain, defendants (will) move for a dismissal.”

Officials in the state attorney general’s office, which has previously indicated it would file such a request, had no comment on the move Friday. But Mark D. Rosenbaum, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, which has filed one of four anti-187 cases currently before Pfaelzer, termed the state’s move “a bizarre strategy” that seems more suited to a political campaign than a successful courtroom resolution.

Last week, the attorney general’s office filed suit in Superior Court in San Francisco, asking that state courts uphold the validity of most sections of the sweeping immigration initiative before federal courts consider its legality. Earlier this week, state attorneys also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn Pfaelzer’s injunction.

Pfaelzer, in issuing her order last month, rejected a suggestion from the state that she abstain from adjudicating the case so it could be decided--at least in its early stages--in the state courts. She added in her ruling that the state could file a formal motion for abstention as the legal case proceeded concerning the constitutionality of the initiative, which would bar illegal immigrants from public schools, non-emergency health care and social services.

“She’s already ruled on abstention,” Rosenbaum said, “and the laws haven’t changed in the last two weeks.”