Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Lawsuit Filed to Block 227

June 07, 1998

Re "Prop. 227 Foes Vow to Block It Despite Wide Vote Margin," June 4: I resent any political group telling me that I didn't know what I was doing when I voted for Prop. 227. When I came to California, I was about 4 and spoke little English. At that time there were no bilingual programs. By the time I finished first grade, I spoke English fairly well. This in no way impeded my schooling or my career.

If it is so vital for these people to be taught in their native language, then it is my suggestion that they return to their homeland.

JOHN GONZALEZ, North Hills

*

The opponents of Prop. 227 have already gone to court to block it. If they succeed, the backers of this proposition will surely decry "judicial interference." If someone circulated a petition for a ballot proposition to declare California a Christian state, it would definitely get enough signatures. It might even get enough votes. But then the courts would rule it unconstitutional.

There are limits to what a majority vote of the people--even a 90% majority--can enact. But there are no limits on what foolishness the people can try to enact.

DAVID E. ROSS, Oak Park

*

Come every election, the populace is encouraged to "get out and vote!"

Last Tuesday, 61% of those voting approved Prop. 227 and less than a day later we learn that special interest groups are already hamstringing the legislation in courts, citing a broad interpretation of "constitutional rights."

In previous elections we have seen the same thwarting and delaying of the people's will and votes in automobile insurance reform, in affirmative action and other key issues. The question is, how can this be in our democratic system of government?

DAVID B. BARTON, Agoura Hills

*

Prop. 227 has passed. What now? This proposition only went halfway for our children. All the politicians say they want to improve education in our state but they speak in general terms. Studies show children learn languages better if they start early in life. Why can't we add one hour per day to the school year and make a language class mandatory beginning as early as kinder- garten?

ESL students would be required to take English. All other students would be required to learn one of the major world languages, i.e. Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese. This solution has many advantages: It would help our children compete in a global economy, teach them about other cultures, foster understanding, respect and tolerance for people different from themselves and put American children on a more level playing field when compared to children from other countries.

RHONDA SCOTT, San Pedro

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|