The other colored groups like the Asian-Americans and African-Americans supported the measure. The changes came when the bill came to the legislature and on that day, 77% of the Latinos voted against the bill along with 53% of the Asian-Americans and African-American voters. (Proposition 187 Lessons) Yet it still could not stop the bill from being passed as a large majority of the voters were white, and the whites wanted the bill passed to continue enjoying the privileges that they had been enjoying for generations. Passing of the bill got the other groups active as they would like the bill to be stopped anyway as the bill would mean that a major section of the community would be put in trouble if they did not get the benefits that they were enjoying in the past. This pushed the situation where several lawsuits were filed in the California State Court by the associations of those communities the next day. This got the legal process started to stop a bill that had been passed by the state legislature. (History of Proposition 187)

It is often misunderstood that this has some relationship to the Equal Protection clause that comes in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. That part stops any state from giving any individual falling within its area less protection than any other person. I would like to emphasize that what it means was that the states must treat all individuals in the same manner as all other citizens who are in the same condition and similar circumstances. This can be said to be applicable when a state tries to stop any individual entering into an employment contract because of the individual's race. The objective of this amendment according to me was to provide "equal application" of the laws to all citizens and not equality for the classes or individuals. (Equal Protection: An Overview)

Thus it is clear that this proposition 187 has any relevance to it. Getting back to the case on hand, after the cases were filed, there was a "temporary restraining order" passed by the judge Matthew Byrne who was in charge of the court as the permanent judge Marianna Pfaelzer was away on vacation....

This got an answer from the state attorney. In the meantime, the judge in charge of the court came back and issued a permanent injunction for which she depended on a case in Texas in the 1980s. This case is called Plyler v. Doe and denied public education to aliens. The reasons given then were that there were not enough illegal alien students in that state, and then congress was considering giving an amnesty for those illegal aliens in any case. It is clear that the situation in California were not similar in 1994. In any case, the case in California continued and in September 1996 the federal immigration law was changed and this caused a request for dismissal of the case. The same judge saw the case again and refused to remove the case and ruled that the plaintiffs were right. This required an appeal in the lower court, but the lawyer sat on the appeal. In the meantime, Gray Davis was elected as the Governor in 1998, and he had been opposing the law in 187. This let the proposition die. (History of Proposition 187)
The question remains as to who it gave the benefit to - recent colored immigrants at the expense of long resident white citizens. Was it correct? The proposition was constitutional but not allowed to proceed due to the personal desires of a governor. I feel that the governor had no right to interfere with the democratic desires of the people of a state.