Patricia Schroeder: “on this bill, can I just say to my colleagues, let us talk? I mean, this sounds like something very easy, but it is very…”

“on this bill, can I just say to my colleagues, let us talk? I mean, this sounds like something very easy, but it is very complex and I think it is not a solution for the problem that some are saying it is. My fear is, whenever we adopt something telling people we have just solved a problem and then they later find out we have not solved it at all, it only builds voter frustration. It is very clear that this bill arose out of Californians' frustrations with having passed proposition 187 and then having had a Federal judge say that that proposition was unconstitutional. Listen to the words, that is what they are saying. So they are saying, well, that judge was probably biased and what we really need is a three-judge panel and that would not happen. Let us go to that very issue, because this would not have solved, if we had this on the books at the time that proposition 187 went to the courts, this would not have solved that problem. No. 1, the State court judge also held it was unconstitutional. This goes to the Federal court, so it would not have done anything about the State court. No. 2, enough time has passed so the Federal judge who held it was unconstitutional, people had time to appeal it to the court of appeals, which are three Federal judges, and they unanimously held it was also unconstitutional.”