Note the timing of the proposition. The backers intend to put it on the primary ballot for June 2010, as opposed to the general election in November. Perhaps they hope use it to influence the GOP primary elections - keep "moderates" from winning the nominations for statewide office. SR
----- Original Message ----- From: "Max B. Sawicky" <sawicky at verizon.net>
> The birth certificate thing looks unconstitutional to me, tho I'm no
> lawyer.
>
> Methinks this will have the reverse of its intended effect, as far as
> politics goes,
> rallying forces on the other side. The flailings of the minority, on
> behalf of a
> minority position, will further marginalize the minority (the
> nativists).
>
> Mbs
>
>
>
> Attorney General Jerry Brown has given the first draft of the measure
> its
> official title and summary:
>
> "DENIAL OF PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR PERSONS WHO CANNOT VERIFY LAWFUL
> PRESENCE.
> DENIAL OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES TO CHILDREN OF UNDOCUMENTED PARENTS WHO
> FAIL TO
> VERIFY STATUS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Requires applicants for state,
> local, and
> state-administered federal aid to verify lawful presence in United
> States.
> Requires applications for public benefits submitted by undocumented
> parents
> on behalf of their lawful-resident children to be given to federal
> authorities. Denies birth certificates to children born to
> undocumented
> parents unless mother provides fingerprint and other information to be
> given
> to federal authorities. Limits benefits for children in child-only
> CalWORKS
> cases to federal minimum. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst
> and
> Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: If
> upheld in the courts, unknown potential one-time and ongoing costs to
> state
> and local governments due to changes in the application process for
> public
> benefits as well as changes in the way birth certificates are issued.
> These
> costs would be partly offset by additional new fees for certain birth
> certificates. Unknown, but probably minor, state and local law
> enforcement
> costs due to provisions in the measure creating new crimes, such as
> for the
> filing of false affidavits to obtain public benefits. If upheld in the
> courts, state savings of over $1 billion annually from prohibiting
> child-only CalWORKs cases, partially offset by state and county costs
> for
> children who shifted to Foster Care or county general assistance
> programs.
> Further unknown savings from the provisions changing the application
> processes for public benefits. (09-0004.) "
>
>
> http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/021438.html
>
> This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
> http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk