On the recordSeptember 28, 1995
this is the California against proposition 187 proposal that claims that there was forum shopping when there was, in fact, none. I see my California colleagues are in strong array here, and I was happy that the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] did not mention proposition 187 as the bill that sent him into his first legislative activity. The fact of the matter is, that the people of California did not know that proposition 187 was unconstitutional. I did not either, but the State court corrected that, I would say to the gentleman. Nobody was forum shopping there, and the Federal court supported it. Mr. Chairman, can we not agree that these courts were not anti-Republican, were not against proposition 187, but that they found a fatal constitutional error that they were duty bound to profess and articulate as something that was not correct, even though 5 million, 10 million, 100 million sign it? That does not make it legal. Let us be clear about this, Mr. Chairman, this is proposition 187 now coming to the House of Representatives. The proponents of this bill tell us we need to adopt three-judge panels to review constitutional challenges to State referenda to provide a more expedited review process. Did we not listen to the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals who came and explained this to us at great length out of his very busy schedule, that if the one thing we wanted to do was to expedite an appeal is we should not put it in three courts.…
Source
govinfo.gov




