2020 California Proposition 16: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous editNext edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:01, 17 October 2020 edit Wugapodes (talk | contribs) Oversighters, Administrators 20,151 edits →‎Relevant findings: inline tag ← Previous edit		WP:COATRACK; prop 16 is not a funding prop, so it's not clear how this relates to the subject Next edit →
Line 81:		Line 81:
	* For a couple years,{{how many?|date=October 2020}} Proposition 209 brought into question the legality of voluntary public school desegregation programs. In 2009, the California Supreme Court determined that such programs that use neighborhood racial composition are permitted under Proposition 209 and thus legal.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Egelko|first=Bob|date=2009-06-11|title=Berkeley school integration challenge rejected|url=https://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Berkeley-school-integration-challenge-rejected-3229308.php|access-date=2020-10-03|website=SFGate|language=en-US}}</ref>		* For a couple years,{{how many?|date=October 2020}} Proposition 209 brought into question the legality of voluntary public school desegregation programs. In 2009, the California Supreme Court determined that such programs that use neighborhood racial composition are permitted under Proposition 209 and thus legal.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Egelko|first=Bob|date=2009-06-11|title=Berkeley school integration challenge rejected|url=https://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Berkeley-school-integration-challenge-rejected-3229308.php|access-date=2020-10-03|website=SFGate|language=en-US}}</ref>
	* School districts that predominantly serve students of color receive significantly less funding than predominantly white school districts.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Camera|first1=Lauren|date=26 February 2019|title=White Students Get More K-12 Funding Than Students of Color: Report|agency=US News & World Report|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-02-26/white-students-get-more-k-12-funding-than-students-of-color-report|accessdate=10 September 2020}}</ref> Research by [[The Century Foundation]] found that California has its largest funding gaps in districts with a high concentration of low-income Latinx students, and that four of the ten districts with the largest per pupil funding gaps in the nation are located in California with schools receiving more than $12,000 less per pupil.<ref>{{cite web|title=Closing America's Funding Gaps|url=https://tcf.org/content/report/closing-americas-education-funding/?session=1&session=1|accessdate=10 September 2020|website=The Century Foundation}}</ref>
	* Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and American University found that if a Black student has just one Black teacher between kindergarten and third grade, they would be more likely to graduate from high school and attend college.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Rosen|first1=Jill|title=Black Students Who Have One Black Teacher More Likely to Go to College|url=https://releases.jhu.edu/2018/11/12/black-students-who-have-one-black-teacher-more-likely-to-go-to-college/|accessdate=11 September 2020|publisher=Johns Hopkins University}}</ref>		* Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and American University found that if a Black student has just one Black teacher between kindergarten and third grade, they would be more likely to graduate from high school and attend college.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Rosen|first1=Jill|title=Black Students Who Have One Black Teacher More Likely to Go to College|url=https://releases.jhu.edu/2018/11/12/black-students-who-have-one-black-teacher-more-likely-to-go-to-college/|accessdate=11 September 2020|publisher=Johns Hopkins University}}</ref>
	* Statistics from the [[California Department of Education]] show that California's teachers do not reflect the demographics of the state or the students: students of color make up 77 percent of California’s public schools, while less than 35% of teachers are Black, Latino, AAPI, or Native American.<ref>{{cite web|title=Fingertip Facts on Education in California|url=https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp|accessdate=11 September 2020|website=CalEdFacts|publisher=California Department of Education}}</ref>		* Statistics from the [[California Department of Education]] show that California's teachers do not reflect the demographics of the state or the students: students of color make up 77 percent of California’s public schools, while less than 35% of teachers are Black, Latino, AAPI, or Native American.<ref>{{cite web|title=Fingertip Facts on Education in California|url=https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp|accessdate=11 September 2020|website=CalEdFacts|publisher=California Department of Education}}</ref>

---

Revision as of 20:05, 17 October 2020

Proposition 16

November 3, 2020 (2020-11-03) (in -1300 days)

California Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5

2020 California Proposition 16
Proposition 209)
Resolution	ACA 5
Website	Full text of the bill
Status: Invalid Status "Sent to ballot"

Elections in California
Federal government U.S. President 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 Dem Rep 2000 Dem Rep 2004 Dem Rep 2008 Dem Rep 2012 Dem Rep 2016 Dem Rep 2020 Dem Rep 2024 Dem Rep U.S. Senate 1849 1850 1852 sp 1856 1857 sp 1860 1860 sp 1868 1872 1873 1873 sp 1878 1880 1885 1886 sp 1887 1891 1891 sp 1893 1895 sp 1897 1900 sp 1903 1905 1909 1911 1914 1916 1920 1922 1926 1928 1932 1934 1938 1940 1944 1946 1946 sp 1950 1952 1954 sp 1956 1958 1962 1964 1968 1970 1974 1976 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1992 sp 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 2018 2022 2022 sp 2024 2024 sp 2028 U.S. House of Representatives 1849 1851 1852 1854 1856 1859 1861 1863 1864 1867 1868 1871 1872 1875 1876 1879 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 12th 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1987 5th sp 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 32nd sp 2002 2004 2005 5th sp 48th sp 2006 50th sp 2007 36th sp 2008 12th sp 2009 10th sp 32nd sp 2010 2011 36th sp 2012 2014 2016 2017 34th sp 2018 2020 25th sp 2022 22nd sp 2024 16th 20th sp 30th 45th 47th v t e
State government Executive Governor 1849 1851 1853 1855 1857 1859 1861 1863 1867 1871 1875 1879 1882 1886 1890 1894 1898 1902 1906 1910 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 (recall) 2006 2010 2014 2018 2021 (recall) 2022 2026 Lieutenant governor 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Attorney general 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Secretary of state 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Treasurer 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Controller 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Insurance commissioner 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Superintendent 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Board of equalization 2018 2022 Legislature Senate 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Special Assembly 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2021 (79th sp) 2022 (17th sp) 2024 Special Court of appeals 1994 1998 2002 2006
Elections by year 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2012 Jun Nov 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024
v t e

Proposition 16 is a California ballot proposition that will appear on the November 3, 2020 general election ballot, asking California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal 1996's Proposition 209.^[2][3] Proposition 209 amended the state constitution to prohibit government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.^[4] Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of affirmative action in California's public sector, while still permitting socioeconomic considerations.^[2][5]

The legislatively referred state constitutional amendment was originally introduced as California Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5 (ACA 5) by Democratic Assembly Members Weber, Gipson, and Santiago on January 18, 2019.^[4] In June 2020, the California State Legislature passed ACA 5 on a mostly party-line vote, voting 60-14 on June 10 in the Assembly and 30-10 on June 24 in the Senate.

Proponents of Proposition 16 assert that it will allow California’s policymakers to enact laws, programs, and guidelines “to end and correct the effects of a specific form of discrimination" through "good-faith efforts ... to identify, select, and train potentially qualified minorities and women".

Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization considering particular groups based on their gender, race, creed or nationality in areas in which they were excluded in the past.^{[9][10][11][12]}

Affirmative action has its origins in Executive Order 10925, which was issued by President John F. Kennedy and required government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."^[13] Kennedy’s Executive Order was superseded by Executive Order 11246, which was issued by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24, 1965 and prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government, from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.^[14] In 1967, President Johnson amended the order to include gender on the list of attributes. Executive Order 11246 also requires federal contractors to take affirmative action to promote the full realization of equal opportunity for women and minorities.^[15]

Since that time, various affirmative action programs have been created in California as well as the broader United States, to both redress disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination as well as ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative (e.g. by race or gender) of the populations they serve.^[16][17]

Proposition 209

Led by University of California Regent Ward Connerly^[18] and endorsed by Governor Pete Wilson,^[19] Proposition 209 appeared on the ballot in California as a constitutional amendment on November 5, 1996 and was approved by voters.^[20] Proposition 209 amended the Constitution of California to prohibit government institutions from "[discriminating] against, or [granting] 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." For these purposes, California's Constitution defines "the state" to include the state, any city, county, public university system, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of, or within, the state.^[21]: 1 Since such discrimination was already illegal based on state law, federal law, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Proposition 209 effectively banned affirmative action within these public bodies.^[22]

Previous Attempts at Repeal

Since the passage of Proposition 209, there have been several legislative attempts to repeal sections of Proposition 209. In 2011, SB 185 would have permitted affirmative action in public higher education, but was ultimately vetoed by Governor Brown citing possible conflicts with Proposition 209.

While colleges are permitted under Supreme Court rulings (most recently in Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)) to consider race holistically in college admissions to build racially diverse classes when race-neutral alternatives are insufficient, they are barred from using explicit quotas per Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke (1978) or race-based point systems per Gratz v. Bollinger (2003). In other states, many colleges and universities, public and private, consider race in admission decisions ^[24]

Prior to Proposition 209, some of California's public universities considered race and ethnicity as factors when making admissions decisions and offered programs to support the academic achievement of those students.^[25] After Proposition 209, these considerations were banned. Some public universities in California created or modified policies and programs to instead consider characteristics not banned by Proposition 209, such as various socioeconomic status and geography. For example, UC Berkeley considers "contextual factors that bear directly upon the applicant’s achievement, including linguistic background, parental education level, and other indicators of support available in the home."^[26] Moreover, all UC schools utilize a review that takes into account 14 factors including academic performance, special talents, and special circumstances.^[27]

As of 2020, the only overrepresented racial group in the University of California are Asian Americans. Whites and African Americans are slightly underrepresented and Hispanic Americans are significantly underrepresented.^[28]

Relevant findings

• A non-peer reviewed, longitudinal study by UC Berkeley educational researcher and economics PhD student Zachary Bleemer on the impact of Proposition 209 on student outcomes using a difference-in-difference research design and a newly-constructed database linking all 1994-2002 University of California applicants to their college enrollment, course performance, major choice, degree attainment, and wages into their mid-30s found “the first causal evidence that banning affirmative action exacerbates socioeconomic inequities.”^[29] The study found “Proposition 209 instigated a dramatic change in UC admissions policy, with underrepresented group (URG) enrollment at the Berkeley and UCLA campuses immediately falling by more than 60 percent and systemwide URG enrollment falling by at least 12 percent.”^[30] Also according to the window studied (after affirmative action was banned but before socioeconomic preferences were introduced), the immediate ban on affirmative action reduced Black and Latino students' likelihood of graduating and attending graduate school, and resulted in a decline in wages. At the same time, the report found that the policy did not significantly impact wages of white and Asian American students.
• A rebuttal to Bleemer's study by UCLA Professor of Law Richard Sander argues that Bleemer's claims are incorrect and that URM enrollment reached pre-Prop 209 levels by 2000. Sander also argues that Proposition 209 reduced negative mismatch effects, leading to an increase in the number of URM STEM graduates while the national trend was flat. Sander finally notes that due to the University withholding admissions data from outside researchers that Bleemer's research is not reproducible by outside researchers.^[31]
• William Kidder, a research associate at the UCLA Civil Rights Project rebuts Sander's rebuttal stating "Professor Sander’s claims about Prop 209 in his rebuttal to the Bleemer paper are not consistent with the overall body of relevant peer-reviewed scholarship. Rather, Mr. Bleemer’s findings about URM enrollment, graduation rates and earnings under Prop 209 are broadly consistent with the preponderance of peer-reviewed research studies."^[32]

Affirmative action in public contracting

The first federal policy of explicit affirmative action was the Revised Philadelphia Plan, implemented in 1969, which required certain government contractors to set "goals and timetables" for integrating and diversifying their workforce.

Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, California state government and many local governments had affirmative action programs in place for minority and women business enterprises (MWBEs), where-in the state set goals for the portion of state contracts awarded to those types of businesses.^[25] Proposition 209 barred state and local agencies from preferring MWBE contractors over non-MWBE contractors.

Relevant findings

• A 2015 report by the Equal Justice Society found that this ban resulted in a loss of $1 billion to $1.1 billion annually for MWBEs.^[33] The study also found after the State ended its MWBE program only a few MWBEs regained contracts with the state, and there was only a negligible increase in Small Business Enterprise procurement, the main route to state contracts still available for minority or women owned small businesses.^[34]
• The ban on affirmative action has reduced costs in government contracting. After the passage of Proposition 209, the prices on state funded contracts fell by 5.6 percent relative to federally funded projects, for which race or gender preferences are still applied.^[35]

Affirmative action in K-12 education

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (October 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (October 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (October 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Race-conscious policies in K-12 education can be traced to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision.^[36] School districts have since used various race-conscious policies to increase diversity or student performance with varying success. Current law prohibits school districts in California from using race-conscious programs in funding, outreach, and hiring.^[37]

Relevant findings

• For a couple years,^[quantify] Proposition 209 brought into question the legality of voluntary public school desegregation programs. In 2009, the California Supreme Court determined that such programs that use neighborhood racial composition are permitted under Proposition 209 and thus legal.^[38]
• Researchers from Johns Hopkins University and American University found that if a Black student has just one Black teacher between kindergarten and third grade, they would be more likely to graduate from high school and attend college.^[39]
• Statistics from the California Department of Education show that California's teachers do not reflect the demographics of the state or the students: students of color make up 77 percent of California’s public schools, while less than 35% of teachers are Black, Latino, AAPI, or Native American.^[40]
• States without a prohibition on race-conscious programs, like Illinois, have created scholarship programs like Minority Teachers of Illinois, which provides scholarships up to $5,000 for minority students who have achieved a secondary grade point average of 2.5 on a 4.0 scale, are enrolled on at least a half-time basis at a qualified institution in a course of study leading to teacher licensure and maintain a grade point average above 2.5 on a 4.0 scale.^[41] Colorado requires its department of higher education to address completion among students of color within its funding model.^[42] In public four-year institutions in Kentucky, 35% of resources are distributed based on enrollment and completion metrics, including bachelor’s degrees earned by low-income and minority students.^[42] Nevada’s policy formula provides additional funding for minority students by weighting minority students more heavily in the funding calculations.^[42]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title is as follows:^[43]

Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Ballot summary

The ballot summary is as follows:^[43]

• Permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to address diversity by repealing article I, section 31, of the California Constitution, which was added by Proposition 209 in 1996.
• Proposition 209 generally prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, education, or contracting.
• Does not alter other state and federal laws guaranteeing equal protection and prohibiting unlawful discrimination.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement summary is as follows:^[43]

• No direct fiscal effect on state and local entities because the measure does not require any change to current policies or programs.
• Possible fiscal effects would depend on future choices by state and local entities to implement policies or programs that consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting. These fiscal effects are highly uncertain.

Background

The analysis by the Legislative Analyst is as follows:^[44]

• State and Federal Constitutions Require Equal Protection. The state and federal constitutions provide all people equal protection, which generally means that people in similar situations are treated similarly under the law.
• In 1996, California Voters Banned Consideration of Race, Sex, Color, Ethnicity, or National Origin in Public Programs. In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209, adding a new section to the State Constitution—Section 31 of Article I. The new section generally banned the consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting in California.
• There Are Some Exceptions to Proposition 209. State and local entities can consider sex when it is necessary as part of normal operations. For example, the state can consider the sex of an employee when staffing specific jobs at state prisons where it is necessary for staff and inmates be the same sex. Additionally, state and local entities may consider specified characteristics when it is required to receive federal funding. For example, the state is required to set goals for the portion of contracts awarded to certain groups for federally funded transportation projects, like businesses owned by women and people of color.
• Proposition 209 Affected Certain Public Policies and Programs. Before Proposition 209, state and local entities had policies and programs intended to increase opportunities and representation for people who faced inequalities as a result of their race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. These types of programs often are called “affirmative action” programs. For example, some of the state’s public universities considered race and ethnicity as factors when making admissions decisions and offered programs to support the academic achievement of those students. State and local entities had employment and recruitment policies intended to increase the hiring of people of color and women. The state also established programs to increase the participation of women-owned and minority-owned businesses in public contracts. The state set goals for the portion of state contracts that were awarded to those types of businesses. After voters approved Proposition 209, these policies and programs were discontinued or modified unless they qualified for one of the exceptions.
• Federal Law Allows Policies and Programs That Consider Certain Characteristics, Within Limits. Before Proposition 209, state and local policies and programs that considered race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin still had to comply with federal law. Federal law establishes a right to equal protection and as a result limits the use of these considerations. For example, under federal law, universities may consider these characteristics as one of several factors when making admission decisions in an effort to make their campuses more diverse. To ensure compliance with federal law, these policies and programs must meet certain conditions that limit the consideration of these characteristics. These conditions are intended to prevent discrimination that violates equal protection. State law also has a number of antidiscrimination provisions that are similar to those in federal law.
• Policies and Programs Created or Modified After Proposition 209. After voters approved Proposition 209, some public entities in California created or modified policies and programs to instead consider characteristics not banned by Proposition 209. For example, many of the state’s universities provide outreach and support programs for students who are first in their family to attend college. Many university campuses also consider where students attended high school and where they live when making admissions decisions. The universities view these policies and programs as ways to increase diversity without violating Proposition 209.

Constitutional changes

The measure would repeal Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following text would be repealed:^[43]

1. 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.
2. This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

Support

The Opportunity for All Coalition, also known as Yes on Prop 16, is leading the campaign in support of Proposition 16.^[45] In the California State Legislature, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) was the lead sponsor of the constitutional amendment.^[4] 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.^[45]

Official argument

The official argument in favor of Proposition 16 is as follows:^[46]

YES on Prop. 16 means EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS.

All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair wages, good jobs, and quality schools.

Despite living in the most diverse state in the nation, white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power in California. Although women, and especially women of color, are on the front lines of the COVID-19 response, they are not rewarded for their sacrifices. Women should have the same chance of success as men.

Today, nearly all public contracts, and the jobs that go with them, go to large companies run by older white men. White women make 80¢ on the dollar. The wage disparity is even worse for women of color and single moms. As a result, an elite few are able to hoard wealth instead of investing it back into communities. Prop. 16 opens up contracting opportunities for women and people of color.

We know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Yet, Main Street businesses owned by women and people of color lose over $1,100,000,000 in government contracts every year because of the current law. We need to support those small businesses, especially as we rebuild from COVID-19. Wealth will be invested back into our communities.

YES on Prop. 16 helps rebuild California stronger with fair opportunities for all.

YES on Prop. 16 means:

• Supporting women and women of color who serve disproportionately as essential caregivers/frontline workers during COVID-19
• Expanding access to solid wages, good jobs, and quality schools for all Californians, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity
• Creating opportunities for women and people of color to receive public contracts that should be available to all of us
• Improving access to quality education, both K–12 schools and higher education, for all of California’s kids
• Taking action to prevent discrimination and ensure equal opportunity for all
• Rebuilding an economy that treats everyone equally
• Investing wealth back into our communities as opposed to continuing to allow the rich to get richer
• Strong anti-discrimination laws remain in effect
• Quotas are still prohibited

We live in the middle of an incredible historic moment. In 2020, we have seen an unprecedented number of Californians take action against systemic racism and voice their support for real change.

At the same time, our shared values are under attack by the Trump administration's policies. We are seeing the rise of overt racism: white supremacists on the march, the daily demonization of Latino immigrants, Black people gunned-down in our streets, anti-Asian hate crimes on the rise, women’s rights under attack, and COVID-19 ravaging Native communities.

By voting YES on Prop. 16, Californians can take action to push back against the Trump administration’s racist agenda.

By voting YES on Prop. 16, Californians can take action to push back against racism and sexism and create a more just and fair state for all.

Equal opportunity matters. Yes on Prop. 16.

VoteYesOnProp16.org

CAROL MOON GOLDBERG, President

League of Women Voters of California

THOMAS A. SAENZ, President

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

EVA PATERSON, President

Equal Justice Society

Additional arguments

• CA Governor Gavin Newsom: “California has proudly led the way on fundamental civil rights and criminal justice reform but, as we’ve witnessed first hand across our country, there’s more we must do to root out racial inequity and structural bias and to embrace proven reforms that work. This November, state voters will once again have the opportunity to make California a national leader in the unfinished fight for equity and justice."^[47]
• Dolores Huerta, labor leader, civil rights activist, co-founder of United Farm Workers: “I have fought for the rights and dignity of all of our communities, but equal opportunity has not yet been realized for all Californians. That is why we must pass Proposition 16—we cannot stop the progress we have made."^[48]
• Bernice King, Minister, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., CEO of the King Center for Nonviolent Social Change: “I endorse @YesProp16, which will help create a stronger economic future for women & communities of color. This is aligned with my father’s dream & work to eradicate injustice, including economic injustice. To those who disagree, I invite you to study #MLK more comprehensively."^[49]
• State Sen. Steven Bradford (D-35): "I know about discrimination. I live it every day. We live it in this building. Quit lying to yourselves and saying race is not a factor... the bedrock of who we are in this country is based on race."^[50]
• U.S. Rep. Karen Bass (D-37): "Proposition 209, deceptively titled the California Civil Rights Initiative, passed by referendum in 1996 amidst an orchestrated campaign of dog-whistle politics attacking all attempts to level the playing field for women and people of color. Before Prop 209, those efforts at advancing equity had made real progress. But the Wall Street-backed authors of the initiative saw a threat to their economic stranglehold from an increasingly diverse and highly educated population in California; a population better situated to compete in jobs, education, government contracts and other areas of the state’s economy. In passing Prop 209, those groups limited competition in their industries and benefited their own businesses by erecting new institutional barriers burdening the ability of California’s women and people of color achieve positions of economic and business leadership."^[51]
• University of California President Janet Napolitano: "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."^[52]
• Varsha Sarveshwar, president of the University of California Student Association: "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."^[53]
• Otto Lee, former mayor of Sunnyvale, California, and founder of the Intellectual Property Law Group LLP: "With President Trump’s latest proclamations of Chinese virus, or “Kung Flu,” many Asian Americans recently have experienced racial discrimination and have been told to “Go back to China.” As a Chinese American, I recognize the urgent need for us to build bridges with all people of color, as discrimination against one is discrimination against all. We must stand tall together to call out these unacceptable behaviors and not allow ACA 5 to become a wedge that divides us."^[54]
• Gaurav Khanna, assistant professor of economics,
  UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy: "Affirmative action makes going to a good college much more attainable, and actually encourages minority groups to work harder to get into such schools. Without affirmative action, many colleges may not appear attainable, and it may discourage students from even trying."^[55]
• Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79), the principal sponsor of the constitutional amendment and chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus, stated the following:

1. "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."^[21]: 3
2. “Since becoming law in 1996, Proposition 209 has cost women- and minority-owned businesses $1.1 billion each year...It has perpetuated a wage gap wherein women make 80 cents on every dollar made by men and has allowed discriminatory hiring and contracting processes to continue unhindered.”^[56]
3. "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."^[57]
4. "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.”^[58]

Similar arguments for support were summarized as follows in ACA 5's bill analysis:

California is currently the fifth-largest economy in the world and has the world's largest system of higher education. Despite this, women and people of color are not getting their fair share of opportunities to get ahead:

• A 2015 study showed that businesses owned by women and people of color lose $1.1 billion annually in government contracts.^[59]
• Women in California earn only 80 cents for every dollar a man earns on average, and women of color and single moms make less than 60 cents on the dollar for the same work as their white male counterparts.^[21]: 12
• Just a third of leadership and tenured faculty positions at the California Community Colleges, California State University, and the University of California are held by Black, Latino, or Asian-American scholars.
• At the UC, women make up 54 percent of enrolled students, but just one-third of the tenured faculty and less than a third of the members of the Board of Regents.^{[21]: 11–12}

List of organizations and individuals

Not an appropriate template for mainspace, see

Organizatons:

Individuals:

Opposition

Californians for Equal Rights, also known as No on 16, is leading the campaign in opposition to Proposition 16.^[60] Ward Connerly, who was chairperson of the campaign behind California Proposition 209 (1996), is president of Californians for Equal Rights.

Opponents of Proposition 16 primarily cite the divisive, discriminatory, and constitutionally questionable nature of Proposition 16, as well as the positive results Proposition 209 has yielded for underrepresented students at California's public universities since its implementation.^[61] They also point to deeper, socio-economic issues that must be addressed to achieve better outcomes for underrepresented minorities (URMs), including improving public school outcomes and options for URMs in public K-12 education, inefficient public education spending, unequal access, lack of parental involvement, community segregation, and a shortage of qualified teachers.^[62][63][64] Under Proposition 209, California universities and government hiring may still consider economic background in the admissions process, but may not use race. Finally, Proposition 16 opponents believe that Proposition 16 is not a true affirmative action program, but is aimed at legalizing discrimination and government-sanctioned racial favoritism.^[65]

Official argument

The official argument against Proposition 16 is as follows:^[46]

The California Legislature wants you to strike these precious words from our state Constitution: "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."

Don’t do it! Vote NO.

Those words—adopted by California voters in 1996 as Proposition 209—should remain firmly in place. Only by treating everyone equally can a state as brilliantly diverse as California be fair to everyone.

REPEAL WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD

Discrimination of this kind is poisonous. It will divide us at a time we desperately need to unite. Politicians want to give preferential treatment to their favorites. They think they can "fix" past discrimination against racial minorities and women by discriminating against other racial minorities and men who are innocent of any wrongdoing. Punishing innocent people will only cause a never-ending cycle of resentment. The only way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating.

HELP THOSE WHO REALLY NEED IT

Not every Asian American or white is advantaged. Not every Latino or black is disadvantaged. Our state has successful men and women of all races and ethnicities. Let's not perpetuate the stereotype that minorities and women can’t make it unless they get special preferences.

At the same time, our state also has men and women—of all races and ethnicities—who could use a little extra break. Current law allows for "affirmative action" of this kind so long as it doesn't discriminate or give preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. For example, state universities can give a leg-up for students from low-income families or students who would be the first in their family to attend college. The state can help small businesses started by low-income individuals or favor low-income individuals for job opportunities.

But if these words are stricken from our state Constitution, the University of California will again be free to give a wealthy lawyer's son a preference for admission over a farmworker’s daughter simply because he’s from an “under-represented” group. That’s unjust.

GIVE TAXPAYERS A BREAK

Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, California and many local governments maintained costly bureaucracies that required preferential treatment in public contracting based on a business owner’s race, sex or ethnicity. The lowest qualified bidder could be rejected. A careful, peer-reviewed study by a University of California economist found that CalTrans contracts governed by Proposition 209 saved 5.6% over non-209 contracts in the two-year period after it took effect. If the savings for other government contracts are anywhere near that, repealing this constitutional provision could cost taxpayers many BILLIONS of dollars.

EQUAL RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL

Prohibiting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin is a fundamental part of the American creed. It's there in our Constitution for all of us. . .now and for future generations. Don't throw it away.

VOTE NO.

WARD CONNERLY, President

Californians for Equal Rights

GAIL HERIOT, Professor of Law

BETTY TOM CHU, Former California Constitution Revision Commissioner

Additional arguments

• Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington, D.C.: "Because it is much cheaper to provide racial preferences to upper middle class Latino and African American students than it is to do the hard work of recruiting economically disadvantaged and working-class Latino and African American students, I fear that many of these progressive reforms could be diluted if 209 is repealed."^[66]
• Richard Sander, a UCLA law professor: (Prop 209 is) "arguably the best thing that ever happened to racial minorities because it pushed UC campuses to heavily invest in their academic preparation and helped raise their graduation rates." ^[67]
• Former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R): "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."^[68]
• Wenyuan Wu, director of administration for the Asian American Coalition for Education: "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."^[62]
• Wen Fa, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation: "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."^[69]
• Asm. Steven S. Choi (R-68): "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."^[70]
• Sen. Ling Ling Chang (R-29): "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."^[71]
• John Fund, national-affairs reporter for the National Review: "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."^[72]
• Michelle Steel, chairwoman of the Orange County Board of Supervisors: "The Californians who voted to pass Prop. 209 knew that discrimination, though long entrenched in our society, is against the fundamental values of American culture. Prop. 209 applied to California the essence of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a nation where individuals would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."^[73]
• Former Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff (R): "California is the most diverse state in the nation and must step up to the challenges that brings. The real solution for racial equality is comprehensive public-school reform in our K-12 system, not government sanctioned discrimination to create more losers than winners as Proposition 16 will do."^[74]
• Ward Connerly, chairperson of the campaign behind Proposition 209: "The fundamental nature of our nation is that we are a collection of free people who have rights given to us by our Creator. Liberty and equality are precious rights deemed essential to our pursuit of that which fulfills our objective of happiness. More than just for the pursuit of happiness, however, equality is essential to the maintenance of a civil society. This is especially so in a state now identified as a “majority minority” state. ... I ask you all to vote No on Proposition 16, which would delete that commitment to equality from the California Constitution."^[75]
• Haibo Huang, co-founder of San Diego Asian Americans for Equality: "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."^[76]

List of organizations and individuals

Not an appropriate template for mainspace, see

Organizations:

Related state measures regarding affirmative action

The states that also attempted or adopted measures similar to Proposition 209 are:

In November 2019, voters in Washington state narrowly rejected Initiative 1000 (a measure similar to Proposition 16), which would have repealed Initiative 200 (a measure similar to Proposition 209). Thus, affirmative action remains illegal in Washington.[85]

Response by Asian Americans

The debate about affirmative action has drawn strong opinions from both supporters and opponents within the Asian American community. The debate has largely centered around affirmative action in college admissions.^[86] Currently, Asian Americans are the only over-represented student ethnic group in "more selective" public colleges in California and make up the largest proportion of undergraduate enrollment at the University of California.^[87][86][88]

Asian Americans have mobilized on both in support of and in opposition to Proposition 16. There are longstanding Asian American civil rights groups including

On the other side, the opposition includes the 80-20 Educational Foundation, Asian American Coalition for Education, and the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation among others. Many in these groups believe that Prop. 16 and affirmative action policies in general discriminate against Asian Americans.^[92] Nearly 5,700 Asian American individuals have donated to the "No On Prop 16" campaign, representing 95% of donors to the campaign.^[93]

Polling

Public opinion of affirmative action may vary depending on question framing.

Ethnic/Racial cross-tabs

Community Organizations

Notes

See also

• 1996 California Proposition 209
• 2003 California Proposition 54
• California Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5

References