Kiwi Farms
https://www.latimes.com/california/...on-california-proposition-209-repeal-election
SACRAMENTO —
California voters would be asked to erase the state’s 24-year ban on affirmative action in November under a proposal approved Wednesday by the state Assembly, with supporters arguing their effort is more important than ever amid nationwide protests for racial equality and justice.
The plan would strike from California’s Constitution the rules imposed by Proposition 209, which prohibits government agencies and institutions from giving preferential treatment to individuals on the basis of race or sex. The ballot measure sparked a fierce political and cultural debate in 1996, much of which focused on the impact of the era’s affirmative action policies for admission to the state’s colleges and universities.
Although subsequent legal challenges left Proposition 209 on the books, opponents have argued the law has preserved and deepened the inequities in education and government contracting opportunities for a generation of Black and Latino Californians — a reality the bill’s supporters said has never been more clear.
“The ongoing 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,” said Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), the author of the bill, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5.
ACA 5 now moves to the state Senate, where it must be ratified by June 25 in order to be placed on the Nov. 3 statewide ballot.
The lengthy discussion of the proposed ballot measure included only two dissenting voices, both Republican lawmakers.
Irvine Republican Assemblyman Steven Choi said that “giving special or preferential treatment to someone based on their race is racism itself, or on their sex is sexism.”
Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) argued ACA 5 would not end racial discrimination in California’s education system, insisting that ineffective teachers in low-income communities are kept there by tenure rules that are demanded by teachers unions.
“You can talk about admissions and using, bringing back affirmative action, but what are we doing to ensure that Black and brown students graduate and get that education?” Gallagher said. “That’s a conversation that we need to be having. We need to go even deeper.”
But more than two dozen Assembly members who spoke during Wednesday’s debate said the 1996 law is antiquated, as is its promise to voters in the 1996 campaign to help create a “colorblind” society.
“Systematic racism didn’t stop because of [Prop.] 209,” said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), who noted she had benefited from affirmative action as a law student in the ‘90s. “And so what we’ve seen over these generations is the missed opportunity of so many kids in our communities who haven’t had the benefit that we all had.”
The overwhelming support for asking voters to reconsider affirmative action stood in stark contrast to 2014, when a similar effort in the state Capitol to send the issue of affirmative action back to voters roiled the Legislature. Several lawmakers at the time abandoned the effort after advocacy groups warned that reinstatement of affirmative action would limit college admissions for Asian American students.
But those old wounds resurfaced late in the debate Wednesday that lasted more than two hours. Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) said that far more constituents calling his office asked him to vote against ACA 5 than those asking him to support it. He said Chinese Americans, in particular, “believe that if you do the hard work as you’re told, they will have their chance too.”
Others said the topic wasn’t so clear in the Asian American community.
“Some of the opposition want you to believe that Asian Americans unilaterally oppose affirmative action,” Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco) said during Wednesday’s debate. “That is simply not true. ... I hear all the time that my Asian American constituents want more teachers who look like us, more principals, university presidents, more first responders, firefighters, bilingual police officers. Current law prevents that.”
In 2017, the issue surfaced again when caucuses representing Asian American legislators asked candidates for governor, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, to weigh in on whether race should be used in college and university admissions. Newsom and his Democratic challengers voiced support for affirmative action; the Republican candidates didn’t respond to the question.
Few topics have been more consistently debated in California, where a clash over UC Davis’ affirmative action policy resulted in a landmark 1978 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding it. By 1995, conservative activists believed the state’s electorate would overturn such policies and drafted a ballot measure to enshrine a ban in the state Constitution.
Proposition 209 barred any attempt to “grant preferential treatment” based on gender or race and passed on Nov. 5, 1996, with support from 55% of voters. Numerous studies have since dissected its impact, and opponents have stood firm that the constitutional amendment has done nothing to limit racial, gender and economic discrimination.
Weber, a Democratic lawmaker who has championed a number of bills she believes would root out systemic inequality, has argued that California was making consistent progress in the early 1990s in helping nonwhite entrepreneurs and businesses owned by women — an upward trajectory, she said, that came to an end with the passage of Proposition 209.
“Removing [Prop.] 209 will not solve all of the problems,” she said on Wednesday. “But it’s one of the many tools that we have to have in California, to say California is the land of great opportunity.”
- End of Article -
ballotpedia.org
Already passed in assembly with a 60 vs. 14 majority, all Democrats voted unanimously in favor of and only Republicans voted against.
Sponsored by this imbecile:
SACRAMENTO —
California voters would be asked to erase the state’s 24-year ban on affirmative action in November under a proposal approved Wednesday by the state Assembly, with supporters arguing their effort is more important than ever amid nationwide protests for racial equality and justice.
The plan would strike from California’s Constitution the rules imposed by Proposition 209, which prohibits government agencies and institutions from giving preferential treatment to individuals on the basis of race or sex. The ballot measure sparked a fierce political and cultural debate in 1996, much of which focused on the impact of the era’s affirmative action policies for admission to the state’s colleges and universities.
Although subsequent legal challenges left Proposition 209 on the books, opponents have argued the law has preserved and deepened the inequities in education and government contracting opportunities for a generation of Black and Latino Californians — a reality the bill’s supporters said has never been more clear.
“The ongoing 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,” said Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D-San Diego), the author of the bill, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5.
ACA 5 now moves to the state Senate, where it must be ratified by June 25 in order to be placed on the Nov. 3 statewide ballot.
The lengthy discussion of the proposed ballot measure included only two dissenting voices, both Republican lawmakers.
Irvine Republican Assemblyman Steven Choi said that “giving special or preferential treatment to someone based on their race is racism itself, or on their sex is sexism.”
Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) argued ACA 5 would not end racial discrimination in California’s education system, insisting that ineffective teachers in low-income communities are kept there by tenure rules that are demanded by teachers unions.
“You can talk about admissions and using, bringing back affirmative action, but what are we doing to ensure that Black and brown students graduate and get that education?” Gallagher said. “That’s a conversation that we need to be having. We need to go even deeper.”
But more than two dozen Assembly members who spoke during Wednesday’s debate said the 1996 law is antiquated, as is its promise to voters in the 1996 campaign to help create a “colorblind” society.
“Systematic racism didn’t stop because of [Prop.] 209,” said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), who noted she had benefited from affirmative action as a law student in the ‘90s. “And so what we’ve seen over these generations is the missed opportunity of so many kids in our communities who haven’t had the benefit that we all had.”
The overwhelming support for asking voters to reconsider affirmative action stood in stark contrast to 2014, when a similar effort in the state Capitol to send the issue of affirmative action back to voters roiled the Legislature. Several lawmakers at the time abandoned the effort after advocacy groups warned that reinstatement of affirmative action would limit college admissions for Asian American students.
But those old wounds resurfaced late in the debate Wednesday that lasted more than two hours. Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) said that far more constituents calling his office asked him to vote against ACA 5 than those asking him to support it. He said Chinese Americans, in particular, “believe that if you do the hard work as you’re told, they will have their chance too.”
Others said the topic wasn’t so clear in the Asian American community.
“Some of the opposition want you to believe that Asian Americans unilaterally oppose affirmative action,” Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco) said during Wednesday’s debate. “That is simply not true. ... I hear all the time that my Asian American constituents want more teachers who look like us, more principals, university presidents, more first responders, firefighters, bilingual police officers. Current law prevents that.”
In 2017, the issue surfaced again when caucuses representing Asian American legislators asked candidates for governor, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, to weigh in on whether race should be used in college and university admissions. Newsom and his Democratic challengers voiced support for affirmative action; the Republican candidates didn’t respond to the question.
Few topics have been more consistently debated in California, where a clash over UC Davis’ affirmative action policy resulted in a landmark 1978 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding it. By 1995, conservative activists believed the state’s electorate would overturn such policies and drafted a ballot measure to enshrine a ban in the state Constitution.
Proposition 209 barred any attempt to “grant preferential treatment” based on gender or race and passed on Nov. 5, 1996, with support from 55% of voters. Numerous studies have since dissected its impact, and opponents have stood firm that the constitutional amendment has done nothing to limit racial, gender and economic discrimination.
Weber, a Democratic lawmaker who has championed a number of bills she believes would root out systemic inequality, has argued that California was making consistent progress in the early 1990s in helping nonwhite entrepreneurs and businesses owned by women — an upward trajectory, she said, that came to an end with the passage of Proposition 209.
“Removing [Prop.] 209 will not solve all of the problems,” she said on Wednesday. “But it’s one of the many tools that we have to have in California, to say California is the land of great opportunity.”
- End of Article -
California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
The California Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment may appear on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020.
The ballot measure would repeal Proposition 209, which prohibited the state from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting.
Constitutional changes
See also: Article I, California Constitution
The measure would repeal Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following struck-through text would be repealed:[1]
Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.
(a) 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.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.
(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.[2]
Supporters
Officials
Organizations
- Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79)[3]
- Asm. Lorena Gonzalez (D-80)[4]
- Asm. Buffy Wicks (D-15)[5]
- Former Senate President Kevin de León (D)[6]
Arguments
- University of California Board of Regents[7]
- Asm. Shirley Weber(D-79), the principal sponsor of the constitutional amendment and chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus, stated the following:
- "Californians have built the fifth largest and strongest economy in the world, but too many hardworking Californians are not sharing in our state’s prosperity—particularly women, families of color, and low-wage workers. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 will help improve all of our daily lives by repealing Proposition 209 and eliminating discrimination in state contracts, hiring and education. [ACA 5] is about equal opportunity for all and investment in our communities."[3]
- "We have all survived and endured Proposition 209, and it has not been a luxury. It has been a hard journey. And it has caused a lot of losses."[8]
- "Since Proposition 209’s passage, California has become one of only eight states that do not allow race or gender to be among the many factors considered in hiring, allotting state contracts or accepting students into the state’s public colleges and universities."[9]
- "As we look around the world, we see there is an urgent cry — an urgent cry for change. After 25 years of quantitative and qualitative data, we see that race-neutral solutions cannot fix problems steeped in race."[10]
- "The ongoing 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."[11]
- Asm. Lorena Gonzalez (D-80) stated, "I’m a product of Affirmative Action. Without it, I wouldn’t be where I am today. I believe every qualified person from an underrepresented community in California should have the same opportunity I had."[4]
- University of California President Janet Napolitano said, "It makes little sense to exclude any consideration of race in admissions when the aim of the University’s holistic process is to fully understand and evaluate each applicant through multiple dimensions. Proposition 209 has forced California public institutions to try to address racial inequality without factoring in race, even where allowed by federal law. The diversity of our university and higher education institutions across California, should — and must — represent the rich diversity of our state."[7]
- Varsha Sarveshwar, president of the University of California Student Association, wrote, "Today, colleges can consider whether you’re from the suburbs, a city or a rural area. They can consider what high school you went to. They can consider your family’s economic background. They can look at virtually everything about you – but not race. It makes no sense – and is unfair – that schools can’t consider something that is so core to our lived experience. Repealing Prop. 209 will not create quotas or caps. These are illegal under a Supreme Court decision and would remain so."[12]
Opponents
Arguments
- Former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R)[13]
- Ward Connerly, a proponent of Proposition 209, responded to the proposal to repeal the 1996 constitutional amendment, saying, "I believe we would win by a landslide once we let people know what affirmative action is really about."[14]
- Former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R) said, "Nevertheless, if more spaces are to be made for the under-represented, they must come from the over-represented. Asian Americans are 15.3 percent of Californians, yet 39.72 percent of UC enrollees. Those numbers are why bringing this issue forward now would inevitably divide Californians racially: Latino Americans and African Americans on one side, Asian Americans on the other. The politics are inescapably racial."[13]
- Wenyuan Wu, director of administration for the Asian American Coalition for Education, stated, "Built on partial evidence and shallow prescriptions for an unrealistic utopia, ACA-5 is in essence divisive and discriminatory. Its overarching goal to undo Proposition 209, a bill that won the popular vote in 1996 and has withstood legal scrutiny over time, is misguided in that ACA-5 proposes instant but wrong solutions to persistent social ills."[15]
- Wen Fa, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, said, "We’re definitely going to take a hard look at that and see whether it complies with the 14th Amendment, or whether it violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law. Racial preferences are wrong, no matter who they benefit."[16]
- Asm. Steven S. Choi (R-6
stated, "Is it right to give someone a job just because they are white, or black or green or yellow? Or just because they are male? Repealing Proposition 209, enacted by voters 24 years ago, is to repeal the prohibition of judgment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin. We are talking about legalizing racism and sexism."[17]
- Sen. Ling Ling Chang (R-29) said, "I have experienced racial discrimination so I know what that’s like. But the answer to racial discrimination is not more discrimination which is what this bill proposes. The answer is to strengthen our institutions by improving our education system so all students have access to a quality education, and give opportunities to those who are economically disadvantaged. ACA 5 legalizes racial discrimination and that’s wrong."[18]
- Haibo Huang, co-founder of San Diego Asian Americans for Equality, wrote, "Race is a forbidden classification for good reason, because it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of his or her own merit and essential qualities. Racial preference is not transformed from patently unconstitutional into a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it racial diversity. ... Judging people by their skin color is morally repugnant. Equal opportunity is referenced to individual merits, it never guarantees equal results. To the contrary, enforcing equal outcome regardless of qualification and effort bears the hallmark of communism."[19]
- John Fund, national-affairs reporter for the National Review, stated, "Liberals in California’s one-party state are on an ideological crusade to continue a racial spoils system forever. They should realize how much of the country disagrees with them and how the politics of the issue could once again surprise them and blow up in their face."[20]
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."[21]
- 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."[22]
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. The California State Assembly passed ACA 5 on June 10, 2020, by a vote of 60 to 14. As one seat was vacant in the Assembly, 53 votes were needed to pass ACA 5.[1]
Yes No Not voting Vote in the California State Assembly
June 10, 2020Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber Number of yes votes required: 53 
Already passed in assembly with a 60 vs. 14 majority, all Democrats voted unanimously in favor of and only Republicans voted against.
Sponsored by this imbecile: