It served as a focus of a larger debate about what should be done about illegal immigration. Frustrated by a lack of federal action and the failure of state legislation, backers of tough measures against illegal immigrants decided to take their issue to the public.
Like many states, California has an initiative process. This allows groups to place proposed measures on the ballot for consideration of the voters. If approved, a proposition becomes law in California.
For a proposition to be placed on the California ballot, its backers must qualify the measure. This means they must circulate petitions among registered voters. Backers must collect enough valid signatures to amount to 5 percent of the total number of voters who cast ballots in the last election for state governor. Proposition qualified and was placed on the ballot.
The purpose of Proposition was clear. It was designed to discourage illegal immigration into California by denying education, health, and social services to people who did not have legal immigrant status.
Under the proposition, people without legal status could be barred from getting welfare benefits, from receiving non-emergency health service, and from attending public schools. To make this happen, the measure required educational, public health, and social service administrators, and law enforcement officials to check on the immigration or citizenship status of the people they serve.
For example, school officials would have to check the status of all students. Social service workers would have to check the status of their clients. The names of all those suspected of illegal status would be sent to the federal immigration service and the California attorney general. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and the democratic candidate for governor Kathleen Brown.
Supporters of Proposition , called the Save Our State campaign, saw illegal immigration as a very serious problem, especially in California. They argued that the federal government has failed to deal with the problem. In general, they believed that illegal immigration places a drain on California taxpayers. They also believed that it is morally wrong and hurts the economy and the job market. They hoped that the measure would force the federal government to better control the borders.
The law, they argued, would discourage illegal immigration and reduce the costs of public services by hundreds of millions of dollars. These savings, they argued, could be used to improve services to legal residents or to cut taxes.
Opponents of Proposition may have agreed that illegal immigration is a serious problem, but they believed that the measure was unconstitutional and created bad public policy. They also worried that the proposition may violate federal law and that it could put California's federal funding in jeopardy at a potential cost of billions of dollars.
The opponents pointed to an existing U. Who represents me? President U. Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error.
Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search. California California ballot measures California ballot measure laws. News and analysis Ballot measure lawsuits Ballot measure readability Ballot measure polls.
Voter information What's on my ballot? Where do I vote? The agreement confirms that no child in the state of California will be deprived of an education or stripped of health care due to their place of birth. It also makes clear that the state cannot regulate immigration law, a function that the U. Constitution clearly assigns to the federal government. Passed in November , Proposition sought, among other things, to require police, health care professionals and teachers to verify and report the immigration status of all individuals, including children.
Days after the measure passed, a federal district court judge held that it violated the United States Constitution and issued an injunction barring its implementation. Their efforts were a success. On Nov. Despite this effort, Proposition passed on Nov. But the fight against it was only beginning. District Court Judge W. Mathew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against the initiative's implementation. Altogether, five lawsuits would be filed challenging the measure. On Dec. District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a preliminary injunction, blocking implementation on a majority of the measure's provisions.
In Jan. But it was too late - the injunction was upheld, and in Aug. Judge Pfaelzer ruled that the measure was unconstitutional in Nov. Inadvertently, Prop - which was largely backed by Republicans - activated a tidal wave of new Democratic voters and leaders, including new Latino elected leaders, as it pushed Latinos away from the GOP.
A report from the Latino Decisions polling research firm concluded that between and , California registered an estimated 1. During that time, the growth rate of Latino registered voters in the state far outpaced the growth rate of its Latino population.
In September , then-Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill repealing the unenforceable provisions of Prop , essentially striking the initiative's language from the books. Years later, however, the debate over immigrants and public benefits continues on the national stage, as the Trump administration has proposed disqualifying immigrants from obtaining green cards under what's become known as the "public charge" rule if they use public benefits such as health, food and housing assistance, or may use them in the future.
The rule has been blocked in court for now. Nevertheless, for many who marched in favor of immigrant rights 25 years ago, the messages of hope and unity still resonate to this day.
0コメント