This was a great analysis. Unfortunately, it won't matter. Many Californians could not care less about whether a proposition that appeals to them - including this one -- is constitutional.

More than two decades ago, in Plyler vs. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that would have denied the children of illegal immigrants access to education.

But that didn't stop right-wingers in California, years later, from coming up with Proposition 187, which would have done the same thing. That ballot initiative had other delightful provisions, such as preventing immigrant women from obtaining prenatal care, and preventing their children -- born in this country and thus citizens -- from receiving vaccinations (this from the "pro-life" party).

Prop 187 was patently unconstitutional. Yet it passed overwhelmingly. A legal challenge inevitably was mounted, and after a number of years and millions and millions of taxpayer dollars spent, lo and behold, it was gutted based on constitutional concerns.

I always vote no on initiatives, just on principle. They almost always are horribly written, with loopholes, ambiguities and contradictions that the courts are left having to sort out. They frequently are unconstitutional -- and as with Prop 187, the unconstitutionality had been established in advance -- it wasn't just a matter of opinion.

I have lived in California, and I love it here. But most of the really horrific laws that have passed here in my lifetime (Prop 187, Prop 13, which killed our public schools, anti-civil-rights initiatives relating to gays and lesbians and racial minorities, etc., etc.) have been the result of initiatives. Laws should be made by lawmakers, not by laypeople who often make their decisions based on their instincts (sometimes their base instincts), "voter guides," or 30-second TV spots.

I wouldn't trust an amateur to perform surgery on me. I sure as hell don't want a mob of amateurs making laws that affect my life.

"More than two decades ago, in Plyler vs. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that would have denied the children of illegal immigrants access to education."

Thats odd.

Mandatory Education for illegals is normally determined by the wording of State Constitutions, not Federal Jurisdiction.

Maryland, for example, has to education the illegal children because our State Constitution says that all are entitled to a public education.

California is a pretty crappy state, as is any state with more than 30 counties.