Court Ruling on Prop. 187

In the wake of Judge Mariana Pfaelzer’s opinion overturning the key provisions of Proposition 187 (March 19), I expect to hear a new flood of complaints that our votes do not count. Those making such complaints need to get a new perspective on the situation.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of our country and the California Constitution is the supreme law in our state (except in cases involving federal primacy). These documents include protection of certain essential rights. Both constitutions ensure that these rights cannot be violated by a simple vote of the legislature or of the people in response to the mood of the moment.

Provisions in each constitution outline the procedure for amendment should key protections need to be added or existing portions be considered inappropriate. These provisions were intentionally made difficult to discourage overuse, but they do exist and work well.

Judge Pfaelzer did her duty when she proclaimed that a simple vote of the people cannot overrule the U.S. Constitution. While individuals who side with the majority may believe that they are justified in complaining about such protections, the same people may appreciate those protections when they find themselves in the minority and see their own rights under attack.

DAVID HOLLAND

Northridge

*

The right to vote is protected by the U.S. Constitution; in a democratic system, majority rules. A federal judge issued a final order forbidding implementation of Proposition 187, declaring it unconstitutional. I’m confused; which part of the Constitution was violated?

MIKE McHALE

Los Angeles

*

I noticed the juxtaposition of the articles “Judge’s Final Order Kills Key Points of Prop. 187” and “Registered Voters Down 7% From 1996” (March 19). Do you think there could be a connection? Maybe people are saying, “What’s the point of voting when the judges are running the country?”

R. LEE GANGER

Torrance