Resolution of Proposition 187 Requires Vision

When voters expressed their will in the 1998 gubernatorial election, they put into office a moderate governor, politically prudent, yet open to multiple views and innovative ways of advancing public policy. The action taken by Gov. Davis April 15, moving the dispute over Proposition 187 to mediation, was a disciplined and diplomatic response to a heated issue. This decision will move us, in the most constructive way, beyond the impasse that has plagued state politics for the last five years.

As two leaders in the broad 1994 effort to defeat Proposition 187, we organized and led one of the largest marches against the ballot initiative. This historic march brought together 150,000 demonstrators in downtown Los Angeles.

We struggled against this fundamentally unjust measure, which was born of xenophobia and which attacked a vulnerable population without the political resources to fight back. Proposition 187 aimed to deprive families of the most critical services that help to achieve and sustain a higher quality of life: education and health care. We continue to oppose the tenets of 187, but are now faced with a moment that tests the very values we championed during the opposition campaign: community and consensus.

The governor has struggled most pointedly with this test of his leadership. His decision to mediate has helped him balance two goals, respecting the will of the people and opposing divisive issues that splinter the California community. The court of mediation, not the court of litigation, is much more likely to produce an evenhanded result palatable to all stakeholders. Lawyers are paid to disagree and debate, while leaders are expected to resolve issues and reconcile stakeholders, guided by a long-term vision. Davis has shown this vision in his consensus-promoting decision on Proposition 187.

Proposition 187 was not simply a ballot initiative, but a byproduct of a broader anti-immigrant sentiment that arose from the recession of the early 1990s. The only way to deal with this sentiment is to foster a dialogue between the various interests, which is precisely what mediation does. If we don’t get beyond visceral reactions, we run the risk of future division. Dropping the appeal to Proposition 187 is merely a legal response. We need to do the harder work of bringing stakeholders together to a common table and working through the difficult issues.

This strategy complements progress the governor has made to ensure that the days of wedge-issue politics are behind us. Davis has made significant strides to put California back on the course of equality and opportunity for all people. He has time and again articulated his commitment to education. He has made the policy decision that the top 4% of students in all schools have access to the University of California. This policy rewards students who have worked hard, no matter what their country of origin, while Proposition 187 sought to deny public education to immigrant children.

Davis also has demonstrated his fairness and compassion in his support of accessible health care. He has stood behind the extension of prenatal services to all women regardless of immigration status. He has directed the attorney general to evaluate the hundreds of state regulations related to immigrants in an effort to unravel the web of antagonistic and discriminatory policies woven during the Wilson administration.

Consistent with this era of positive change, the governor’s move adds momentum toward reconciliation on the issue of Proposition 187. This response is appropriate, particularly since future litigation is foreseeable. In fact, settlement is a route favored by the main stakeholders involved in the litigation. In the wake of the governor’s decision, lead attorney Peter Schey, of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, stated, “We believe this will remove the settlement process from the political arena, and allow it to focus instead on the constitutional questions, which are at the heart of our legal challenge.” He also expressed hope that “the mediation process will result in a favorable outcome bringing this divisive case to an end.” The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund also supported the pursuit of settlement and in a February letter welcomed the opportunity to discuss it, indicating that the state could benefit from such a course.

Proposition 187 still has tremendous power to stir people’s passion. When it was introduced in 1994, it was a backlash against immigrant communities. Davis’ decision avoids a counter-backlash. We need political leadership that neutralizes raw dispute, while still tackling the pressing concerns that affect us all. Mediation, not litigation, achieves this goal.