Ballot Initiatives Affecting Immigrants: Past and Present January 8, 2006
The Initiative and Referendum Process The ballot initiative and referendum process allows state citizens to participate directly in legislative activities. The initiative process permits citizens to place proposed laws on the ballot or to propose to amend the state constitution. The referendum process enables the state populace to approve, reject or amend a law that the state legislature has proposed. There are two types of referendums: popular and legislative. Both the initiative and the popular referendum process require a certain number of signatures to be collected on a petition before the issue can appear on a ballot. There are 24 states participating in the initiative process (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). There are also 24 states participating in the popular referendum process (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming). Each participating state has different processes that must be followed before a submission can be placed on the ballot. A national referendum process does not exist in the United States.
2006
More than 230 ballot initiatives were proposed for the November 7th General Election ballot. Of these, very few tackled issues related to immigrants. And, in most cases, the ballot initiatives related to immigrants either failed to appear on the ballot due to lack of signatures, failed to pass in the election, or met with protest and legal action from state governments. Here’s the outcome of ballots related to immigrants in 2006.
Arizona Proposition 100 amended the Arizona constitution and denies bail to a person charged with serious felonies if that person had entered or remained in the US illegally. This proposition appeared on the November 7th, ballot and passed with 78% of the vote. Proposition 102 provided that a person who is in the US in violation of federal immigration law as related to entry will not be awarded punitive damages in any civil action in any Arizona court. This measure appeared on the November 7th ballot and passed with 74% of the vote. Proposition 103 required that the government “preserve, protect, and enhance” English as the official language, conduct all official actions in English, permits private lawsuits to enforce English as the official language, and specifies when the government can act in other languages. This measure appeared on the November 7th ballot and passed with 74% of the vote. Proposition 300 provided that only citizens and legal residents are entitled to in-state resident classifications for college and university purposes, entitled to tuition/fee waivers, financial assistance, or child care assistance, or may participate in family literacy programs or adult/immigrant education classes. This measure appeared on the November 7th ballot and passed with 71% of the vote.
California
Initiative Proposal #82 sought to provide 3 hours a day of free preschool to all 4 years olds in the state, targeting the English-language learning population, with class size limited at 20 students and requiring a teacher with at least a B.A. and an aide with some college experience. The initiative would have provided $500 million to expand early childhood development programs at California colleges and universities. The funding would have been provided by a 1.7% tax on single family incomes of over $400,000 or couple earned income over $800,000. This initiative failed to pass on the June 6, 2006 primary ballot. Initiative Proposal #1166 sought to prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving public health care or social services. The initiative also limited California’s institutes of higher education from admitting illegal immigrant students. Voter eligibility was limited to legal residents, and driver’s licenses could be given only to those proving authorization to be in the United States. This measure failed to qualify on May 5, 2006 and did not appear on the primary ballot. Initiative Proposal #1207 seeks to authorize Border Police to detain illegal immigrants entering into California. Without a warrant, Border Police could arrest and hold any suspect thought to be violating federal immigration law. This initiative would also require the state to seek any and all available reimbursement monies from the federal government for state immigration enforcement expenditures. This initiative is in circulation but missed the deadline to qualify for the November 2006 ballot. If it gathers the required signatures, it will appear on the 2008 primary ballot.
Colorado Proposed Initiative #55, commonly known as Defend Colorado Now, decreased state spending on the welfare of Colorado’s illegal immigrants and prohibits immigrants not lawfully residing in Colorado from receiving tax-payer funded public benefits, except those required by the federal government. The state Supreme Court declared the initiative unconstitutional, ruling that according to the state constitution, ballot initiatives cannot address more than one issue at a time. Governor Owens called a special session, which convened on July 6, 2006. In response to ballot measure #55, a bill limiting state-funded benefits for immigrants 18 years of age and older who can not prove legal immigration status (HB 06S-1023) was passed by both chambers, approved by the Governor and is in effect since July 31, 2006. Proposed Initiative #95, introduced by Denise Walters and Jorge L. Garcia, concerned the education of English Language Learners. The initiative required that children who do not speak English as a first language be taught English as quickly as possible. These students will be enrolled in English speaking classrooms and newcomers will be placed in an accelerated English learning transitional program, not to exceed one year. If schools fail to reach pre-designated achievement levels, the school stands at risk of losing accreditation. Students will take a nationally accepted English language proficiency test at least once a year to monitor progress. The initiative needed 67,829 signatures by August 7, 2006. The necessary signatures were not obtained; it did not appear on the November 7, 2006 ballot. Referendum H forbids employers from claiming employee’s wages as deductible business expenses for those employees whose U.S. legal status is not verified. This measure applies to employees hired on or after January 1, 2008 and who receive more than $600 a year in wages. This measure appeared on the November 7, 2006 ballot and was passed with 51% of the vote. Referendum K instructs the state attorney general to sue the federal government in order to demand that it enforces federal immigration law. This measure appeared on the November 7, 2006 ballot and was passed with 56% of the vote.
Washington Initiatives to the People Washington Initiative Measure Number 946, sponsored by Robert D. Baker, was filed on March 15, 2006. The initiative sought to prohibit unauthorized immigrants from receiving state-funded public benefits and would have made failure to report immigration violations by state and local employees a misdemeanor. The initiative needed 224,880 signatures by July 7, 2006, The necessary signatures were not obtained; it did not appear on the November 7, 2006 ballot. Initiatives to the Legislature Washington Initiatives 356, 357, 358, and 359, sponsored by Evelyn A. Harsh, were filed on April 18, 2006. These initiatives concerned various voting procedures within the state. Within all of the initiatives, new voter registrants and renewal applicants would have been required to provide documentation of citizenship. These initiatives will not appear before the state legislature in the 2007 regular session.
Past Initiatives and Referendums Concerning Immigrants
California Proposition 187 (1994) Proposition 187, known as Prop 187, passed in the November 1994 elections with 59 percent of voters voting for the measure. The ballot initiative attempted to prohibit unauthorized immigrants from accessing many federal and state-funded public services, including public education, medical assistance, and social services. There were 10 provisions in Prop 187. Provision 1 required state and local agencies to create a system of notification to prevent access to public benefits or services by unauthorized immigrants. Provision 2 prohibited the manufacture, distribution, or sale of counterfeit citizenship documents. Provision 3 prohibited the use of counterfeit citizenship documents. Provision 4 mandated that all law enforcement officers verify the citizenship status of any arrested individual suspected to be in the United States illegally. Provision 5 limited access to public services to only citizens and authorized immigrants. Provision 6 prohibited unauthorized immigrants from receiving public health care. Provision 7 prohibited the children of unauthorized immigrants from entering public schools. Provision 8 prohibited unauthorized immigrants from public post-secondary schools. Provision 9 mandated that state and local agencies report any suspected unauthorized immigrant. Provision 10 allowed Proposition 187 to be implemented partially in the event that certain provisions are ruled invalid. Eleven lawsuits were filed against Prop. 187, and all provisions were barred from taking effect in 1995. In 1998, a final ruling was given, stating that Provisions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were not to be implemented due to federal authority over immigration, as well as the measure’s unconstitutionality and inability to be enforced. However, the ruling also stated that Provisions 2 and 3 were enforceable and therefore to be implemented. Proponents of Prop 187 claimed that unauthorized immigrants cost the state billions of dollars each year in services. Proponents also often claimed that passing Prop 187 sent a clear message to the federal government that states would no longer tolerate failed border enforcement attempts. Opponents of Prop 187 stated that the illegal immigration problem could be handled more effectively by enforcing border patrols and fining employers that hire unauthorized workers. Opponents also stated that Prop 187 would serve to increase discrimination, especially in the workplace.
Arizona Prop 200 (2004) Prop 200 passed in the November 2004 election with 56 percent of Arizona’s voters voting in support of the measure. Prop 200 requires proof of citizenship when registering to vote. A photo ID must also be shown on election day. Applicants for public benefits must be U.S. citizens, and government officials who do not report suspected illegal immigrant applicants face a fine if caught. Finally, state citizens can sue state and local governments for not successfully addressing immigration violations. Proponents of Prop 200 claimed that the initiative would save the state millions of dollars in provisions of public services as well as send a strong message that illegal immigrants are not wanted in Arizona. Opponents stated that the proposition would be difficult to enforce, and discrimination would likely be a result of the initiative. On November 12, 2004, Arizona’s Attorney General Terry Goddard issued a statement regarding the allowable benefit limitations of Prop 200. State-funded services like Meals on Wheels, domestic violence services, and utility assistance programs could be limited to citizens and permanent residents only. However, unauthorized immigrants could continue to be eligible for any welfare-related benefits granted under federal law. In addition, Prop 200 could not limit access to public housing, health care and postsecondary education. Currently, two law suits are challenging Prop 200, although the initiative is legally in place and is enforceable. On June 19, 2006, Judge Roslyn Silver of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona rejected the appeal to prohibit the requirement of proof of citizenship when registering to vote, stating that the National Voting Registration Act allows individual states to require more information from voter applicants than the nation does as a whole. Prepared by: Laura Dwyer, Dirk Hegen, Ann Morse and Leya Speasmaker
Immigrant Policy Project
National Conference of State Legislatures
Washington, DC office Updated January 11, 2007
|