Davis Won’t Follow Prop. 187 on Schools

Taking a major step toward resolution of the Proposition 187 controversy, Gov. Gray Davis said Thursday he will not implement a key provision of the measure that would deny illegal immigrant children access to California public schools.

“I personally will never be a party to an effort to kick kids out of school,” Davis said in an interview with The Times, where he was joined by Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo on the third day of a joint goodwill tour around California.

“I will never allow California to take that position if it is within my power to prevent it--and I believe that it is,” Davis added.

The 1994 ballot measure could force hundreds of thousands of children out of public school if it overturns a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court precedent--as its original sponsors intended.

The landmark initiative, which altered California’s political landscape and strained relations with Mexico, may ultimately have a relatively modest impact on state policy because the provisions of the initiative removing health and welfare benefits from illegal immigrants are already covered by federal law.

“We are very pleased,” said Thomas Saenz, attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits against Proposition 187. “It is a great thing if he formally decides to drop the appeal on [the education] section . . . the most important section, no question about it.”

Proposition 187--including the section regarding public education--was declared largely unconstitutional last year by U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer. That ruling was appealed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson, a primary sponsor of the initiative.

Davis, who opposed Proposition 187, inherited the appeal and was urged by many of his allies to drop the lawsuit and probably end any chance the measure would ever be implemented.

But Davis said that would disregard the 60% of California voters who passed the initiative. So last month he announced what he called a “middle path,” seeking mediation of the matter to satisfy opponents of the measure as well as voters who supported it.

The mediation is described as a bargaining session in which Davis will present a modified version of the proposition and then negotiate an agreement with representatives from several civil rights and immigrant advocate groups that are plaintiffs in the suit. As the defendant in the case, officials say, the governor has authority to pursue all or none of the initiative.

Attack by Measure’s Authors

On Thursday, the original authors of Proposition 187 blasted Davis for suggesting that he could fulfill the will of the voters at the same time he plans to ignore a major provision of the initiative.

“The governor is showing a tremendous amount of disrespect for the voters of this state if he decides to carve out the portions of Proposition 187 that he likes politically, and that he doesn’t like politically,” said Sharon Browne, an attorney representing the initiative’s authors. “He is letting us down on the oath of office that he took and on his promise to the people that he would uphold the law.”

The proposition’s authors are not parties to the lawsuit. At the time voters passed it, the legal defense was turned over to Wilson and former Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, both Republicans who backed the measure.

When Davis announced his plans for a mediated settlement, he promised to seek their input.

Earlier this month, an attorney for the governor met privately with Browne and other lawyers who outlined their arguments for ending public education benefits for illegal immigrants. But when the meeting was over, Browne and other supporters criticized the governor’s effort as insincere.

Davis has been assuring opponents of Proposition 187 privately that he will not pursue the most controversial elements of the ballot measure--such as limits on access to public education.

The private talks have allowed key Latino leaders in the Legislature to express confidence in the governor’s plan for mediation. Davis gave a similar assurance to Zedillo, who asked about the controversial issue during his three-day tour.

“I have received the commitment of the governor to do whatever he can, so the negative effects that this proposition could generate . . . should not materialize,” Zedillo said in a television interview Wednesday. “I have confidence in the governor.”

Davis has received approval from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to start negotiations over Proposition 187’s fate with several civil rights groups and immigration advocates who are plaintiffs in the case against it.

Solution Expected in a Few Months

The mediation process is intended to determine what parts of Proposition 187, if any, should be appealed, implemented or dropped.

An optimistic Davis, seated next to Zedillo, said Thursday that he expects to announce a conclusion of the mediation within three or four months.

He said federal laws and court decisions--specifically on public education--since Proposition 187 was passed provide “the grounds for a resolution of this issue.”

“I am convinced that this matter can be resolved definitively within three or four months, and we will be able to put a very divisive wedge issue behind us,” he said.

Other parties to the suit said important issues still remain to be resolved, although they agreed that Davis’ comments about public education remove the largest hurdle to agreement.

Most health and welfare benefits targeted by Proposition 187 had already been denied to illegal immigrants since 1996, when President Clinton signed a federal welfare reform bill. Plaintiffs in the mediation said some negotiation is still required, however, because the federal law does not block the state from providing services to illegal immigrants at its own cost. Proposition 187 would block that.

Plaintiffs cited prenatal care for illegal immigrants as an example of a state-funded program that is allowed under federal law but would be prohibited by Proposition 187.

The other issues to be negotiated include illegal immigrants’ access to California colleges and universities. Pfaelzer ruled that Proposition 187 could not limit access to higher education.

She also ruled against a provision of the measure regarding whether local and state police should be involved in apprehending illegal immigrants--currently a federal responsibility.

“We are not prepared to compromise the decision Judge Pfaelzer correctly applied,” Saenz said. “This is an important step [on public education], but it is just one step.”

The federal district court upheld one provision of Proposition 187 that increases penalties for those who use fraudulent documents to immigrate illegally. That decision has been appealed by opponents of Proposition 187, but some have suggested that they could compromise on the matter.