A court approved mediation today ended years of legal and political debate over Proposition 187. The agreement confirms that no child in the state of California will be deprived of an education or stripped of healthcare due to their place of birth. It also makes clear that the state cannot regulate immigration, a job clearly assigned by the US constitution and federal law to the national government.

Passed in 1994, Proposition 187 sought to require police, healthcare professionals and teachers to, among other things, verify and report the immigration status of all individuals, including children. A federal district court judge issued an injunction barring implementation of the measure, holding that it violated the US constitution. Today's agreement validates that ruling.

"The seal of the great state of California is now stamped on the death certificate of Proposition 187,. said Mark Rosenbaum, ACLU/SC Legal Director. "The court approved stipulation marks not just the end of this case, but an end to nearly five years of racial divisiveness throughout California."

ACLU/SC Executive Director Ramona Ripston added, " We are pleased that we can put this ugly chapter behind us and can now turn our attention to trying to make California a better place for all people regardless of race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or age. A place where immigrants are welcome and can prosper."

"Today's settlement signals that it's time to move beyond the divisiveness of Proposition 187," said Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa. . The decision ensures that children can get an education, working families can get health care, and law enforcement can focus on fighting crime. We stand together today to say in one loud voice that Californians are tired of wedge issues and culture wars."

CHRONOLOGY OF PROPOSITION 187

November 8, 1994 California voters pass Proposition 187. The stated purpose of the Proposition is to " provide for cooperation between [the] agencies of state and local government with the federal government, and to establish a system of required notification by and between such agencies to prevent illegal aliens in the United States from receiving benefits or public services in the State of California."

November 9, 1994 After Proposition 198 passes, several actions challenging its constitutionality are commenced in California state and federal courts. Gregorio T v. Wilson brought by the ACLU/SC and MALDEF, contests all provisions of the initiative. Ultimately, five suits are filed in the United States District Court. The plaintiffs seek to bar the Governor and other state officials and entities from implementing and enforcing the provisions of Proposition 187.

November 1994 A temporary restraining order is issued, barring Proposition 187 from being implemented.

August 22, 1996 President Clinton signs the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRA) of 1996 into law. The PRA creates a statutory scheme that restricts and defines the eligibility of certain non-citizens for federal, state and loval benefits and services.

September 30, 1996 President Clinton signs into law the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), further supplementing the federal immigration regulatory scheme.

November 20, 1995 - March 13, 1998 The district court issues decisions, ruling that sections 1, and 4 through 9 of Proposition 187 are preempted by the federal PRA, IIRAIRA, and other federal law.

June, 1999 Governor Davis initiates a request for mediation to resolve the appeal of Proposition 187.

July 29, 1999 The mediated agreement is signed by all parties and submitted to the court.

Today the ACLU of Southern California filed a civil rights class action lawsuit in California Superior Court on behalf of public high school students who are being denied equal and adequate access to AP courses. The ACLU/SC lawsuit (Daniel v. State of California) charges that the State of California is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Education Clause of the California constitution. Under the California constitution, public education is a fundamental right making the State obligated to correct inequities in the school system. This first of its kind case represents a compelling example of denial of equal educational opportunities in the aftermath of Proposition 209. The State's failure to assure equal access to AP courses further perpetuates educational inequalities, particularly for students enrolled in lower income, predominantly African-American and Latino schools.

"California is flunking out when it comes to educating these students," said Mark Rosenbaum, ACLU/SC Legal Director. "This is a two-tiered educational system. In the face of its own data, with its eyes wide shut, California places hundreds of thousands of its children on uneven playing fields sodded with quicksand."

The AP program was developed more than 40 years ago by the College Board, a national not-for-profit educational organization, and is administered by the Educational Testing Services. The program allows qualified and motivated high school students to take college-level course material, culminating in an AP exam at the end of the year. Participation in the program serves several purposes. AP courses are traditionally more challenging and demanding than regular and honors courses, providing for greater intellectual and scientific development.

The completion of an AP course provides students with an extra point in the University of California's calculation of their grade point average (GPA) when considering admissions, allowing AP students to earn a GPA above a 4.0 "perfect score." Achieving a score of 3 or higher on an AP exam enables students to earn college credit, thereby reducing the cost of tuition and allowing students to opt out of certain introductory classes.

The high school student plaintiffs wish to take several AP courses throughout their academic career in the Inglewood Unified School District (IUSD). They are academically qualified and have expressed a desire to participate in the AP program.

Inglewood High School offers only 3 AP courses, but this problem is hardly isolated to Inglewood. For example, while Beverly Hills High School, whose student body is 76.6% white, offers 14 different AP subjects and 45 AP classes, Arvin High School, where 93.2% of the student body is African-American and Latino and of a lower income, offers only 2 AP courses. The suit argues that African-American and Latino students, and those from a lower income bracket, are being systematically marginalized from attending California's most prestigious public universities due to these glaring disparities. For example, in 1998, UC Berkeley rejected 8,000 applicants whose GPAs were 4.0 or higher, choosing to accept students with higher GPAs due to their enrollment in AP courses.

ACLU/SC staff attorney Rocio Cordoba said, "Although California has been in the forefront nationally in offering AP courses, such courses must be made equally available to minority and poor students who have the capacity and drive to achieve in higher education. There is no reason why such students should be denied the ability to compete equally for admission to California's elite universities, or to succeed in college degree programs, simply because their school did not provide an adequate AP program."

The ACLU of Southern California will join dozens of students unjustly barred from participating in their graduation ceremonies in a 'mock' graduation ceremony, Tuesday, June 22, at 1 p.m. Parents, fellow students and teachers are expected to attend.

Last week, the ACLU was contacted by a number of Burbank students who, despite having successfully completed the academic requirements needed to graduate, were denied participation in graduation ceremonies. The ACLU has reviewed the current policy and firmly believes it to be unfair, unjust and misguided. Specifically, the ACLU believes that the attendance requirement "no more than 15 absences, even when excused" and the appeals process should be revised.

On Monday, the ACLU wrote to the Burbank school board demanding the current graduation policy be revised. The ACLU expressed its grave concern that, under the current policy, the Burbank Unified School District might be violating students substantive and procedural due process rights, guaranteed under the United States and the California constitutions.

The ACLU's primary goal is to change this unjust policy, so that future graduating seniors will be able to focus attention on competing their academic work without having to worry about being barred from attending their graduation ceremony should they become ill, suffer a loss in the family, or fulfill their civic duty.