How far will a California lawmaker go to try reverse a validly enacted and also very good citizen initiative?
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, the California Civil Rights Initiative, which prohibits the state government from imposing race-based, ethnicity-based, or sex-based preferences.
Prop 209 added a section to the California Constitution stating that the government “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
In 2020, friends of racial discrimination tried to revive racial preferences through a referendum. But voters shot it down, even though proponents outspent opponents 14 to one.
Now California Assemblyman Corey Jackson wants to revive racial preferences another way. His bill, ACA7, would not touch the language of Proposition 209. But it would empower the governor to make exceptions. What exceptions? Any he wishes, as long as he spews the right rationalizations when he does so.
Law professor Gail Heriot, who has launched a change.org petition to oppose the measure, says that “ACA7’s proponents are hoping that voters will be fooled into thinking that it is just a small exception. In fact, it gives the governor enormous power to nullify Proposition 209.”
ACA7 has passed the House and now goes to the state senate, awaiting the magic of legislative action. Heriot says Californians should let their senators know where they stand on the bill. I don’t disagree.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
3 replies on “Discrimination, California-Style”
Paul, the real issue is that that the politicians actually WANT to discriminate, and in their case, it is even better if such is for huge groups who they are attempting to buy the votes of.
Prop 209 was correct and passed as when queried as a whole the electorate knows that most likely the favored groups will not include them.
The people of California voted for the members of the House that passed ACA7. They voted for the senators that will likely agree with the move. It may not be what they expected but Golden State voters will get what they voted for.
“Golden State voters will get what they voted for.”
Nonsense. Are you ignorant of the fact that politicians promise one thing before they’re elected, then do whatever they like after they get in? Your assertion would make sense only if voters could sue politicians who break campaign promises.