legal elements of two important referendums placed in front of America's voters in the forms of California's 1994 Proposition 187 and more recently, Arizona's Proposition 200.
In 1994, Californians were charged with considering Proposition 187, which lawmakers wrote with the intention of deterring those considering entering the country illegally by preventing them and their children from receiving public benefits, including education, health and social services once here (Mailman, para.4). Believing that the measure would in fact help reform illegal immigration laws, Californians passed the referendum on November 8, 1994. It was immediately attacked as unconstitutional by several lawsuits and within days, a U.S. District Court Judge issued an injunction barring its implementation (ACLU, "CA's Anti-Immigration Proposition", para.4). After years of political and legal wrangling, in March 1998, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a final ruling in the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) challenge to Proposition 187, confirming the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration and declaring the measure unconstitutional (ACLU, "CA's Anti-Immigration Proposition, para.8).
In a similar measure, but more recently in the November 2004 election, voters in Arizona approved Proposition 200 รป a statue that requires state and local employees to confirm and report the immigration status of people applying for public benefits. Employers must turn undocumented immigrants in to immigration officials or face prosecution, jail time and up to a $750 fine (Wingett, "Prop. 200 Injunction Rejected," para.7). Again, lawsuits were filed immediately, but in January 2005, unlike Proposition 187, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an injunction request filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and is expected to rule within four to six months on the constitutionality of Proposition 200 (Wi...