1994 California Proposition 187

Proposition 187

November 8, 1994 (1994-11-08)
Illegal Aliens. Ineligibility for Public Services. Verification and Reporting. Initiative Statue.
Results
Choice Votes % Yes 5,063,537 58.93% No 3,529,432 41.07% Valid votes 8,592,969 96.54% Invalid or blank votes 307,663 3.46% Total votes 8,900,632 100.00% Registered voters/turnout 14,723,784 60.45%
Yes   70–80%   60–70%   50–60% No   70–80%   50–60%
Source: 1994 Statement of Vote

Elections in California
Federal government U.S. President 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 Dem Rep 2000 Dem Rep 2004 Dem Rep 2008 Dem Rep 2012 Dem Rep 2016 Dem Rep 2020 Dem Rep 2024 Dem Rep U.S. Senate 1849 1850 1852 sp 1856 1857 sp 1860 1860 sp 1868 1872 1873 1873 sp 1878 1880 1885 1886 sp 1887 1891 1891 sp 1893 1895 sp 1897 1900 sp 1903 1905 1909 1911 1914 1916 1920 1922 1926 1928 1932 1934 1938 1940 1944 1946 1946 sp 1950 1952 1954 sp 1956 1958 1962 1964 1968 1970 1974 1976 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1992 sp 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 2018 2022 2022 sp 2024 2024 sp 2028 U.S. House of Representatives 1849 1851 1852 1854 1856 1859 1861 1863 1864 1867 1868 1871 1872 1875 1876 1879 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 12th 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1987 5th sp 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 32nd sp 2002 2004 2005 5th sp 48th sp 2006 50th sp 2007 36th sp 2008 12th sp 2009 10th sp 32nd sp 2010 2011 36th sp 2012 2014 2016 2017 34th sp 2018 2020 25th sp 2022 22nd sp 2024 16th 20th sp 30th 45th 47th v t e
State government Executive Governor 1849 1851 1853 1855 1857 1859 1861 1863 1867 1871 1875 1879 1882 1886 1890 1894 1898 1902 1906 1910 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 (recall) 2006 2010 2014 2018 2021 (recall) 2022 2026 Lieutenant governor 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 Attorney general 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Secretary of state 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Treasurer 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Controller 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Insurance commissioner 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Superintendent 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Board of equalization 2018 2022 Legislature Senate 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Special Assembly 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2021 (79th sp) 2022 (17th sp) 2024 Special Judiciary Court of appeals 1994 1998 2002 2006 Elections by year 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2012 Jun Nov 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 v t e
State propositions 1910–1919 1911 4 7 8 1960–1969 1964 14 1970–1979 1978 6 8 13 1980–1989 1982 8 1986 64 65 1988 98 99 1990–1999 1994 187 1996 196 209 215 218 1998 6 10 227 2000–2009 2000 21 22 36 39 2003 53 54 2004 1A 55 56 57 58 59 60 60A 61 62 63 64 65 66 69 71 2005 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 2006 81 82 83 85 87 89 90 2008 91 92 93 94, 95, 96, and 97 98 and 99 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2010–2019 2010 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2012 29 30 32 34 37 38 39 2014 1 2 41 42 45 46 47 48 2016 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 2018 68 69 70 71 72 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020–2029 2020 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2022 1 26 27 28 29 30 31 2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 32 33 34 35 36 Full list v t e
Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Board of supervisors 1980 1996 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Ballot measures 1980 A 2008 R 2012 B J 2016 M Elections 2020 2022 2024 Los Angeles Mayor 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1909 (sp) 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1929 1933 1937 1938 1941 1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2022 City attorney 2009 Ballot measures 1986 U 2017 S Elections 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 (sp) 2020 2022 2023 (sp) 2024 Long Beach Mayor 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 v t e
Orange County Orange County Board of supervisors 2018 2020 2022 2024 District attorney 2018 Anaheim Mayor 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Irvine Mayor 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Costa Mesa Municipal 1947 1953 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 v t e
Sacramento Mayor 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 v t e
San Diego County San Diego County Board of supervisors 2020 San Diego Mayor 1887 1889 1891 1893 1895 1897 1899 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1931 1932 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 (sp) 1984 1986 (sp) 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2005 (sp) 2008 2012 2013–14 (sp) 2016 2020 2024 City attorney 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 City council 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Special v t e
San Francisco Mayor 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1931 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 (recall) 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2018 (sp) 2019 2024 District attorney 2019 2022 (recall) 2022 (sp) 2024 Board of supervisors 1977 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Board of education 2018 2022 (recall) Elections 2004 Mar Nov 2005 2006 Jun Nov 2007 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2011 2012 Jun Nov 2013 2022 Feb v t e
San Jose Mayor 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2024 v t e
Other localities Bakersfield Mayoral elections: 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 Fresno Mayoral elections: 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 Oakland Mayoral elections: 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2024 Riverside Mayoral elections: 1997 2001 2005 2009 2012 2016 2020 2024 San Bernardino Mayoral elections: 2005 2009 2014 2018 2022 Stockton Mayoral elections: 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 v t e
v t e

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]

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 Republican assemblyman Dick 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]

Proposition 187 included the following key elements:^[7]

1. 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.
2. Local governments are prohibited from preventing or limiting the fulfillment of this requirement.
3. 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.
4. People shall not receive any public social services until verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and make them available to any other government entity that wishes to inspect them.
10. The manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of false citizenship or residency documents is a state felony punishable by imprisonment or fine.

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. Proposition 187 was widely supported by conservatives. However, some prominent conservatives, including former Congressman and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, and unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron Unz, publicly opposed the initiative.^[25][26]

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.

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% 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, with the Los Angeles Times reporting "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]

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]

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 2 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]

Between 1995 and 2004 the following states passed similar ballot initiatives or laws: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma and Texas.^[51]

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]

• California Coalition for Immigration Reform
• Gallegly amendment
• California Proposition 209

• 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

• Balin, Bryan J. "State Immigration Legislation and Immigrant Flows: An Analysis: School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) (2008) pp 1-20.

• 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

• Mailman, Stanley. "California's Proposition 187 and Its Lessons". New York Law Journal, (1995)
• Martin, Philip. "Proposition 187 in California." International Migration Review 29.1 (1995): 255-263.
• Ono, Kent A., and John M. Sloop. Shifting borders: Rhetoric, immigration, and California's Proposition 187 (Temple University Press, 2002) online.

• Wroe, Andrew. The Republican Party and Immigration Politics: From Proposition 187 to George W. Bush. (Palgrave, 2008).

• Wilson, Pete. "Illegal Immigration: Past, Present and Future": Remarks of Pete Wilson, Former Governor of California, Monday, June 12, 2006, 4:00 p.m. Hudson Institute (Washington, DC), December 12, 2006. Federal News Service. Accessed December 17, 2008. [Transcript of interview with Wilson about California Proposition 187.]

• Works related to California Proposition 187 (1994) at Wikisource