California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020)
California Proposition 16 | |
---|---|
Election date November 3, 2020 | |
Topic Affirmative action | |
Status Defeated | |
Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
California Proposition 16, the Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment, was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. Proposition 16 was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting. |
A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment, thereby keeping Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting. |
Election results
California Proposition 16 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
Yes | 7,217,064 | 42.77% | ||
9,655,595 | 57.23% |
Reactions
The following is a list of reactions to the defeat of Proposition 16:
- Vincent Pan, executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, said, "Both in California and across the country, we’re not witnessing a repudiation of Trumpism that we’d like to see. There’s a lot of work to do to help enlist more folks who are championing the promotion of policies that really fix structural racism."[1]
- University of California Regents Chair John Perez said, "The failure of Proposition 16 means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity."[2]
- Roger Clegg, board member of the Center for Equal Opportunity, stated, "So we have our most populous, and very blue, state rejecting by a decisive vote — apparently a greater margin than the 1996 vote — a measure that would reinstate politically correct discrimination, a.k.a. 'affirmative action.' Not only that, but the extremely diverse people of California did so in the year of the 'woke' and they did so despite the fact that the proposition’s supporters vastly outspent its opponents and had overwhelming support from all the usual establishment suspects."[3]
- Yukong Zhao, president of the Asian American Coalition for Education, said, "Going forward, I’d like to warn liberal politicians in California and nationwide: focus your efforts on devising effective measures to improve K-12 education for Black and Hispanic children, instead of introducing racially divisive and discriminatory laws time and again. You have failed in California in 2014, as well as Washington State and New York City in 2019."[4]
- The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote, "This rejection of identity politics in one of America’s bluest and most diverse states should echo around America, not least at the U.S. Supreme Court. ... And as welcome as it will be for Californians to keep their state officially colorblind, it may also help with two big cases about the use of race in college admissions that could end up at the Supreme Court."[5]
Overview
What was Proposition 16?
- See also: Changes to the California Constitution
Proposition 16 was a constitutional amendment that would have repealed Proposition 209, passed in 1996, from the California Constitution. Proposition 209 stated that discrimination and preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public contracting on account of a person's or group's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences in California.[6]
Without Proposition 209, the state government, local governments, public universities, and other political subdivisions and public entities would—within the limits of federal law—be allowed to develop and use affirmative action programs that grant preferences based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.[6]
What do discrimination and preferential treatment mean within the context of Proposition 209?
In Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose (2000), the California Supreme Court held that, within the context of Proposition 209:[7]
- discrimination means "to make distinctions in treatment; show partiality (in favor of) or prejudice (against)" and
- preferential means "a giving of priority or advantage to one person ... over others."
There was disagreement about the significance of Proposition 209 including the language to prohibit discrimination. Assembly Judiciary Committee counsel Thomas Clark said, "The measure's language prohibiting 'discrimination' was largely superfluous, given that state and federal law, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, already prohibit such discrimination. What was new about Proposition 209, therefore, was the prohibition on 'preferential treatment.'"[8] Wenyuan Wu, executive director of the campaign opposed to Proposition 16, responded, "If the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution could sufficiently render anti-discrimination laws at the state level superfluous, then there would have been no need to establish or keep laws such as Article I Section 7 of the State Constitution which explicitly reaffirms the U.S. Constitution’s principle of equal protection of the laws and equal opportunity, the California State Education Code (EDC), Article 3 Section 220, or Donahoe Higher Education Act, Article 2 Section 66010.2 (C). Or one could argue these aforementioned laws could render one another 'superfluous'?"[9]
From Proposition 209 to Proposition 16
- See also: Background of Proposition 16
Proposition 209 received 54.55 percent of the vote at the election on November 5, 1996, making California the first state to adopt a constitutional ban on race-based and sex-based affirmative action.
Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, led the campaign behind Proposition 209. "Affirmative action was meant to be temporary," wrote Connerly, "It was meant to be a stronger dose of equal opportunity for individuals, and the prescription was intended to expire when the body politic had developed sufficient immunity to the virus of prejudice and discrimination." He added, "Three decades later, affirmative action is permanent and firmly entrenched as a matter of public policy. ... not because of any moral imperative but because it has become the battleground for a political and economic war that has racial self-interest as its centerpiece."[10] In 1997, Connerly founded the American Civil Rights Institute, which supported ballot initiatives modeled on Proposition 209 in Washington, Michigan, Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, and Oklahoma.[11]
In 2020, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) introduced the legislation that would become Proposition 16, stating that "the ongoing [coronavirus] pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police violence, is forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still matter."[12] She also said, "This is probably an opportune time given people’s interest in politics and given the kind of turnout that is anticipated — and given the fact that this is a different generation, that it may be possible for us to begin to work to reverse Prop. 209."[13] Connerly, responding to the proposal to repeal Proposition 209, said, "I believe we would win by a landslide once we let people know what affirmative action is really about."[14]
What types of affirmative action would have been allowed?
Proposition 16 would have removed the ban on affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences from the California Constitution. Therefore, federal case law would have defined the parameters of affirmative action. The U.S. Supreme Court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education and government contracting must be reviewed under strict scrutiny. In the U.S., strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that requires a law, policy, or program to serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to address that interest. Courts had ruled that strict racial quotas and racial point systems in higher education admissions are unconstitutional but that individualized, holistic reviews that consider race, when tailored to serve a compelling interest (such as educational diversity), are constitutional.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[15]
“ |
Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.[16] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[15]
“ |
|
” |
Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[15]
“ |
|
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article I, California Constitution
The measure would have repealed Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following struck-through text would have been repealed:[6]
Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.
|
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.
|
Support
The Opportunity for All Coalition, also known as Yes on Prop 16, led the campaign in support of Proposition 16.[17] In the California State Legislature, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) was the lead sponsor of the constitutional amendment.[18][19][20][21][22] Chairpersons of Yes on 16 include Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society; Vincent Pan, co-executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action; and Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.[23]
Supporters
The campaign provided a list of endorsements, which is available here.
Officials
- U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D)
- U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris (D)
- Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent)
- U.S. Representative Nanette Barragán (D)
- U.S. Representative Karen Bass (Nonpartisan)
- U.S. Representative Ami Bera (D)
- U.S. Representative Julia Brownley (D)
- U.S. Representative TJ Cox (D)
- U.S. Representative Mark DeSaulnier (D)
- U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (D)
- U.S. Representative Jimmy Gomez (D)
- U.S. Representative Jared Huffman (D)
- U.S. Representative Ro Khanna (D)
- U.S. Representative Barbara Lee (D)
- U.S. Representative Ted Lieu (D)
- U.S. Representative Alan Lowenthal (D)
- U.S. Representative Doris Matsui (D)
- U.S. Representative Jerry McNerney (D)
- U.S. Representative Grace Napolitano (D)
- Speaker of the U.S. House Nancy Pelosi (D)
- U.S. Representative Katie Porter (D)
- U.S. Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D)
- U.S. Representative Raul Ruiz (D)
- U.S. Representative Brad Sherman (D)
- U.S. Representative Jackie Speier (D)
- U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell (D)
- U.S. Representative Linda Sánchez (D)
- U.S. Representative Mark Takano (D)
- U.S. Representative Juan Vargas (D)
- U.S. Representative Maxine Waters (D)
- Governor Gavin Newsom (D)
- State Senator Steven Bradford (D)
- State Senator Richard Pan (D)
- State Senator Scott Wiener (D)
- Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D)
- Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D)
- Assemblymember Shirley Weber (D)
- Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D)
- Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia (D)
- San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (D)
- San Francisco Mayor London Breed (Nonpartisan)
- Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (Nonpartisan)
- Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf (D)
- Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs (Nonpartisan)
- Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis (D)
- Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D)
- State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond (D)
- State Controller Betty Yee (D)
Former Officials
- Former U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D)
- Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (Nonpartisan)
- Former U.S. Representative Mike Honda (D)
- Former State Senate President Kevin de León (Nonpartisan)
Political Parties
Government Entities
- San Jose City Council
- Monterey County Board of Supervisors
- University of California Board of Regents
- Los Angeles County Board of Education
Corporations
- AirBnB
- Blue Shield of California
- Golden State Warriors
- Instacart
- Kaiser Permanente
- Lyft
- Oakland Athletics
- PG&E Corporation
- San Francisco 49ers
- San Francisco Giants
- Uber
- United Airlines
- Wells Fargo
Unions
- AFSCME California
- California Federation of Teachers
- California Labor Federation
- California Nurses Association
- California Teachers Association
- National Nurses United
- SEIU California State Council
Organizations
- ACLU of California
- ACLU of Northern California
- ACLU of Southern California
- Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
- American Beverage Association
- Anti-Defamation League
- Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus
- California Asian Chamber of Commerce
- California Black Chamber of Commerce
- California Charter Schools Association
- California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
- California NAACP State Conference
- California State Association of Counties
- California State Student Association
- Center for American Progress
- Center for American Progress
- Chinese for Affirmative Action
- Democracy for America
- Environmental Defense Fund
- Equality California
- Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
- Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
- National Organization for Women
- Natural Resources Defense Council
- NextGen California
- San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
Individuals
- Dolores Huerta - Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers
- Bernice King - President of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change
- Tom Steyer (D) - Founder of NextGen America
Arguments
Official arguments
The following is the argument in support of Proposition 16 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[24]
|
Opposition
Californians for Equal Rights, also known as No on 16, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 16.[25] Ward Connerly, who was chairperson of the campaign behind California Proposition 209 (1996), was chairperson of Californians for Equal Rights.[26]
Opponents
The campaign provided a full list of coalition members and endorsements on its website, which is available here.
Officials
- State Senator Ling Ling Chang (R)
- State Senator Melissa Melendez (R)
Former Officials
- Former U.S. Representative Tom Campbell (R)
- Former Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff (R)
- Former U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R)
Political Parties
Organizations
- American Civil Rights Institute
- American Freedom Alliance
- Association for Education Fairness
- Chinese American Civic Action Alliance
- Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.
Individuals
- Ward Connerly - Chairperson of the campaign behind California Proposition 209 (1996)
Arguments
Official arguments
The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 16 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[27]
|
Campaign finance
The Opportunity for All Coalition was organized as a political action committee (PAC) to support Proposition 16. The campaign raised $25.13 million. M. Quinn Delaney was the largest donor, contributing $6.7 million.[28]
Californians for Equal Rights and Parents and Students for Racial Equality were organized to oppose Proposition 16. Together, the committees had raised $1.76 million, including $50,000 from Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.[28]
Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Support | $23,346,267.34 | $1,788,336.73 | $25,134,604.07 | $23,909,126.38 | $25,697,463.11 |
Oppose | $1,762,511.20 | $1,500.00 | $1,764,011.20 | $1,748,243.55 | $1,749,743.55 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.[28]
Committees in support of Proposition 16 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
Yes on 16, Opportunity for All Coalition | $19,760,983.09 | $1,734,301.36 | $21,495,284.45 | $20,452,304.67 | $22,186,606.03 |
Educators for Equity, Yes on 15 and 16, Sponsored by California Teachers Association | $3,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $3,000,000.00 | $2,877,710.32 | $2,877,710.32 |
Alex Padilla Ballot Measure Committee for Democracy and Justice - Yes on Propositions 16, 17, and 18 | $417,159.25 | $0.00 | $417,159.25 | $410,986.39 | $410,986.39 |
Yes on Prop. 16, California Businesses and Working Families for Fair Opportunities | $168,125.00 | $54,035.37 | $222,160.37 | $168,125.00 | $222,160.37 |
Total | $23,346,267.34 | $1,788,336.73 | $25,134,604.07 | $23,909,126.38 | $25,697,463.11 |
Donors
The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committee.[28]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
M. Quinn Delaney | $6,700,000.00 | $0.00 | $6,700,000.00 |
California Teachers Association Issues PAC | $3,500,000.00 | $0.00 | $3,500,000.00 |
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. | $1,500,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,500,000.00 |
Patty Quillin | $1,500,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,500,000.00 |
American Civil Liberties Union | $1,000,000.00 | $331,704.32 | $1,331,704.32 |
Open Society Policy Center | $1,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,000,000.00 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.[28]
Committees in opposition to Proposition 16 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
Californians for Equal Rights | $1,723,242.66 | $0.00 | $1,723,242.66 | $1,701,225.01 | $1,701,225.01 |
Parents and Students for Racial Equality, No on Prop 16 | $39,268.54 | $1,500.00 | $40,768.54 | $47,018.54 | $48,518.54 |
Total | $1,762,511.20 | $1,500.00 | $1,764,011.20 | $1,748,243.55 | $1,749,743.55 |
Donors
The following was the top donor who contributed to the opposition committee.[28]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
Gail Heriot | $49,999.00 | $0.00 | $49,999.00 |
Manuel Klausner | $25,030.00 | $0.00 | $25,030.00 |
Frank Xu | $16,040.00 | $0.00 | $16,040.00 |
John Grassi | $15,000.00 | $0.00 | $15,000.00 |
Media editorials
Support
The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:
Opposition
The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:
ACA 5
The following media editorial boards took positions on whether ACA 5 should be placed on the ballot in 2020:
- Los Angeles Times: "We wish race didn’t matter in hiring and college admissions. We wish that everyone had an equal opportunity to access quality education and achieve economic prosperity. But they didn’t in 1996 and still don’t in 2020. Race and gender are still automatic disadvantages that are difficult to overcome. Helping to shrink the opportunity gap with a tiny leg up doesn’t give them an unfair advantage over those born already ahead, just a slightly better chance than they have now. That’s not discrimination. That’s justice. And it’s time Californians had another debate about how to achieve it."[29]
- The Sacramento Bee: "In 1996, Prop. 209 passed with nearly 55 percent support from California voters. That year, Republicans seized on affirmative action as a wedge issue to inflame racial division and drive voter turnout in an effort to unseat incumbent President Bill Clinton. Masquerading behind civil rights language, it abolished a key tool for addressing systemic discrimination people of color and women. Then-Gov. Pete Wilson endorsed it, as did Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole. The California State Legislature should strongly support ACA 5 and let the people decide in November."[30]
Polls
- See also: 2020 ballot measure polls
California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely voters) 10/16/2020 - 10/21/2020 | 38.0% | 49.0% | 13.0% | +/-2.0 | 5,352 | ||||||||||||||
David Binder Research (likely voters) 10/17/2020 - 10/19/2020 | 45.0% | 45.0% | 10.0% | +/-4.0 | 600 | ||||||||||||||
PPIC Statewide Survey (likely voters) 10/9/2020 - 10/18/2020 | 37.0% | 50.% | 12.0% | +/-4.3 | 1,185 | ||||||||||||||
SurveyUSA (likely voters) 9/26/2020 - 9/28/2020 | 40.0% | 26.0% | 34.0% | +/-5.4 | 588 | ||||||||||||||
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely voters) 9/9/2020 - 9/15/2020 | 33.0% | 41.0% | 26.0% | +/-2.0 | 5,942 | ||||||||||||||
PPIC (likely voters) 9/4/2020 - 9/13/2020 | 31.0% | 47.0% | 22.0% | +/-4.3 | 1,168 | ||||||||||||||
AVERAGES | 37.33% | 43% | 19.5% | +/-3.67 | 2,472.5 | ||||||||||||||
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. |
Background
Measures
California Proposition 209 (1996)
California Proposition 209 was approved at the presidential election on November 5, 1996, receiving 54.55 percent of the vote. Proposition 209 added Section 31 to the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which read, "The state 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."[31]
Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, also known as Yes on Proposition 209, led the campaign in support of Proposition 209. Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, was chairperson of the campaign.[32] Yes on Proposition 209 had the support of the California Republican Party, Gov. Pete Wilson (R), and U.S. Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas), who was the Republican presidential nominee in the 1996 election.[33]
The Campaign to Defeat 209 had the backing of incumbent President Bill Clinton (D), the California Democratic Party, and the California Teachers Association.[32][33]
In 1996, California was a divided government. Pete Wilson, a Republican, was the state's governor. Republicans controlled the California State Assembly. Democrats controlled the California State Senate.
California Proposition 54 (2003)
In 2003, voters rejected Proposition 54, which would have prohibited the state from classifying prospective students, contractors, or employees based on race, ethnicity, color, or national origin in public education, contracting, or employment.[34]
Ward Connerly, who chaired the campaign behind Proposition 209, was the chief proponent of Proposition 54. He said, "My motivation is to present the nation, by way of California, with a different option for the kind of nation that it’s going to become."[35] Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, responded to Proposition 54, saying, "We’d all like to live in a society where race doesn’t matter. But this initiative... will not end racial discrimination in this state. It will only hide it."[36]
States
- See also: Affirmative action on the ballot
Between 1996 and 2020, voters had decided ballot measures to prohibit the use of affirmative action involving race-based and sex-based preferences in seven states. Six of the ballot measures were approved. In Florida, Idaho, and New Hampshire, legislation or executive orders banned or limited race-based affirmative action as of 2020.[37]
With Proposition 209, California became the first state to enact a formal ban on racial preferences, according to the Pew Research Center.[38]
In 1997, Ward Connerly, who chaired the campaign behind Proposition 209, founded the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI).[39] ACRI supported successful ballot measures in Washington (1998) and Michigan (2006).[40] In 2008, ACRI launched a campaign called the Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, which supported ballot initiatives in Colorado and Nebraska.[41][42] In Colorado, the ballot measure was rejected.[43]
In Arizona (2010) and Oklahoma (2012), their respective state legislatures placed constitutional amendments related to affirmative action on the ballot.[44][45] Both of the constitutional amendments were approved.[46][47]
State | Measure | Year | Percent “Yes” | Percent “No” | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
California | Proposition 209 | 1996 | 54.55% | 45.45% | Approved |
Washington | Initiative 200 | 1998 | 58.22% | 41.78% | Approved |
Michigan | Proposal 2 | 2006 | 57.92% | 42.08% | Approved |
Colorado | Initiative 46 | 2008 | 49.19% | 50.81% | Defeated |
Nebraska | Measure 424 | 2008 | 57.56% | 42.44% | Approved |
Arizona | Proposition 107 | 2010 | 59.51% | 40.49% | Approved |
Oklahoma | Question 759 | 2012 | 59.19% | 40.81% | Approved |
Washington Referendum 88 (2019)
Voters in Washington rejected a ballot measure, titled Referendum 88, on November 5, 2019. "Yes" received 49.44 percent of the vote. "No" received 50.56 percent of the vote. Referendum 88 would have amended Initiative 200, approved in 1998, to allow affirmative action policies that do not utilize quotas or constitute preferential treatment.[48]
Initiative 200 prohibited the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. Initiative 200 did not define preferential treatment. Referendum 88 would have defined preferential treatment as actions that use race, sex, or other specified identities as the "sole qualifying factor to select a lesser qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate for a public education, public employment, or public contracting opportunity."[48]
Campaigns surrounding Referendum 88 raised a combined $3.41 million. Committees that supported a "Yes" vote on Referendum 88 raised $361,815 more than opponents.[49]
U.S. Supreme Court
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): The U.S. Supreme Court held that race was a legitimate factor in college admissions, but that the racial quota system of the UC Davis School of Medicine, which reserved 16 of 100 places for qualified minorities, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[50][51]
- Gratz v. Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan's Office of Undergraduate Admissions (OUA) used a 150-point scale to rank undergraduate applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. Factors that were assigned points included high school grades, test scores, curriculum strength, alumni relationships, and others. Applicants received 20 points for being from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group (defined as African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans). The U.S. Supreme Court held that the OUA's assignment of points for underrepresented group status did not meet the individual consideration requirement established in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.[52]
- Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan Law School, like the OUA, considered the race of applicants in making admissions decisions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law school's use of race in admissions. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion, stated that the law school employed a "highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file." Justice O'Connor also stated that the law school had a compelling state interest in considering race: "In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."[53]
- Fisher v. University of Texas (2016): The University of Texas (UT) admitted each in-state student who graduated in the top 10 percent of their graduating senior class. Students who did not graduate in the top 10 percent of their class were evaluated for admissions based on a holistic, full-file review, according to UT. One factor that was considered is an applicant's race. In 2013, the case first went before the U.S. Supreme Court, which remanded the case for further consideration back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In 2015, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld UT's use of race in considering applicants for admissions. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority's opinion, stated that the use of race served a compelling interest ("educational benefits that flow from student body diversity") and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.[54]
- United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979): Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp, as part of a collective agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, implemented an affirmative action program within their training program; half the positions in the program were reserved for black workers until the percentage of black workers in the plant corresponded with the percentage of black workers in the local labor force. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the program as within the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice William Brennan, writing the court's opinion, stated, "We need not today define in detail the line of demarcation between permissible and impermissible affirmative action plans. It suffices to hold that the challenged Kaiser-USWA affirmative action plan falls on the permissible side of the line. The purposes of the plan mirror those of the statute. Both were designed to break down old patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy. Both were structured to "open employment opportunities for Negroes in occupations which have been traditionally closed to them."[55]
- Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986): In the 1980s, the contract between the school board of Jackson, Michigan, and the teachers' union aimed to (a) protect teachers with the most seniority from layoffs and (b) require that the percentage of laid-off teachers who were minorities be no greater than the percentage of teachers who were minorities under the contract. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the board could not terminate non-minorities' employment for the purpose of protecting minorities' employment. According to Justice Lewis Powell, there was a difference between preferential treatment in hiring and preferential treatment in layoffs: "While hiring goals impose a diffuse burden, often foreclosing only one of several opportunities, layoffs impose the entire burden of achieving racial equality on particular individuals, often resulting in serious disruption of their lives. That burden is too intrusive."[56][51]
- United States v. Paradise (1987): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of one-black-for-one-white promotional quotas for the Alabama Department of Public Safety (DPS). In the 1970s, the Alabama DPS was required to use promotional quotas until at least 25 percent of the department's upper ranks were Black persons. According to the U.S. District Court, which mandated the promotional quotas, their purpose was to address the "Department's pervasive, systematic, and obstinate discriminatory exclusion of blacks." Justice William Brennan, writing the supreme court's opinion, stated, "The one-for-one requirement did not impose an unacceptable burden on innocent third parties. ... Nor has the court imposed an "absolute bar" to white advancement. ... Accordingly, the one-for-one promotion requirement imposed in this case does not disproportionately harm the interests, or unnecessarily trammel the rights, of innocent individuals."[57][51]
- City of Richmond v. Croson (1989): In Richmond, Virginia, construction contractors were required to subcontract 30 percent of their business to Minority Business Enterprises. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the subcontractor requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause and that race-based action by state and local governments required strict scrutiny. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion, stated that Richmond's justification ("past societal discrimination") for the subcontractor requirement could not "serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences." Richmond, according to Justice O'Connor, had not linked the subcontractor requirement to an identified specific discrimination nor tailored the requirement to the relevant labor pool (qualified MBE subcontractors).[58][59]
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995): Adarand Constructors, Inc. submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for a highway project funded by the United States Department of Transportation. Gonzales Construction Company, a different subcontractor, submitted a higher bid but received the contract. Gonzales Construction was certified as a disadvantaged business by the Small Business Administration, which meant that the prime contracting company would receive additional compensation for hiring Gonzales Construction. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. Justice O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion, concluded that strict scrutiny applied to federal racial classifications: "All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny."[60][61]
- Ricci v. DeStefano (2009): The New Haven Fire Department required civil service examinations to fill managerial positions. In 2003, 118 firefighters took the examinations; based on the results, 19 candidates, who were white or Hispanic, could be considered for the managerial positions. The New Haven Civil Service Board, considering the disparate impact the results would have on employment, discarded the exams. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against New Haven. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the court's opinion, an employer cannot engage in intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) to avoid a disparate impact unless there is a strong basis in evidence that the employer would be subject to disparate impact liability. New Haven failed to demonstrate a strong basis in evidence, according to Justice Kennedy, since the exams were job-related and consistent with business necessity and there was no evidence that an "equally valid, less-discriminatory alternative" was available.[62][63]
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the California Constitution
In California, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
The constitutional amendment was introduced into the California State Legislature as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (ACA 5) on January 18, 2019. On June 10, 2020, the California State Assembly voted 60 to 14 to pass ACA 5. As one seat was vacant in the Assembly, 53 votes were needed to pass ACA 5. On June 24, 2020, the California State Senate voted 30 to 10 to pass ACA 5. At least 27 votes were needed in the Senate. With approval in the Assembly and Senate, ACA 5 was placed on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020.[6]
|
|
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in California
Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.
How to cast a vote in California | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll timesAll polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.[64] Registration
To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registration automatically registers voters when they turn 18.[65] On October 10, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1461, also known as the New Motor Voter Act. The legislation, which took effect in 2016, authorized automatic voter registration in California for any individuals who visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to acquire or renew a driver's license.[66][67] Automatic registrationCalifornia automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Online registration
California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registrationCalifornia allows same-day voter registration. Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration.[68] Residency requirementsTo register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible. Verification of citizenshipCalifornia's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election.[68] Verifying your registrationThe site Voter Status, run by the California Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirementsCalifornia does not require voters to present photo identification. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number.[69][70] The following list of accepted ID was current as of March 2023. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information.
|
See also
External links
Information
Support
- Opportunity for All Coalition - Yes on Prop 16
- Opportunity for All Coalition - Yes on Prop 16 Facebook
- Opportunity for All Coalition - Yes on Prop 16 Twitter
Opposition
- California for Equal Rights - No on 16
- California for Equal Rights - No on 16 Facebook
- California for Equal Rights - No on 16 Twitter
Footnotes
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Prop. 16: Why California voters refused to lift affirmative action ban," November 4, 2020
- ↑ Ed Source, "Unclear ballot language, lack of time to connect with voters explain affirmative action loss, backers say," November 5, 2020
- ↑ National Review, "Good News from California Indeed," November 4, 2020
- ↑ Insider Higher Ed, "Why Did Prop 16 Fail?" November 9, 2020
- ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Racial Thunder Out of California," November 4, 2020
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 California State Legislature, "ACA 5," accessed May 6, 2020
- ↑ California Supreme Court, "Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose," November 30, 2000
- ↑ California Assembly Judiciary Committee, "Affirmative Outreach and Data Collection: Limits (Real and Imagined) on Public Contracting Since Proposition 209," accessed August 27, 2020
- ↑ Ryan Byrne, "Email with Wenyuan Wu," August 24, 2020
- ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Debate: Affirmative Action - Danger lies on this road to divisions," May 26, 1996
- ↑ American Civil Rights Institute, "About Us," accessed July 17, 2020
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Plan to restore affirmative action in California clears hurdle after emotional debate," June 10, 2020
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "To dismantle systemic racism, California Legislature must let voters consider Prop. 209," June 10, 2020
- ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Ward Connerly Rides Again," June 1, 2020
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 California Secretary of State, "Ballot Title and Summary," accessed July 28, 2020
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>
tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>
tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Opportunity for All Coalition, "Homepage," accessed June 24, 2020
- ↑ California State Legislature, "ACA 5 Committee Analyses," accessed June 2, 2020
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "California’s affirmative action ban, Proposition 209, targeted for repeal," March 10, 2020
- ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Commentary: Why California should repeal Prop. 209 and allow state institutions to consider race," June 9, 2020
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "California bill asking voters whether to repeal anti-affirmative action Prop. 209 advances," June 10, 2020
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Plan to restore affirmative action in California clears hurdle after emotional debate," June 10, 2020
- ↑ Yes on 16, "Steering Committee," acessed August 17, 2020
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
- ↑ Californians for Equal Rights, "Homepage," accessed July 27, 2020
- ↑ Californians for Equal Rights, "Our Leaders," accessed August 17, 2020
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 Cal-Access, "Homepage," accessed June 24, 2020
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Editorial: Of course race matters. Put affirmative action back on California’s ballot," June 12, 2020
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "To dismantle systemic racism, California Legislature must let voters consider Prop. 209," June 10, 2020
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "California Proposition 209," accessed June 11, 2020
- ↑ 32.0 32.1 California Secretary of State, "Financing California's Statewide Ballot Measures: 1996 Primary and General Elections," accessed June 11, 2020
- ↑ 33.0 33.1 Los Angeles Times, "President Spells Out Opposition to Prop. 209," November 1, 1996
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Guide, October 2003," accessed July 6, 2020
- ↑ Nevada Appeal, "Backer of Proposition 54 challenges the way Californians look at race," September 15, 2003
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Prop. 54: Coping With Race Distinctions," September 28, 2003
- ↑ Courthouse News Service, "Idaho Governor Signs Restrictions on Affirmative Action, Trans Athletes," March 30, 2020
- ↑ Pew Research Center, "Supreme Court says states can ban affirmative action; 8 already have," April 22, 2014
- ↑ New York Times, "Foes of Affirmative Action Form a National Group," January 16, 1997
- ↑ New York Times, "In a Battle Over Preferences, Race and Gender are at Odds," October 20, 1998
- ↑ The Colorado Independent, "Ward Connerly’s Anti-Affirmative Action Machine," March 10, 2008
- ↑ The Hill, "Affirmative action emerges as wedge issue in election," March 11, 2008
- ↑ Vail Daily, "Colorado voters preserve affirmative action," November 6, 2008
- ↑ East Valley Tribune, "Proposition 107 would outlaw affirmative action programs," September 24, 2010
- ↑ StateImpact Oklahoma, "State Question 759: Does Oklahoma Still Need Affirmative Action?" October 18, 2012
- ↑ Phoenix Business Journal, "Arizona repeals affirmative action," November 3, 2010
- ↑ Jurist, "Oklahoma voters approve affirmative action ban," November 7, 2012
- ↑ 48.0 48.1 Washington Secretary of State, "Initiative #1000 Text," accessed September 19, 2018
- ↑ Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, "Initiative Committees (Statewide)," accessed October 30, 2019
- ↑ Oyez, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 University of Rhode Island, "Affirmative Action History," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ Oyez, "Gratz v. Bollinger," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ Oyez, "Grutter v. Bollinger," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ Oyez, "Fisher v. University of Texas," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber," June 27, 1979
- ↑ Oyez, "Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ Oyez, "States v. Paradise," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ Oyez, "City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company," accessed July 8, 2020
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company," January 23, 1989
- ↑ Oyez, "Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña," accessed July 8, 2020
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña," June 12, 1995
- ↑ Oyez, "Ricci v. DeStefano," accessed July 8, 2020
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Ricci v. DeStefano," June 29, 2009
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Brown approves automatic voter registration for Californians," October 10, 2015
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "California voter law could register millions–for a start," October 20, 2015
- ↑ 68.0 68.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed April 4, 2023
State of California Sacramento (capital) | |
---|---|
Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |