BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 396
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 396 (De León)
As Amended June 5, 2014
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :Vote not relevant
JUDICIARY 8-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Alejo, Chau, | | |
| |Dickinson, Garcia, | | |
| |Maienschein, Muratsuchi, | | |
| |Stone | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Deletes certain statutes found to be unconstitutional.
Specifically, this bill deletes the following statutes:
Education Code Sections 48215 and 66010.8, Government Code
Section 53069.65, Health and Safety Code Chapter 1.3 of Part 1
of Division 1, Penal Code Section 834b, and Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 10001.5 which in combination purport
to make undocumented immigrants ineligible for specified public
social services, public health care services, and public school
education at the elementary, secondary, and post-secondary
levels and, among other things, require various state and local
agencies to report suspected illegal aliens, as specified, and
require the Attorney General to perform certain tasks in
connection with transmitting and retaining those reports.
EXISTING LAW provides for the regulation of immigration
exclusively by the federal government. (e.g., LULAC v. Wilson,
908 F. Supp. 755, 786-87 (Central District of California 1995).)
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : According to the author:
In 1994, exactly twenty years ago, the voters of
California approved Proposition 187, now considered
one of the most mean-spirited measures in California's
ballot initiative history. With 59% of voters in
favor of the initiative and 41 percent against it,
SB 396
Page 2
Proposition 187 [Prop. 187] was a pernicious and
unabashed attempt to target and scapegoat immigrants
for the economic recession in the mid 1990's. At the
time, California had an estimated 1.3 million
undocumented immigrants, which included more than
300,000 undocumented children.
Proposition 187 would have barred the children of
undocumented immigrants from attending public schools
and would have required teachers, doctors, social
workers, and law enforcement personnel to report and
turn in any suspected undocumented immigrant to
federal authorities. In short, it turned every
teacher, doctor, social worker, and local police
officer into an immigration agent for the federal
government.
Proposition 187 was ultimately struck down by federal
courts on the grounds that it violated the U.S.
[United States] Constitution by infringing on the
federal government's jurisdiction over immigration
law. Though never fully implemented, it had a
damaging and lasting impact on the immigrant
communities because it further stigmatized an already
vulnerable population. Still today, the immigrant
population fears interacting with government officials
and, as a result, is often hesitant to become
civically engaged and cooperate with the police.
Furthermore, Proposition 187 served as the unfortunate
precursor to the draconian anti-immigrant laws
recently adopted in Arizona (SB 1070 [of 2010]) and
Alabama (HB 56 [of 2011]) that, like Proposition 187,
encourage racial profiling and targeting undocumented
immigrants.
Nevertheless, despite clear findings that Proposition
187 is unconstitutional, its language remains on the
books. Undoubtedly, the state has made tremendous
progress in recent years by enacting laws that promote
the safety and livelihood of immigrant families and
that recognize undocumented immigrants as valued
members of society. And so, after 20 years, it is
fitting that California expressly acknowledge the
SB 396
Page 3
detrimental impact of the discriminatory and
xenophobic Proposition 187 by removing its stain from
the state's statutes.
Prop. 187 was an initiative measure approved by the voters to
enact certain statutory provisions in order to "establish a
system of required notification by and between [state and local
agencies and the federal government] to prevent illegal aliens
in the United States from receiving benefits or public services
in the State of California." (Ballot Pamphlet, General Election
(November 8, 1994) text of Prop. 187, Section I, p. 91.) The
United States District Court for the Central District of
California held that certain provisions of Prop. 187 - those at
issue in this bill - relating to verification and notification,
and the denial of public social services, publicly funded health
care, and education to persons who were not lawfully present in
the United States, were unconstitutional on the basis that those
provisions were preempted by federal law. The court then issued
a permanent injunction prohibiting the enforcement of those
provisions.
Because these statutes were enacted by initiative, the question
arises whether the Legislature may act to strike these
provisions from the codes. The California Constitution provides
that the Legislature may amend or repeal a statutory initiative
"by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by
the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or
repeal without their approval." (California Constitution,
Article II, Section 10, Subdivision (c).) While it may be
argued that this bill proposes an improper "repeal," the better
view would appear to be reflected in an opinion by Legislative
Counsel concluding that the Legislature is within its powers to
delete statutes that have been abrogated by the courts. As
Legislative Counsel notes, the evident intent of the subdivision
(c) is to "protect the people's initiative powers by precluding
the Legislature from undoing what the people have done, without
the electorate's consent." (Shaw v. People ex rel. Chiang
(2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 577, 597.) Accordingly a subsequent
statute will "amend" a statutory initiative within the meaning
of Subdivision (c) only if it changes the scope or effect of
that initiative by adding or taking away from it. (See People
v. Kelly (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1008, 1026-1027; see also People v.
Cooper (2002) 27 Cal.4th 38, 44.) Because the provisions that
would be deleted by this bill have previously been held to be
SB 396
Page 4
unenforceable, it seems reasonable to conclude that this bill
would not make a substantive change in the law as prohibited by
Subdivision (c), and therefore would not unconstitutionally
change the scope or effect of Prop. 187.
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0004092