California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal immigrants from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California. Voters passed the proposed law at a referendum on November 8, 1994. The law was challenged in a legal suit the day after its passage, and found unconstitutional by a federal district court on November 11.[1] In 1999, Governor Gray Davis halted state appeals of this ruling.
Passage of Proposition 187 reflected state residents' concerns about illegal immigration into the United States. Opponents believed the law was motivated by bigotry against illegal immigrants of Hispanic or Asian origin; supporters maintained that their concerns were economic: that the state could not afford to provide social services for so many people who had entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas.[2][3]
The California Legislative Analyst's Office later said that the cost of verification would be greater than any fiscal benefits of the ballot measure.[4] As the state's demographics have shifted to include more immigrants, the reversal of Proposition 187 has been cited as a reason for the decline of the Republican Party in California.[5]
Background and passage
In 1994, California had an estimated 1.3 million illegal immigrants. Some residents were increasingly concerned about the costs of providing services to the families of such illegal immigrants.[6]
The RepublicanassemblymanDick Mountjoy of Monrovia introduced Proposition 187 to the state legislature as the "Save Our State" (SOS) initiative. It gained enough signatures to be placed on the ballot as a statutory initiative during the general election on November 8, 1994. Originally one of several immigration reform bills placed before the California legislature in the early 1990s, polls surveying community responses showed that Proposition 187 began with widespread support—a 37-point lead in July 1994, and 62-29% lead among likely voters by September 1994.[7] Proponents of the bill estimated that California spent $3 billion per year on services for illegal immigrants, about half of which provided education to children of illegal immigrants.[8]
Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, was a prominent supporter of Proposition 187, which ultimately became a key issue during his 1994 re-election campaign against Democratic opponent Kathleen Brown. After facing record low approval ratings during his first term, Wilson trailed Brown in opinion polls by more than 20% early during the gubernatorial campaign. Commentators considered his aggressive support of the Proposition 187 as crucial to his re-election.[9]
In the days leading up to the election, Wilson said that he would require all state and local government employees to report suspected illegal immigrants to the Attorney General's Office if Proposition 187 passed. State Attorney General Dan Lungren, also running for re-election, agreed to enforce emergency regulations to implement the law immediately after the election.[10]
During the United States Senate election in California, 1994 campaign, the incumbent Senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican challenger Michael Huffington both adopted tough policies against illegal immigration. The candidates each revealed that they had previously hired illegal immigrants for housekeeping and childcare. Unlike Feinstein, Huffington had hired a housekeeper who was an illegal immigrant after the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it illegal to knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Feinstein was narrowly re-elected.[11]
President Bill Clinton urged Californians to reject Proposition 187 as an impediment to federal policy on immigration. After stating that "it is not wrong for you [Californians] to want to reduce illegal immigration," Clinton asked voters to allow the federal government to "keep working on what we're doing."[11] In November 1994, Clinton publicly criticized the ballot measure, stating that it “is not the answer” to the issues stemming from illegal immigration.[12]
In the days leading up to the ballot measure vote, Latino students organized large protests of Proposition 187 across the state, including a mass boycott of high schools. Their protests often included waving the Mexican flag, a controversial symbol that was described by opponents as counterproductive.[11]
On November 8, 1994, California voters approved the proposition by a wide margin: 59% to 41%.[13] According to the Los Angeles Times exit polls, 63% of non-Hispanic white voters and 23% of Latino voters voted for Proposition 187; African-American and ethnic Asian voters split their voting equally for and against the law. Although non-Hispanic whites comprised 57% of California's population at the time, they comprised 81% of voters in the 1994 general election. Latinos totaled 8% of voters, although they comprised 26% of the state's population.
Among those who voted on the initiative, 78% of Republicans and 62% of Independents voted for it, while 64% of Democrats opposed it.[14]
Section 1 of Proposition 187 provides this introduction:
The People of California find and declare as follows:
That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal aliens in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.[15]
Key elements of Proposition 187
Proposition 187 included the following key elements:[7]
All law enforcement agents who suspect that a person who has been arrested is in violation of immigration laws must investigate the detainee's immigration status, and if they find evidence of illegality they must report it to the attorney general of California, and to the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They must also notify the detainee of his or her apparent status as an alien.
Local governments are prohibited from preventing or limiting the fulfillment of this requirement.
If government agents suspect anyone applying for benefits of being illegal immigrants, the agents must report their suspicions in writing to the appropriate enforcement authorities.
People shall not receive any public social services until verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
People shall not receive any health care services from a publicly funded health care facility until verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
A public elementary or secondary school shall not admit or permit the attendance of any child until verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
By 1996, each school district shall verify the legal status of each child enrolled within the district and the legal status of each parent or guardian of each child.
A child who is in violation of the requirements above shall not continue to attend the school 90 days from the date of notice to the attorney general and INS.
The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and make them available to any other government entity that wishes to inspect them.
The manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of false citizenship or residency documents is a state felony punishable by imprisonment or fine.
Opposition
Protesters of Proposition 187 in Fresno, California in 1994
Activists on campuses, churches, and ethnic communities in California and across the country rallied to express opposition to Proposition 187. Critics argued that the measure was xenophobic and discriminated against ethnic minorities, especially those of Latino origin. Others were fearful that the costs of a state-run citizenship screening system and the potential loss of federal funds would off-set any savings of denying public benefits to unlawful residents.[16] The day after the law was approved, an alliance of Latino and civil rights groups, including Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and American Civil Liberties Union, filed lawsuits against the measure in state court.[17][18] Multiple local governments outside California, including the city of Denver, Colorado, threatened to boycott the state altogether. Latino organizations announced that they would not hold conventions in California and urged a boycott by their members and supporters of Disneyland, a major tourist attraction.[19]
In the weeks leading up to the election, opponents of Proposition 187 led a series of demonstrations. These events gathered several thousands of people. One of the largest protests of the proposition, as well as one of the largest protests in Los Angeles history, was held on October 16, 1994, when an estimated 70,000 people marched through the downtown area.[20] The line of demonstrators stretched at least a mile long.[20] Two weeks later, 7,000 people participated in another rally against Proposition 187 that took the form of a concert in which dozens of musicians and speakers performed.[21]
Young people, particularly Hispanic students, organized their own protests. Most often, these involved campus walkouts. Students as young as middle schoolers participated.[22] In one of the largest student-led demonstrations against Proposition 187, more than 10,000 young people walked out from more than 30 campuses in the Los Angeles Unified School District.[23] The protest was held without endorsement by any official groups; instead, students had been encouraged to stay in school and stage sit-ins as an alternative.[23]
Due to Proposition 187's statutes requiring children and their parents or legal guardians to prove their legal status, the California State Parent-Teacher Association joined in opposing the bill.[24] The Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Gray Davis, who succeeded Wilson, campaigned against Proposition 187.
The Mexican president, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, decried the law as xenophobic and harmful to the human rights of migrant laborers. One week after the bill was approved, Salinas proposed cross-border discussions to develop a "guest worker" program that would permit non-resident Mexicans to work legally in the United States.[27] Such a program had been in place during World War II.
Ethnic minority reactions
Reactions against the proposition varied between and within different ethnic minority groups. Latino communities are cited as having been the most active; Hispanic students in particular were marked as they marched in the streets with Mexican flags. Some sources claim that this reaction might have caused indecisive voters to vote in favor of the proposition.[28] After the election, Harold Ezell, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service Director who helped author Proposition 187, maintained that the "biggest mistake the opposition made was waving those green and white flags with the snake on it. They should have been waving the American flag."[29] When Hispanic students were criticized for waving Mexican flags during demonstrations in Los Angeles, community leaders responded to the controversy by saying that it was "a symbolic clinging to self-pride".[30] But some movement leaders did attempt to address these criticisms. As the election drew near, organizers sold thousands of American flags at their demonstrations against Proposition 187.[31]
Asian communities in particular were divided, with a slight tendency towards supporting the proposition with 57 percent voting in favor.[28] However, as the bill became more visible, Asian communities came to be known as a group that took increasingly more visceral actions. Over time, general populist support for the bill dropped from 49% to 38%, a drop that is credited to the "massive organizing among California's communities of color, particularly the Latino and Asian communities".[32] In fact, the largest organized group in support of Proposition 187 at the time of October 1994 was the Asian Americans for Border Control in Sylmar, which had only ten members. On the other hand, Chinese, Japanese, Cambodian, Thai and Korean alliances and coalitions banded to form the Asian Pacific Islanders Against Proposition 187 which consisted of hundreds of members.[33] Significantly, many consider the strong reactions against Proposition 187 as the first time such numbers of Asian Americans have come together, with around 60 organizations joining forces.[33]
Legal challenges
The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill's passage, Federal Judge W. Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by State Attorney General Dan Lungren.[34] After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994, blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents, multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.[35] Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187's effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration:
"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."[36]
Governor Wilson appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But in 1999, the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation.[37] His administration withdrew the appeal before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.[38]
The unenforceable sections of Proposition 187 remained on the books until 2014. In September of that year, California passed a bill, SB 396, that removed those sections from California's education, health and safety, and welfare codes, as a symbolic act after the overturn of Prop.187. Bill author Kevin de León said this "closes a dark chapter in our state’s history, and brings dignity and respect to the national immigration debate."[39][40]
Legacy
Noting a rapid increase in the number of Latinos voting in California elections, some analysts cite Wilson and the Republican Party's embrace of Proposition 187 as a cause of the subsequent failure of the party to win statewide elections.[41][42] A 2006 study published in the American Journal of Political Science found that Republican support of Proposition 187 and two later state ballot initiatives—Proposition 209 in 1996, which ended affirmative action at governmental institutions, and Proposition 227 in 1998, which limited bilingual education in public schools—shifted both white and Latino voters in California away from identifying with the Republican Party and toward the Democratic Party.[5] The authors of the study said that the "results raise serious questions about the long-term efficacy of racially divisive strategies for electoral gain."[5] Studies published in 2001 and 2011 also show that Proposition 187 mobilized Hispanic voters for the Democratic Party.[43][44] A 2016 article by pro-immigration researcher Alex Nowrasteh came to the same conclusion.[45] However, a 2018 study questioned the conventional wisdom that Proposition 187 led to an abrupt realignment in Latino voters' political preferences.[46]
Conservative group Eagle Forum instead argues that immigration, whether legal or not, made California's electorate more liberal.[47] Fred Bauer of National Review concurs, adding that Democrats have usually controlled both branches of the California state legislature since the 1960s and that the Democratic Party has had consistently strong support among both white and Hispanic voters in California.[48] Bill Whalen, a former aide to Wilson, in an article for Forbes, noted that Proposition 187 was popular among voters and that Republican struggles in California are partly due to women gradually moving away from the party for other reasons, particularly reproductive rights.[49] Whalen also cited Schwarzenegger's reelection as governor in 2006, in which he won 39% of the votes cast by Latinos, as evidence that Proposition 187 did not harm Republicans' chances of being elected in California.[49] Writing after Schwarzenegger's 2003 recall election victory, Debra J. Saunders of The Weekly Standard noted that he won the election despite voting for Proposition 187, which other publications had claimed would seriously jeopardize his bid.[50]
During Donald Trump's 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, his use of "anti-immigrant tactics" drew comparisons from media members to Wilson and California Proposition 187.[52] Seema Mehta of the Los Angeles Times wrote, "Many have had a visceral reaction to Trump's proposals that include deporting 11 million people and building an enormous border wall. Protests greet Trump whenever he holds rallies in California."[52]
Peter Barton Wilson is an American attorney and politician who served as a United States senator from California from 1983 to 1991 and as the 36th governor of California from 1991 to 1999. A member of the Republican Party, he also served as the 29th mayor of San Diego from 1971 to 1983.
Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed, thereby banning affirmative action in the state's public sector.
Rosario Marin is a Mexican-American politician who served as the 41st Treasurer of the United States from August 16, 2001, to June 30, 2003, serving under President George W. Bush. She is the first person since William Clark to assume the post without having been born a United States citizen. She is the only foreign-born Treasurer of the United States.
Proposition 200, the "Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act", was an Arizona state initiative passed in 2004 that basically requires: (a) persons to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote; (b) voters to present a photo identification before receiving a ballot at the polling place; and (c) state and local agencies to verify the identity and eligibility, based on immigration status, of applicants for non-federally mandated public benefits. The proposition also makes it a misdemeanor for public officials to fail to report violations of U.S. immigration law by applicants for those public benefits and permits private lawsuits by any resident to enforce its provisions related to public benefits. The requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote was later ruled invalid in federal court.
The 1994 California gubernatorial election was held on November 8, 1994, in the midst of that year's "Republican Revolution". Incumbent Republican Pete Wilson easily won re-election over his main challenger, Democratic State Treasurer Kathleen Brown, the daughter of Pat Brown and younger sister of Jerry Brown, both of whom had previously served as governor. Although Wilson initially trailed Brown in the polls as a result of the state's faltering economy, his signature opposition to affirmative action and state services for illegal immigrants eventually led to his win. Wilson won 25% of the African American vote, a fairly strong performance for a Republican. However, he won only 25% of the Latino vote, a weak performance which was widely attributed to his support of Prop 187. This election was the first California gubernatorial election since 1974 in which the winner of the gubernatorial election was of a different party from the incumbent president.
Save Our State (SOS) is an activist organization opposed to illegal immigration in California. The organization's methodology revolves around the 'transference of pain' and it has been described as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 was a bill in the 109th United States Congress. It was passed by the United States House of Representatives on December 16, 2005, by a vote of 239 to 182, but did not pass the Senate. It was also known as the "Sensenbrenner Bill," for its sponsor in the House of Representatives, Wisconsin Republican Jim Sensenbrenner. The bill was the catalyst for the 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests and was the first piece of legislation passed by a house of Congress in the United States illegal immigration debate. Development and the effect of the bill was featured in "The Senate Speaks", Story 11 in How Democracy Works Now: Twelve Stories a documentary series from filmmaking team Shari Robertson and Michael Camerini.
Nativo Lopez-Vigil was an American political leader and immigrant rights activist in Southern California. Lopez was a national president of the Mexican American Political Association and the national director of the Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, a community service and advocacy organization for Mexican and Latin American immigrants throughout the United States.
California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR) was a Huntington Beach, California-based political advocacy group devoted to immigration reduction, with an emphasis on combating illegal immigration to the United States. According to the organization's website, its objectives were to "promote and expand citizen and legal resident awareness by a practical, effective communication network" and to "mobilize citizens and legal residents to support elected representatives and legislation" who favor immigration reduction.
The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, also known as CHIRLA, is a Los Angeles county-based organization focusing on immigrant rights. While the organization did evolve from a local level, it is now recognized at a national level. The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles organizes and serves individuals, institutions and coalitions to build power, transform public opinion, and change policies to achieve full human, civil and labor rights. The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles also has aided in passing new laws and policies to benefit the immigrant community regardless of documented status.
Proposition 4, or the Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, also known to its supporters as Sarah's Law, was an initiative state constitutional amendment in the 2008 California general election.
Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.
California Proposition 6, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods Act and The Runner Initiative, is a statutory initiative that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. This proposition was rejected by voters on November 4 of that year.
California Proposition 5, or the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act was an initiated state statute that appeared as a ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot in California. It was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.
Proposition 11 of 2008 was a law enacted by California voters that placed the power to draw electoral boundaries for State Assembly and State Senate districts in a Citizens Redistricting Commission, as opposed to the State Legislature. To do this the Act amended both the Constitution of California and the Government Code. The law was proposed by means of the initiative process and was put to voters as part of the November 4, 2008 state elections. In 2010, voters passed Proposition 20 which extended the Citizen Redistricting Commission's power to draw electoral boundaries to include U.S. House seats as well.
Proposition 66 was a California ballot proposition on the November 2, 2004 ballot. It was a proposed amendment to the California three-strikes law. Prop 66 would have required the third felony charge against a suspect to be especially violent and/or serious crimes to mandate a 25-years-to-life sentence. It also would have changed the definition of some felonies. It was rejected by voters, with 52.7% voting against the proposition.
The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act is a 2010 legislative Act in the U.S. state of Arizona that was the broadest and strictest anti-illegal immigration law in the United States when passed. It has received international attention and has spurred considerable controversy.
A California Congressional Redistricting Initiative, Proposition 20 was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California. It was approved by 61.2% of voters. Election officials announced on May 5 that the proposition had collected sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure is known by its supporters as the VOTERS FIRST Act for Congress.
California Proposition 19 was a ballot initiative on the November 2, 2010, statewide ballot. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters voting "No" and 46.5% voting "Yes." If passed, it would have legalized various marijuana-related activities, allowed local governments to regulate these activities, permitted local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorized various criminal and civil penalties. In March 2010, it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot. The proposition required a simple majority in order to pass, and would have taken effect the day after the election. Yes on 19 was the official advocacy group for the initiative and California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 was the official opposition group.
Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), was a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that was voted on in the 2022 general election on November 8. Passing with more than two-thirds of the vote, the proposition amended the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives, making California among the first states in the nation to codify the right. The decision to propose the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated in May 2022 by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The decision reversed judicial precedent that previously held that the United States constitution protected the right to an abortion.
↑ "Proposition 187: Text of Proposed Law". Illegal Aliens. Ineligibility for Public Services. Verification and Reporting. California Proposition 187. 1994. p.91. Retrieved July 4, 2018.
↑ Dyck, Joshua J.; Johnson, Gregg B.; Wasson, Jesse T. (May 1, 2012). "A Blue Tide in the Golden State: Ballot Propositions, Population Change, and Party Identification in California". American Politics Research. 40 (3): 450–475. doi:10.1177/1532673X11427948. ISSN1532-673X. S2CID153521530.
↑ Pantoja, Adrian D.; Ramirez, Ricardo; Segura, Gary M. (December 1, 2001). "Citizens by Choice, Voters by Necessity: Patterns in Political Mobilization by Naturalized Latinos". Political Research Quarterly. 54 (4): 729–750. doi:10.1177/106591290105400403. ISSN1065-9129. S2CID154050783.
↑ Hui, Iris; Sears, David O. (March 1, 2018). "Reexamining the Effect of Racial Propositions on Latinos' Partisanship in California". Political Behavior. 40 (1): 149–174. doi:10.1007/s11109-017-9400-1. ISSN0190-9320. S2CID151802748.
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Tara L. Butterfield. "The resurgence of nativism in California? The case of Proposition 187 and illegal immigration." Social Science Quarterly (2000): 167-179. online
Bosniak, Linda S. "Opposing Prop. 187: Undocumented immigrants and the national imagination." Connecticut Law Review 28 (1995): 555+ online.
Garcia, Ruben J. "Critical race theory and Proposition 187: The racial politics of immigration law." ChiCano-Latino Law Review 17 (1995): 118+ online.
Jacobson, Robin Dale. The new nativism: Proposition 187 and the debate over immigration (U of Minnesota Press, 2008) online.
Lee, Yueh-Ting, Victor Ottati, and Imtiaz Hussain. "Attitudes toward “illegal” immigration into the United States: California Proposition 187." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 23.4 (2001): 430-443. online
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
