Opinion: ACA 7 = Backdoor racial discrimination
Despite Californians' consistent opposition to State-sponsored racial discrimination, legislators keep trying to find ways to elbow affirmative action agendas into State law. Proposed ACA 7 is the most recent example, explains Gail Heriot, law professor at the University of San Diego. An excerpt from her Instapundit analysis follows.
In 2020, the California legislature attempted to strip the state constitution of these words: “The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Yes, that’s right … our esteemed legislators didn’t like those words. They wanted to be able to discriminate.
The words had been put there in 1996 by Proposition 209 (a campaign I co-chaired). At the time it was a big deal. It made news around the world.
I also co-chaired the opposition to the repeal effort—known as Proposition 16—in 2020. And miracles of miracles, with the help of Instapundit readers, we won. The pro-16 forces outspent us something like 17 to 1, but we nevertheless defeated the repeal. And it wasn’t close. We beat the pants off ‘em.
But they just won’t stop… which ought to show you something. While Proposition 209 hasn’t ended all state-sponsored race and sex discrimination in California, it ended a whole lot of it. That’s why progressive legislators want to get rid of it. It’s in their way.
Their new plan—ACA 7—will put on the ballot what purports to be a mere “exception” to Proposition 209. But the exception will swallow the rule. The governor will be able to authorize discrimination if there is “research” showing that such discrimination will “increase[e] the life expectancy of, improv[e] educational outcomes for, or lift[] out of poverty specific groups based on race … sex, [etc.]”
Anyone who understands a thing or two about “research” knows that you can find “research” that finds the moon is made of green cheese. But the “research” won’t even need to be fraudulent. If you pass a law that says only people from the “right races” can get state jobs or contracts, that will indeed “lift” them “out of poverty.” But it will do so by unfairly driving those of other races into poverty.
In essence, if ACA 7 is passed by the legislature and passes at election time, the State of California will be able to violate Proposition 209 whenever the governor d*mn well pleases. And that will happen a lot.
Fortunately, this thing hasn’t made it out of the legislature—not yet anyway. And with luck it never will. Moreover, this seems like a rock stupid way for the progressive movement to use its time and energy. First, it will further alienate Asian American voters, who used to be a reliable Democratic constituency. As a result of Proposition 16 and Democratic indifference to crime, they no longer are. Second, the repeal effort is likely to lose at election time (though it will cost conservatives (and me!) a lot of time and resources to make that happen). Third, given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (2023), the whole enterprise is likely to be futile. Every time the California governor purports to authorize an “exception” to Proposition 209’s prohibition on racial preferences, it is likely to be struck down by the courts.
This article originally appeared in Instapundit. Read the whole thing here.
Related:
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.