State Must Tell Public About Prop. 187 Delay : Immigration: Judge says officials have to post notices that initiative will not be enforced until legality is decided.

A federal judge in Los Angeles has ordered state officials to take swift and firm action to make clear to state employees and to the public that there will be no enforcement of key elements of Proposition 187 until a trial determines the legality of the hotly debated ballot measure designed to bar illegal immigrants from most public services.

In a three-page order made public Thursday, U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer set a deadline of Jan. 30 for state officials to distribute copies of her preliminary injunction against Proposition 187 to school districts, police agencies, publicly funded health care facilities and government health and welfare offices across California.

Pfaelzer’s order also requires that information bulletins be posted at all publicly funded health care, social service and educational facilities by Feb. 13 so that applicants and recipients are adequately notified that Proposition 187 has been barred, at least temporarily, from taking effect.

“We feel it’s a fair order,” said Peter A. Schey, director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, one of several civil rights organizations that have filed lawsuits against Proposition 187. “We believe that if the order is fully complied with, people in the immigrant community should be adequately advised of the existence of the injunction.”

Pfaelzer, who held a 90-minute court hearing last Friday on the wording of her order, sided mainly with lawyers fighting the initiative, which would bar illegal immigrants from public education, non-emergency health care and social services and require administrators to report suspected illegal immigrants to state and federal law enforcement officials.

The human rights center and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California had requested broad notification so illegal immigrants would not forsake such services as prenatal care and elementary and secondary school education that they continue to qualify for.

In her written order, Pfaelzer did not agree with all of the ACLU’s requests, which included requiring the state to run public service announcements and to provide individual notices to anyone affected by Proposition 187. But ACLU officials said they were nonetheless pleased.

State Justice Department spokesman David Puglia said Pfaelzer’s order is “a disappointment. . . . We didn’t ask her to consider our (proposals) just as an exercise--we were very serious.”

On the brighter side, Puglia added, “she did not take everything the plaintiffs had asked for . . . (and) the state will proceed with the drafting of regulations” to implement Proposition 187.

Under Pfaelzer’s order, the state can continue to prepare regulations but cannot make them public--as the state had requested--without a further order from the court.

State officials can also appeal Pfaelzer’s injunction to a federal appellate court, but by doing so might risk further delays in determining the fate of Proposition 187.

Pfaelzer said last week that she wants the trial to take place in her courtroom “well in advance of the end” of this year. On Dec. 14, she blocked most key provisions of the initiative, approved by a nearly 3-2 margin in November’s state election, from taking effect before the trial.