The Politics of Issue Debates:
An Examination of an Immigration Reform Initiative

Karen Callaghan
Texas Southern University
Frauke Schnell
West Chester State University

Introduction

     Public policy formation is an interactive process that involves input from a number of participants, including political elites, pressure groups, the media, and voters. In a seemingly pluralistic fashion, each group or participant attempts to sway the policy process in its favor. But, in any given debate, who really defines these policy alternatives? Are participants equally successful in shaping policy debates? This paper specifies the role that interest groups and the media play in the formation of social policy debates.¹ We test our hypotheses using daily print coverage of a California ballot initiative, Proposition 187, which sought to make illegal aliens ineligible for public services. Specifically, we identify key issue frames and symbols used during the debate, determine the success of various interest groups and key political players in transmitting their messages to voters through the media, and assess the extent to which the media actively shaped and revised interest group messages. We begin our analysis by examining the background of this particular ballot initiative and the political climate in which it arose.

Initiative Background and Immigration Politics

     In the 1990s there were several federal proposals for dealing with the perceived excesses in immigration, both legal and illegal. Federal remedies on the table included coordinating the number of U.S. immigrants with the health of the economy rather than classic criteria such as family unification; requiring immigrants to carry tamper-proof identification cards; and levying a border-crossing fee at the U.S.--Mexican border, with funds used to expand the border patrol (e.g., Miroff, Seidelman, & Swanstrom, 1998).
     In addition, immigration was, and still is, a key issue in many election campaigns. California Governor Pete Wilson, a staunch and long-term advocate of immigration reform, was in the midst of ratings doldrums and up for reelection (only 15% of citizens thought Wilson was doing a “good job"; Field Institute poll, September 23, 1994). According to Wilson’s campaign manager George Gorton, anti-illegal immigration along with jobs and crime was the key to his election. The Democrats were also on the immigration reform bandwagon. Both Democratic U.S. Senate candidates, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, were articulating politically acceptable anti-illegal immigration messages. Their stance, however, was more problematic given the Democratic Party's traditional connection to immigrants, at least since the 1920s partisan realignment.
     Furthermore, the state legislature was unable to address, and perpetually avoid, two related facets of immigration reform: California's explosive population growth in the last few decades, particularly those population increases attributed to high immigration rates for both legal and illegal aliens, and a high birthrate, in specific among the Hispanic population (Price & Bell, 1996).
     Finally, California's economy was in a prolonged tailspin. Both politicians and the media commonly attributed the state's economic woes to several factors: to defense cutbacks; the loss of business due to stringent tax and regulatory requirements; problems with the insurance and worker's compensation system; and the social and economic costs of foreign immigration (Schrag,1999).
     The Specifics of Prop 187. The text of Proposition 187 was drafted by Alan Nelson and Harold Ezell, former senior officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Reagan and Bush administrations, and championed by a coalition of conservative and immigration control interest groups, California's Republican Party, and incumbent Republican Governor Pete Wilson who was seeking a third term. The initiative, nicknamed by its proponents "Save Our State," sought to halt illegal immigration by denying health, welfare, and educational benefits to illegal immigrants, and by requiring state employees to report suspected illegal immigrants to federal authorities.
     The "Findings and Declaration" portion of Proposition 187 states in part: “The People of California find and declare as follows: That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal aliens in this state. That they have a right to the protection from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully" (Sec I. 1994). Other pertinent portions of the initiative bar illegal immigrants from health care facilities. One states that except for “emergency care as required by federal law, only citizens of the United States and aliens lawfully admitted to the United States may receive the benefits of publicly-funded health care facility"; another says that “a person shall not receive any health care services from a publicly-funded health care facility, to which he or she is otherwise entitled until the legal status of that person is verified."
     The initiative further prohibited attendance in elementary and secondary schools of “any child who is not a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, or a person who is otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States." Moreover, the initiative placed the policing burden on the schools, stating that "each school district shall verify the legal status of each child enrolling in the school district." Additional provisions exclude illegal aliens from post-secondary educational institutions and from receiving any form of social services.
     Petitions to qualify Proposition 187 for the November election were circulated between January and June of the election year. Initially, the measure was supported by almost a 2 to 1 margin in public opinion polls, though by late October the gap narrowed significantly and it appeared that there was a slight chance that the initiative would not succeed.² However Proposition 187 did pass by a wide margin, with 59% voting "yes" and 41% voting "no." Despite this high degree of popular support, the initiative was not implemented. A decision rendered in 1998 by Federal District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer invalidating virtually all of the initiative's provisions.
     While proponents of the initiative attempted to cast the debate in economic terms, arguing that California could no longer afford to serve a large and growing illegal immigrant population, opponents countered that implementation of the measure would cost more than it would save, and would deny essential health and welfare services to children; moreover, it was largely racially motivated.

Theoretical Underpinnings

     There is substantial debate over how much the media merely reflect political messages put forth by interest groups and others or project their own thematic spins onto the public consciousness. Previous research on public policy debate formation suggests that the media play an active role in transmitting such interest group messages through “issue frames" and the use of symbols and sources that are conveyed to the general public (e.g., Callaghan & Schnell, 2005; Patterson, 1980, 1994, 1998; Bennett & Manheim, 1993 Hagen, 1993; Hallin, 1992; Tuchman, 1978). Issue frames are, in essence, boiled-down rhetoric intended to convey debate information to consumers. The use of symbols by interest groups and the media is another quick way to delineate and transmit a largely emotive message position within a public policy debate. Finally, the selection of specific, more visible, or credible spokespersons may also serve to shape the policy debate. While some disagree over whether the media act primarily to reflect and report the news rather than as political players in their own right, it is undeniable that interest groups need the media to reach the public on a mass level.
     We use the debate over Proposition 187 to explore the media's role in shaping policy rhetoric. This model includes a causal link in the formation of public opinion with the media playing the role of both the transmitter of interest group themes and the promoter of unique policy messages. Specifically, the model predicts that in the early stages of a policy debate the media tend to act more as a conduit that directly transmits the information provided by interest groups to voters. However, as the policy debate evolves, the media take on a more active role in shaping the messages they put out for public consumption. The media do this through the selection of certain issue frames, symbols, and source cues (Callaghan & Schnell 2001, 2005; Terkildsen, Schnell, & Ling, 1998; Gamson, 1992; Iyengar, 1991; Kinder & Sanders, 1990).
     The basic issue frames developed in the context of the Proposition 187 debate included an “economic" frame promoted by initiative proponents, and humanitarian and fairness concerns, packaged as a “health and welfare" frame by the opposition to the initiative. Which side of the public debate are the media likely to promote? The journalistic norm of “issue dualism" holds that the media endeavor to be perceived as fair and unbiased, which typically results in the transmission of opposing viewpoints, even when these are advocated by only a small minority or a weak interest group, or are not strongly connected to the broader public debate. Furthermore, journalists may attempt to give the “losing" side of the debate a fair chance to activate its public constituencies and offset the seemingly advantaged position of the other side, consistent with Danielian and Page's (1992) notion of “compensatory access." Such value-based judgments may pre-empt inclusion of sources and issue frames from the “winning" side of the debate. Since Proposition 187 showed strong, early popularity among voters (see note 6), one might expect the media to offset this wave with equal or more enhanced coverage of the anti-Prop 187 side, i.e., the media would go out of their way to provide a dichotomous alternative.
     The model also predicts that interest groups and political players will use symbols as a way of attempting to influence public opinion. The symbolic use of language can contribute to opinion formation and may also either solidify or offset interest group themes. As we will see, the primary symbol used by the media in the Prop 187 debate was the proponents' "S.O.S." meaning "Save Our State." This symbol was so successful it ultimately became synonymous with the initiative.
     Finally, the media may alter the message of an interest group by choosing whom to quote as a source. Credible, effective spokespersons are more likely to be quoted by the media or sought out as reliable sources.
     Several other features are key in understanding public debate over Proposition 187. First, the actual debate over the measure occurred within a fairly truncated time span making strong, clear frames and images a
necessity to sell the proposition to the public quickly and effectively.³
     Second, the debate was promoted within the context of the initiative, rather than as a product of representative legislation. This may directly affect the media's role in the policy debate. That is, because the initiative process involved a five-month period in which signatures were solicited from individual registered voters, proponents of the measure had an opportunity to reach potential voters directly, rather than through the media. So the media may have played less of a role in structuring public debate on this issue than on other salient policy issues.⁴ Therefore, the debate about Prop 187 must be considered in the larger political context. Third, while new to the California ballot, Proposition 187 occurred within the larger issue of immigration, i.e., as a very old and familiar federal issue and the subject of an intense, ongoing colloquy within California.
Hypotheses
     First we hypothesize that issue coverage will be very fluid early on, with fewer, major frames and symbols crystallizing and defining the two sides as the debate progresses. As the debate evolves, the media will play a deliberate role in defining the policy debate and elevating specific players, frames, and symbols. Furthermore, if the individuals and groups associated with the anti-Prop 187 position are perceived as the losing side then the media may emphasize that side of the issue debate in the name of fair play or “compensatory access" (Danielian & Page, 1992).
     In addition, we expect that interest groups should seek to maximize public support for their causes by framing a debate in a way most likely to appeal to a broad set of values held by voters. Accordingly, our second hypothesis predicts that as these major frames evolve, they will be sufficiently broad and flexible to allow voters with different motivations to take a position for or against the measure.
     Third, we suggest that the media's early development of effective message frames and symbols (i.e., those that contain elements of a persuasive argument)⁵ can enhance success when public policy debate takes place
within the limited period of time of an initiative campaign such as Proposition 187.⁶
     Fourth, we examine the media's use of spokespersons. Specifically, we suggest that passage of the initiative was aided by use of a small number of high-status, readily recognizable spokespersons, such as Governor Wilson.

Data and Methods

     How can such hypotheses be tested? We assume that by analyzing the rhetoric of key players in the Prop 187 debate and comparing it to press coverage of the debate, we can explore the politics of issue debates and, in particular, the role that the media play in the debate formation process. With this purpose in mind, we analyzed the newspaper articles printed in the Sacramento Bee and Los Angeles Times dealing with Proposition187.⁷ We chose the Los Angeles Times because of its `broad, national circulation and its geographical proximity to the Mexican border in southern California. The Sacramento Bee was chosen because of its status as the state capitol's principal paper and because its location and primary circulation are within the northern portion of the state.
     We performed a content analysis of all the Prop 187 news articles published during the debate period. The news articles were coded for issue frames, use of symbols, and source cues.⁸ Coding was performed by the first author. The second author performed an independent coding of issue frames for approximately one-third of the articles, with an alpha coefficient for inter-coder reliability of .83, indicating a reasonable level of agreement between the two coders.⁹ In general, issue frames were operationally defined as “how the policy debate was thematically structured," i.e., what arguments were stated or implied by the news stories' topical organization (Gamson, 1992; Gamson & Modigliani, 1987).
     After reading each article, we evaluated the journalists’ own words on the issue, and excluded from our assessment story headlines and any visual images (photos, caption headings)¹⁰ as well as statements attributed to or derived from other sources. We focused on text sections that expressed or implied that Prop 187 should pass because it was sound, or that ridiculed proponents of either side of the debate. Since our goal is to assess how the media framed this particular policy debate, we analyzed specific news stories on Prop 187, rather than the larger set of immigration reform stories that appeared in the news during this time period (see note 10). Once the issue frames were identified, we compared them to a ‘blueprint’ of possible frames we had assembled by analyzing the press release data and the scholarly literature on immigration reform with a particular focus on the state of California (e.g., Gerber, 1998, 1999; Tolbert & Hero, 1996; Schrag, 1999; Broder, 2000; Cronin & Rossant, 1999). Appendix A includes our coding scheme and gives examples of some of the issue frames identified in this study.
     We also examined the news articles and interest group literature for symbol use. Symbols were operationally defined as any words, catchphrases or euphemisms that have evolved to represent the Prop 187 debate. One group symbol, "S.O.S.," was identified with the pro-Proposition 187 side. The only discernible group symbol associated with the anti-Proposition 187 side was the “Pledge," a written promise to continue teaching and treating illegal immigrants that teachers and health care workers were encouraged to sign. We reviewed the news articles to determine how frequently these symbols appeared.
     In addition to frames and symbols, we created a list of source cues from the news articles. Source cues were operationally defined as the individuals or representatives from groups that were quoted or otherwise cited in the news articles as taking a position on the initiative. This task simply required documenting the names of these groups, organizations, or individuals.
     To understand the media's role in articulating the debate we also analyzed the policy rhetoric put forth by interest groups. We solicited press releases from interest groups, governmental officials and political players active in the debate on both sides of the issue, and used then to determine which frames were being offered by the opposing sides in the debate.

Results

Interest Group Rhetoric
     An analysis of interest group press releases suggests that a primary frame put forth by initiative proponents was the “economics" frame which tied illegal immigration to poor economic conditions in the state. This frame encompassed the argument that something must be done about the continuing problem of immigration (primarily from Mexico) because state taxpayers could no longer afford to pay for social services for illegal aliens. Other pro-Prop 187 themes -- i.e., “anarchy," “race-baiting" and “big money" --appeared intermittently in interest group rhetoric.¹¹ Opponents focused on the anticipated consequences of the initiative, stressing the "health and welfare" frame which argued that it would be immoral to deny health and welfare services to the needy and to children. Additional frames put forth by this side included a "race/nativism" frame arguing that Proposition 187 was racist since it was aimed almost exclusively at Latinos; an "implementation" frame arguing that the measure was difficult to implement and unconstitutional; a "crime" frame suggesting that undocumented immigrants prevented from attending school would increase the crime rate; and a Mexican worker frame claiming that illegal immigration was a vital source of cheap labor and thus constituted an overall benefit to California's economy.¹² Other less popular frames were “trust violation" and the “anti-business" theme.¹³
Media Coverage
     Based on positions staked out by the two opposing sides in their literature, we expected to observe the two primary competing issue frames --"health and welfare" and “economics"-- in media coverage of the debate. For ease of presentation, the results are divided into two time periods: (1) the qualifying and post qualifying phase of the debate (January - August), and (2) the actual general election cycle (September - November). The results are presented in Table 1.
     As seen in Table 1, the “economic" frame propounded by the pro-Proposition 187 side appeared in 26% of the stories in the Sacramento Bee, and 22% of the Los Angeles Times stories. As discussed previously, this was the only frame offered directly by Proposition 187 proponents; however, it is important to consider the breadth and flexibility of this frame and its potential to implicitly transmit or project race and crime-based messages. The opposing “health and welfare" frame appeared in 22% of the Sacramento Bee and 24% of Los Angeles Times articles, respectively. The other major frame of Proposition 187 opponents, "race/nativism" appeared in 11% of the Sacramento Bee and 18% of the Los Angeles Times articles, respectively. Similarly, the “implementation" frame appeared in 18% of the Sacramento Bee and 16% of the Los Angeles Times articles, respectively. The “crime" and “Mexican worker" frames appeared with similar frequency in the Sacramento Bee (7% and 6%, respectively) and the Los Angeles Times (6% and 12%).
[See Table 1.]
     When the various anti-Proposition 187 frames are summed up, we find that in the Sacramento Bee, 26% of the stories transmitted the pro-Proposition 187 frame, and 63% of the stories transmitted anti-Proposition 187 frames. Thus, the anti-Proposition 187 frames dominated the Bee's coverage. The situation was even more pronounced in the Los Angeles Times: 22% of the articles contained pro-Proposition 187 frames, while the remaining 76% of news articles featured anti-Proposition 187 frames. The remaining 2% of the stories in the Los Angeles Times and 11% of the stories in the Sacramento Bee projected the frame we call "political contest." This frame associated a position on the measure with legislative strategies and the political contest between Democrats and Republicans. Here journalists used words like “duel" and “high-stakes" game, and their reports were essentially devoid of policy substance. This frame was not strongly associated with either side. (Appendix B illustrates this frame).
     When symbols are examined, it is clear that the pro-Proposition 187 symbol "S.O.S." was dominant. This symbol began appearing in news articles in May, 1994 and showed up in either its acronym form or fully written as "Save Our State” in 23% of the Sacramento Bee articles and 16% of the Los Angeles Times articles. The opposition's symbol, the "Pledge," appeared in only 5% of the Sacramento Bee articles and 4% of the Los Angeles Times articles. The pro-Proposition 187 symbol obviously dominated the news coverage. The frequency of symbol use is shown in Table 2.
[See Table 2.]
     The data concerning debate spokespersons are shown in Table 3. When sources for both newspapers are totaled, we see that anti-Proposition 187 spokespersons were cited in news articles far more often than proponents of Proposition 187. Anti-Proposition 187 sources appeared 160 times, compared to 103 pro-Proposition 187 sources. Sources in the anti-Proposition 187 articles came from more diverse backgrounds than did those for the pro-187 side. When sources for the two papers are combined, we see that a total of 29 different anti- Proposition 187 source categories were cited in the news articles, while only 19 source categories were cited for the pro-Proposition 187 message. This demonstrates a much broader range of sources within the coalition opposed to the measure than in those pushing to pass it.
[See Table 3.]
     Perhaps the most significant difference between source cues for the two sides of the debate appears in the percentages of total cues attributable to any one source. As shown in Table 4, Governor Wilson was responsible for 29% of the references to the pro-Proposition 187 position. The other most commonly cited sources for the proponents were unsuccessful U.S. Senate candidate Michael Huffington (15%) and the five major spokespersons for the initiative (Barbara and Robert Kiley, Ronald Prince, Alan Nelson and Harold Ezell) with a combined total of 14% of the source cues for their side. State legislators were also cited by the media (11%) as were a few U.S. immigrants (8%). In contrast to these results the most frequently cited sources for the anti-Proposition 187 position were students (10%), Clinton Administration officials (10%), school officials (8%) and unsuccessful democratic gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Brown (9%). The remaining 63% of source cues attributable to the anti-Proposition 187 campaign appear in very small percentages from a large and broad range of spokespersons. These include a cardinal speaking out on the morality of the issue, for example, and a Latino activist engaging in a discussion about xenophobia. Thus, the media used a few, easily recognized, highly politically powerful sources to convey the pro-Proposition 187 message, while quoting many different sources with relatively low amounts of political clout for the anti-proposition 187 message. Overall, the data show that general immigration coverage, like other policy issues, is dominated by the proposals of elected officials at the state and federal level (e.g., Cook, 1998).
[See Table 4.]
Hypotheses Fit
     How well do the data support the hypotheses? The first hypothesis, which predicts increased definition and association of frames with either of the two sides over the course of the debate, is well supported by the data. As Table 1 demonstrates, we found little evidence that any one frame was used more often than another during the first several months of the year. However, by September and October of 1994, just two months before the election, two primary frames dominated the news articles: the pro-Proposition 187 “economic" frame and the anti-Proposition 187 "health and welfare" frame. Thus, while the range of message elements might be expected to increase over time as the intensity of the debate increases, this is not what we find. The media chose to transmit only the most effective ones. In doing so, the media not only granted legitimacy to these two frames, they adopted a more active role in shaping the policy debate. The “political contest" frame also suggests a more independent role of the media in the debate formation process. This is consistent with other researchers' findings (e.g., Jamieson & Cappella, 1998; Callaghan & Schnell, 2005; Schudson, 1995).
     As Table 1 shows, anti-Proposition 187 frames were transmitted in 63% of the Sacramento Bee stories, while pro-Proposition 187 frames appeared 26% of the time, a little better than a 2 to 1 ratio. This coverage of the anti-187 message was even more pronounced in the Los Angeles Times, where it appeared in a 4 to 1 ratio (76% for anti-Prop 187 frames, 22% for pro-Prop 187 frames). Table 1 also shows that the media increasingly transmitted anti-Proposition 187 messages over time. Thus, within this particular policy context our argument suggesting a more independent and deliberate role for the news media seems to be supported.
      Evidence of the association of certain frames with a side or position can also be seen in the debate spokespersons (Tables 3 and 4). The wide range of spokespersons opposing the measure was clearly drawn from a grass-roots coalition of school, police, and other health- and welfare-related sources, consistent with the primary "health and welfare" anti-Proposition 187 frame. Thus, consistent with our first hypothesis, journalists may have given spokespersons on the “losing" side a chance to present their views. By contrast, the most visible spokesperson for the pro-Proposition 187 side, Governor Wilson, repeatedly emphasized the message that immigration was extremely costly to California taxpayers.
     The second hypothesis predicts that the economic-based frame was broad and flexible enough to allow voters with different motivations (in particular, race-based motivations and nativist fears) to support the measure. The conclusion that implicit racial messages were transmitted by Proposition 187 proponents, while explicit racial messages were raised by opponents, is supported by our media and interest group data. For example, a November 3, 1994 Sacramento Bee editorial states that a Wilson television advertisement "skillfully gives voters ‘permission' to vote for Proposition 187 without being seen as racist." And as discussed above, opponents of the measure linked the authors of Proposition 187 to white supremacist organizations (CTA ACTION, October 1994, p. 5 -- See Appendix B). As revealed in Table 1, none of the articles we examined by proponents of Proposition 187 dared to claim that the measure was race-based. Given that explicit appeals to racism have become strictly taboo, this would constitute political suicide. Still, proponents implicitly linked the “economics" frame to race by noting the cost of a burgeoning group of “tax receivers" (read “illegal Mexican immigrants"). Proponents also diffused the state's incendiary racial element by stressing people's residency status, rather than their ethnicity. Approximately 40% of the “economics" frames implicitly cued the racial element. Thus, this frame avoided the tag of racist, yet still elicited a race-based response.
     A recent study of Proposition 187 and its links to race and ethnic issues supports the hypotheses concerning race-based behavior and Proposition 187 (see Tolbert and Hero, 1996).The race-based connection to Proposition 187 is also shown in exit surveys. Whites preferred the measure by a 28-point margin (with a sub-category of white males preferring it by 38 points) while Latinos rejected it by a 73% to 27% margin. Blacks and Asians voted nearly evenly on the initiative with 52% voting in favor and 48% opposed (Field Institute January 13, 1995). Thus, while our data do not allow for a direct hypothesis test, results from this survey, as well as other research and the framing data collected in this study, support the hypotheses regarding implicit and explicit race-based messages within the frames used by the two sides of the Proposition 187 debate.
     The third hypothesis states that early definition of the debate spokespersons and symbols was critical to the success of Proposition 187. The public had a very abbreviated period in which to consider this ballot measure and its ramifications--a total of approximately five months from the date when the petitions were certified by the Secretary of State, or ten months from the time when petitions were first circulated. Such a time period barely allows for each side to articulate a position. When a debate becomes stale, the "losing side" can sometimes reframe the discussion, as the pro-life movement did in the wake of Roe v. Wade (Terkildsen, Schnell, & Ling, 1998). No such situation could easily occur within the time period involved here, or at least go unnoticed (see note 12). Instead, as the results suggest, the pro-Prop 187 “economic" frame and “S.O.S." symbol became prominent early on in the debate. There is thus some support for the third hypothesis.
     Furthermore, only the pro-187 symbol "S.O.S." was transmitted with greater frequency than the anti-187 symbol. The anti-187 side, however, appears never to have been able to create a truly effective symbol, resorting instead to trying to rename the "S.O.S." symbol as “Snoop or Snitch." A survey of likely voters showed a huge plurality of 37% favoring the measure in July, 1994, 26% in September, and 14% by late October (Field Institute October 27, 1994). There is thus further support for the third hypothesis.
     Finally, the fourth hypothesis asserts that the media's practice of citing a large number of spokes-
persons associated with the anti-187 campaign was less successful in transmitting a coherent message than was citing a single or small number of readily identifiable sources. The evidence for this conclusion is derived largely from the relationship between the large plurality voting in favor of the initiative, the vastly different patterns in spokespersons demonstrated by the data (Table 3), and the strong correlation between votes for Pete Wilson and votes for Proposition 187. While the total number of sources cited was greater for the anti-187 side, the sheer number of citations does not appear to have been critical; rather, recognition of the status and power of the source seems to have been decisive. Governor Pete Wilson was the most commonly cited source on either side of the debate for a position on Proposition 187.

Conclusion

     The results of this study strongly support the claim that the immigration reform initiative’s success can be attributed, in large part, to effective use of issue framing, symbolism, and source cues. By casting the debate in terms of economic necessity, proponents of the initiative provided a justifiable rationale to voters, despite the clearly race-based impact that enactment of the initiative would have. Furthermore, the "Save Our State" symbolism was readily identifiable with the pro-187 position; it was also widely used, and consistent with the message that the dire economic effects of illegal immigration required immediate action. In addition, identification of the pro-187 side with a few well-recognized spokespersons (chiefly, Republican Governor Pete Wilson) provided a clearer message than the plethora of anti-187 source cues who generally held less political clout. Thus, the media were quite active in preferentially transmitting anti-Proposition 187 messages.
     The subtle pathways linking interest group rhetoric to the media and, ultimately, public opinion still remain open to debate. Therefore, future work must continue to examine the components of interest group rhetoric more specifically, and further explore the media-debate link. We believe the ballot initiative provides
an excellent laboratory to explore the public policy debate formation process.

References

Baumgartner, F.R., & Jones, B.D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago:University
      of Chicago Press.
Bennett, L. W. & Manheim, J.B. (1993). Taking the public by storm: Information, cuing and the emocratic process
      in the Gulf War. Political Communication, 10, 4, 331-352.
Broder, D. (2000). Democracy derailed: Initiative campaigns and the power of money. New York: Harcourt & Brace.
Callaghan, K. & Schnell, F. (2005). Framing American Politics. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Callaghan, K., & Schnell, F. (2001). Assessing the democratic debate: How the news media frame elite policy discourse.
      Political Communication,18 (2), 183-212.
Callaghan, K., & Schnell, F. (1999). Media frames, public attitudes and elite response: An analysis of the gun control
      issue. Public Integrity 4, 343-358.
Carter, S., & Sutch, R. (1996). The economic and demographic consequences of immigration into the United States:
      Quantitative historical perspectives. Draft report for the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
      Commission on Immigration Reform.
Chavez, Ken. (1994, September 16). Governor endorses "Save Our State" bid, calls illegal-immigration initiative useful.
      The Sacramento Bee, p.2.
Chavez, Ken. (1994, November 2). Wilson's vow. Proposition 187. He will go to court to force compliance.
      The Sacramento Bee, p.3.
Clark, W.A.V. (1998). The California cauldron: Immigration and the fortunes of local communities.
      New Jersey: Guilford Press.
Cook, T. E. (1998). Governing the news: The news media as a political institution. Chicago, IL:
      University of Chicago Press.
Craig, B.H., & O'Brien, M.O. (1993). Abortion and American politics. Chatham, NJ:
      Chatham House Publishers.
Cronin, T.E., & Rossant, M.J. (1999). Direct democracy: The politics of initiative, referendum and recall.
      Chicago,IL: Iuniverse.com.
Danielian L.,& Page, B. (1999). The heavenly chorus: Interest group voices on TV news. American Journal of
      Political Science, 38, 4, 583-614.
Edelman, M. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication,
      43, 4, 51-58.
Fernandez, C. & Pedroza, L. (1981). The border patrol and news media coverage of undocumented Mexican
      immigration during the 1970's: A quantitative content analysis in the sociology of knowledge. Mexican American
      Studies and Research Center, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.
Field Institute. February 16, 1994. Field Poll Release # 1704: Californians gloomy about their personal financial
      condition. Increased concern about job security. Still see state's economy in bad times. San Francisco.
_____July 28, 1994. Field Poll Release # 1726 Majority of voters unaware of three or four controversial ballot initiatives.
      San Francisco.
_____September 23, 1994. Field Poll Release # 1730 Wilson moves ahead of Brown in governor's race. San Francisco.
_____October 27, 1994. Field Poll Release # 1734 Big drop in support for Prop. 187, the Anti-illegal immigrant measure.
      San Francisco.
____ January 13, 1995. Field Poll Release # 1742 Voter turnout up 6 points. San Francisco.
Gamson, W.A. (1992). Talking Politics. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Gamson, W.A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. Braungart (Ed.),
      Research in political sociology. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gerber, E. R. (1998). Interest group influence in the California initiative process. CA: Public Policy
      Institute of California.
Gerber, E. R. (1999). The populist paradox. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gilens, M., & Hertzman, C. (2000). Corporate ownership and news bias: Newspaper coverage of the 1996
      Telecommunications Act. The Journal of Politics, 62, 2, 369-386.
Gorton, G. (1994, November 15). Sticking to main issues gave Wilson his big win. The Sacramento Bee,
      A1, p.2.
Hagen, L. M. (1993). Opportune witness: An analysis of balance in the selection of sources and arguments
      in the leading German newspapers' coverage of the census issue. European Journal of Communication.
Hallin, D.C. (1990). Sound bite news: Television coverage of the elections, 1968-1988. Journal of Communications
      42, 4, 5-24.
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of
      Chicago Press.
Jamieson, K. H., & J. N. Cappella. (1998). The role of the press in the health care reform debate of 1993-1994.
      In D. Graber, D. McQuail & P. Norris (Eds.), The politics of news: The news of politics. Washington, D.C.
      Congressional Quarterly.
Kinder, D.R., & Nelson, T. (1996). Issue frames and group centrism in American public opinion.
      Journal of Politics 58, 4, 1055-1062.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA:
      Sage Publications.
Miroff, B., Seidelman, R., & Swanstrom, T. (1998) The democratic debate: An introduction to American politics.
      New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Nelson, T. R.F., Clawson, R.A., & Oxley, Z. A. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on
      tolerance. American Political Science Review 91, 3, 567-584.
Patterson, T. (1980). The mass media election: How Americans choose their president. New York: Praeger.
Patterson, T. (1994). Out of order. New York: Vintage Books.
Patterson, T. (1998). Political roles of journalists. In D. Graber, D. McQuail, & P. Norris (Eds.), The politics of news:
      The news of politics. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
Price, C., & Bell, C. (1996). California government today: Politics of reform. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Pete Wilson' s "identity" problem. (1994, November 1). The Sacramento Bee, p. B4.
Prop. 187 violates trust between teachers and students. (1994, October). CTA Action, 33, 2.
Roberston, D., & Judd, D. (1989). The development of American public policy: The structure of policy restraint.
      Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
Rochefort, D.A., & Cobb, R.W. (1994). The politics of problem definition. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Schattschneider, E.E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt,
      Rinehart, & Winston.
Schnell, F., Terkildsen, N., & Callaghan, K. (2000). Symbolism and social movements: How U.S. political debates
      are shaped and citizens' attitudes influenced by symbolic communiques. In C. De Landtsheer and O. Feldman. (Eds.),
      Beyond public speech and symbols: Exploration in the rhetoric of politicians and the media. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Schrag, P. (1999). Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future. Washington, D.C.:
      Congressional Quarterly Press.
Schudson, M. (1995). How news becomes news. Forbes Media Critic. Summer 2, 4. Washington, D.C.:
      CQ Press.
Terkildsen, N., Schnell, F., & Ling, C. (1998). Interest groups, the media and public policy debate formation:
      An analysis of message structure, rhetoric, and source cues. Political Communication, forthcoming.
Tolbert, C., & Hero, R. (1996). Race/Ethnicity and direct democracy: An analysis of California's illegal immigration initiative.
      The Journal of Politics, 58, 806-13.
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: The Free Press. What the experts
      were up to in the ‘94 election. (1994, November 27). The Sacramento Bee, p.1.

Appendix A - Issue Frames Coding Scheme

A “Mexican Worker" frame was assigned to the following news article:

HUFFINGTON’S NANNY WOES PART OF REAL LIFE SOAP OPERA. Santa Barbara is a paradox, a city of delicious, exotic surprises within every adobe courtyard; a place of hard, hidden realities one block removed from the ornate facades. . . . First there is the beautiful Santa Barbara where fountains gurgle, bougainvillea vines cascade and money grows on trees. . . .Then there is the other Santa Barbara, struggling, impoverished, but a vital cog in the workings of everyday life in paradise. . . . . It’s early Wednesday morning and Inez Amarillo. . [will] ride two buses and walk up a hill before reaching her $200-a-week housekeeping job on one of Montecito’s multiacre estates. These estates could not function without workers suck as Amarillo, as evidenced by the traffic this morning. For every luxury sedan winding its way through Montecito’s opulent surroundings there are two pickup trucks or primed Chevrolets carting gardeners, housekeepers, ranch hands, nannies and cooks to work. . . . Back in town, a laborer left behind in the morning line at Yanonali and Salsipuedes (Leave If You Can) streets: “Who are these guys saying bad things about us? . . . Anyway the Americans need us. “Watch,” he said. “Sit here for 10 minutes and an American who needs us will come.” Within five minutes, one did. The Sacramento Bee, Diana Griego Erwin, November 3, 1994, A2.

A “Political Contest" frame was assigned to the following news article:

PROPOSITION 187 SYMBOLIZES ERA. The radio talk show caller was bursting with anger. “Kemp and Bennett are dead,” he sputtered. “They’ll never do anything in this state. They’re dead, dead, dead.” He was talking politically, not anatomically, but his outburst was indicative of the emotion that has erupted in the past week over Proposition 187. . . . California politics haven’t seen anything as emotionally divisive since Proposition 13, the famous tax cut measure, reshaped the political landscape.
     Prop 187 has that potential kind of impact. Jack Kemp and William Bennett, two national Republican leaders, jointly issued a statement of opposition to Prop 187. . . .Huffington declared his support for Proposition 187 a day after Kemp and Bennett made their announcement, and a day after that, Huffington’s foe in the this year’s election, Sen. Diane Feinstein, declared her opposition, shortly after President Clinton’s anti-Proposition 187 statement. It’s inevitable that as Feinstein and Huffington enter the final days of their high-stakes, highly personalized duel, the immigration issue will play a major role. Viewed in a larger context, Prop 187 represents another example of how California’s politics are becoming tribalized. Increasingly, politicians are viewing the state not as a communal whole but as a collection of interest groups defined by ethnicity, gender, age, economic class, and are gearing their campaign messages to specific groups. The Sacramento Bee, Dan Walters, October 23, 1994.

A “Race/Nativism" frame was assigned to the following press release.

AUTHORS OF 187 LINKED TO ORGANIZATION OF WHITE SUPREMACISTS. In recent weeks, the news media has linked the authors of Proposition 187 to a white supremacist group. Prop. 187 was drafted by Alan Nelson, a former head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Harold Ezell, a former western regional chief of the INS. Both have worked as California operatives of a national organization called the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The San Francisco Examiner recently reported that FAIR has received approximately $1 million from the Pioneer Fund over the past decade. The Pioneer Fund is a New York-based group that was incorporated in 1937 by strict immigration, eugenics and sterilization proponents who advocated selected breeding as a means of improving the quality of race. Today the fund sponsors controversial research and organizational efforts to prove that whites are more intelligent than African-Americans and Latinos." CTA Action, October 1994.

TABLE 1. MEDIA USAGE OF INITIATIVE FRAMES, OVER TIME
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 2. MEDIA USE OF INITIATIVE SYMBOLS, OVER TIME
_________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 3. LISTING OF DEBATE SPOKESPERSONS
_________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE 4. MEDIA USE OF INITIATIVE SPOKESPERSONS OVER TIME
_________________________________________________________________________________

NOTES

--------------------------------------------------------------------

1. An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting.
2. A July 1994 Field Poll survey showed a 37% plurality for Proposition 187. The gap fell to 26% in September 1994, and then to just 12% of likely voters in a survey taken two weeks before the election (Field Institute October 27, 1994).
3. The first and last days that petitions could be circulated were January 10, 1994 and June 8, 1994, respectively. The initiative signatures were certified by the Secretary of State on June 23, 1994 and election day was November 8, 1994.
4. However, in a Field Poll taken more than a month after the petition signature circulation drive ended, 63% of the registered voters surveyed stated that they had not even heard of the ballot initiative (Field Institute July 28, 1994). Thus direct contact with voters does not necessarily supplant the role of the media.
5. On the development and impact of “effective" issue frames see, for example, Callaghan and Schnell (2005); Callaghan and Schnell (1999); Nelson, Clawson and Oxley (1998); Kinder and Nelson (1996); and Schnell, Terkildsen and Callaghan (2000).
6. We do not mean to suggest that the debate period was too brief to allow groups to reframe the discussion if they desired to do so. Indeed, reframing often occurs when the frame begins to falter. For example, during the first week of the crisis in Kosovo, the Clinton administration asserted that U.S. military intervention was necessary to “Save the KLA" (Kosovo Liberation Army). However, when NATO began bombing far away from strategic targets, it became clear that U.S. intervention was not simply aimed at saving the KLA, so the White House quickly repackaged its media feed emphasizing a more humanitarian" slant. Bombing Yugoslavia was now a moral imperative to prevent “ethnic cleansing." By the third week of the crisis, the Clinton Administration dusted off and revamped an old Cold War frame, the “domino effect." Now military action was necessary to prevent the flames of war from spreading throughout Europe (Callaghan and Schnell, unpublished manuscript). Reframing attempts are risky because they are noticeable and may undermine the group's framing efforts.
7. Because television coverage of Proposition 187 began at the end of the campaign, it played a less consistent role in shaping public debate. As Wilson's campaign spokesperson Dan Schnur noted: "By the time the election was on television in the last couple of weeks, the parameters of the television discussion had been established by the print media" (Sacramento Bee, November 27, 1994).
8. The story on message structure is a bit more complicated than we have suggested. First, news headlines can also frame public policy debates. In addition, story placement and length can reveal much about the media's attention to one side of the debate. Other elements such as editorial positions and political advertisements can help produce ballot victories and block the measures of opponents (Schrag 1999). While these data would shed more light on our analysis of the Prop 187 debate, the space required to explore these relationships is beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, we focus on media framing, but do encourage further study of these relationships.
9. We adopt Krippendorff ‘s (1980) reliability measure (cited in Gilens and Hertzman 2000) where alpha is defined as 1 - [observed disagreement/ expected disagreement] and is computed by 1 - [(2r - 1)*(number of mismatched frames)]/ n0*n1 ; and where r indicates the number of frames and n0 and n1 indicate the total number of 0 (absent) and 1 (present) codes assigned to the framing variable by the two coders.
10. Of course, story headlines also framed the Prop 187 articles, as did photos and caption headings. However, these analyses are beyond the scope of this research. Moreover, in most instances, they were redundant with the story's thematic slant.
11. Press releases from the office of Alan Nelson, former INS Commissioner and author of Prop 187, focused on the anti-187 tactics of using “big money" to support their cause and supporting “anarchy" by telling teachers and the medical community not to comply with 187 if it passed.
12. For instance, an article in CTA ACTION (1994, 5) argued that the initiative would “require health professionals to ascertain the legal status of patients and deny basic medical attention and immunization to anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. It would mean a certain increase in the number of otherwise preventable diseases and in conditions requiring emergency hospitalization." The article also links the authors of Proposition 187 to white supremacist organizations such as The Pioneer Fund which "sponsors controversial research and organizational efforts to prove that Whites are more intelligent than African-Americans and Latinos."
13. An example of these messages can be found in the literature of the California Teachers' Association (CTA) which took a decidedly anti-Proposition 187 position (see Appendix B). For example, the CTA asserted that Prop 187 violates trust between students and teachers, doctors and patients. Meanwhile, Taxpayers Against 187 argued the initiative was “anti-business" because it was costly to enforce and would not alleviate illegal immigration.