Ruling on Prop. 187

Re “Prop. 187 Found Unconstitutional by Federal Judge,” Nov. 15:

Among our civic duties, we are required to attend jury duty and to vote. Thanks to recent events, these duties are becoming obsolete. Prop. 187 received a majority vote (59%) back in 1994. The voters spoke. Yet today, our tax dollars are being spent appealing something we voted for. I may not have voted for the president, but that doesn’t mean I’m asking for a recount.

The same goes for the court system and jury duty. We spend tax dollars on major court cases while civic-minded jurors spend months sitting in court. They find someone guilty of murder and the judge overturns the decision. Will someone please tell me then why the jury needs to be there? The voters and the jury have spoken. If you don’t want to hear our opinions or decisions, then please stop wasting our time and don’t ask us!

GREGORY GOODMAN

Sherman Oaks

The latest turn of events in the case of Prop. 187 illustrates the weakness of the current initiative system. I would suggest that before an initiative is approved by the secretary of state that the legislative body has 90 days to act on the intent of the initiative subject. If after that period the legislators have not acted, the initiative should wend its way through the court systems, including the federal courts. This should eliminate the frequent court battles, reversals and ad hominem appeals. Only then will the vote of the people really count, and perhaps their choices might stick.

What an irony, though, that any revisions to the current system would require an initiative. Almost like a dog chasing his own tail.

ERIC DAVID

Long Beach