PROP. 187 DECISION : O.C. Backers of Prop. 187 Say Ruling Was Expected

Opponents declared it a major victory, while supporters of the controversial anti-illegal immigrant measure called Proposition 187 said they were not surprised Monday by a federal judge’s ruling striking down parts of the measure.

Founders of the Orange County-originated Save Our State campaign that gave birth to Proposition 187 said they had anticipated that the judge would strike the requirement that children of illegal immigrants be reported to officials. Proposition 187 puts limits on government benefits to illegal immigrants, and backers said they had assumed the issue would eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We have absolutely no problem with” the ruling, said Barbara Coe, who co-chaired the Proposition 187 campaign. “We are very confident that we will prevail once the facts are revealed. We feel that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of American citizens who are here not for our American tax dollars but to commit their loyalty to the United States.”

Opponents of the measure, however, on Monday applauded the ruling by U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer.

“The fact that [the ruling] eliminates the ability to prevent someone from reporting children is really significant because you can’t enforce it unless you have the ability to identify who they are,” said John Palacio, the Orange County director of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Art Montez, urban affairs director of the California State League of United Latin American Citizens, added: “This was a constitutional victory because [the judge] muted the point of the initiative.

“If they cannot verify that the children are illegal immigrants,” Montez said, “then their hands are tied. They cannot do much to prevent the children from receiving social benefits.”

Those with the SOS campaign said they had strategically inserted the requirement that educators and social workers report the status of children of illegal immigrants into the measure to get the court to address the issue.

“We’re not totally unhappy” with Pfaelzer’s ruling, said Robert Kiley, a political consultant from Yorba Linda and founding member of the SOS campaign. “We did what we set out to do and that was to bring illegal immigration to the table of the federal government.”

Other key players in the SOS movement blasted Pfaelzer’s ruling while saying they expected no less.

“She is an exceedingly liberal judge,” said Ronald Stephen Prince, who co-chaired the Proposition 187 campaign. The decision “is an acknowledgment of her past record.”

Harold Ezell, a Newport Beach resident and former head of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service’s western region, said Pfaelzer has “given a turkey decision for Thanksgiving to the 5 million Californians who said yes on 187.”

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), one of the founders of the Proposition 187 movement, also questioned Pfaelzer’s ruling, asking how governments can hold back funding for the education of illegal immigrants if they cannot inquire as to who is an undocumented resident.

“It seems like the judge is a little mixed up,” Rohrabacher said. “She wants us to be able to restrict the money--our scarce tax dollars--but she does not want to give us the ability to do it effectively.”

Times staff writers Davan Maharaj and Gebe Martinez contributed to this report.