Suggest you review the decision and the non partisan, legal reviews of the decision at that time. Pfaelzer's decision was defensible enough to be considered a rebuttable presumption considering the precedent she had to work with. The issue was red meat for the SCOTUS who should have been called upon to provide clarification in the matter.
The individual who clearly took the lower road during that contentious process was Gray Davis. In April of 1998 Davis abandoned the state's ongoing appellate process and consented to binding arbitration in the 9th Circuit, implying authority he did not have. His naked pandering not only sold out a super majority of his constituents, but also dealt state's rights a deadly blow. The California Republican Party, equally self serving, did not mount a legal challenge to Davis' unsupported actions fearing erosion of their popularity among the Hispanic electorate because of the race bating the Democrats had injected into the matter.
While Davis's, crass, unilateral decision exhibited the most glaring lack of integrity in this sad affair, the CAGOP's posture was an embarrassment in comparison to Pfaelzer's decision. Many legal scholars agreed that substantial portions of California's appeal were a slam dunk.
Appreciate the feedback. I often wondered why those who were responsible for putting Prop. 187 on the ballot would go through the time and expense knowing it would be shot down by the courts. For that matter, why are these types of proposals not studied for there legality(by legal authorities)BEFORE they are even allowed to be put on a ballot. Seems like a waste of time, effort and money not only for the sponsors of said proposals.... but also the voters.