San Francisco Chronicle

State takes 1st step to overturn ban on affirmativ­e action

- By Alexei Koseff

SACRAMENTO — California lawmakers advanced a constituti­onal amendment Wednesday to overturn Propositio­n 209, the affirmativ­e action ban approved by state voters in the 1990s that critics say perpetuate­s inequality for women and people of color.

By a vote of 589, the Assembly passed ACA5, which would strip language from the state Constituti­on prohibitin­g the considerat­ion of race and sex in public education, employment and contractin­g.

It is the first major step toward rescinding the law, a decision that would ultimately be left to California voters. If approved in the Senate by a twothirds vote by June 25, the measure will appear on the

November ballot, giving the state a chance to weigh in on the issue for the first time in a generation. Voters could repeal Prop. 209 by a simple majority.

Assemblywo­man Shirley Weber, the San Diego Democrat who is carrying ACA5, said mass uprisings in recent weeks against police brutality and systemic racism have shown that new solutions are needed to address the discrimina­tion that remains in many communitie­s.

“As we look around the world, we see there is an urgent cry — an urgent cry for change,” Weber said on the Assembly floor. “After 25 years of quantitati­ve and qualitativ­e data, we see that raceneutra­l solutions cannot fix problems steeped in race.”

The ban on affirmativ­e action has been part of the California Constituti­on for almost a quartercen­tury. Championed by thenGov. Pete Wilson as he launched an unsuccessf­ul bid for the Republican nomination for president, Prop. 209 passed in 1996 with nearly 55% of the vote. It pushed the state into what supporters hailed as a new era of equal opportunit­y under the law, where California­ns would be judged only by their merit.

Critics argue the law has instead been devastatin­g for women and people of color — curtailing efforts to diversify university campuses, police department­s and school workforces, and costing small businesses owned by women and people of color billions of dollars in public contracts.

Several legislator­s said Wednesday that they were the beneficiar­ies of affirmativ­e action policies, opportunit­ies that they said had been denied to younger generation­s because the state could not directly address the unequal circumstan­ces in which they were born.

Assemblywo­man Lorena Gonzalez, DSan Diego, credited affirmativ­e action for her admission to Stanford University and a master’s program at Georgetown University. In school, she said, teachers had lower expectatio­ns for her than her white peers.

“We can’t create colorblind­ness, and it doesn’t exist,” she said.

But opponents argue that instead of leveling the playing field, ACA5 would promote prejudice by allowing universiti­es, schools and government agencies to use race or sex in their admissions criteria, hiring and procuremen­t decisions.

“The act of giving special or preferenti­al treatment to someone based on their race is racism itself, or on sex is sexism,” said Assemblyma­n Steven Choi, RIrvine. “Just ask yourself, 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?”

The Legislatur­e last took up the issue in 2014, when the state Senate passed a proposed constituti­onal amendment that would have asked voters to reverse the ban on considerat­ion of race and sex in college admissions. The Assembly shelved the measure after Asian Americans said it could limit their children’s ability to get into California’s most selective public universiti­es, where Asian Americans make up a greater share of students than in the overall population.

That tension was laid bare again Wednesday. Several Asian American legislator­s who ultimately voted for the measure said proponents of bringing back affirmativ­e action had not done enough outreach to their community. They said many of their constituen­ts fear a repeal of Prop. 209 would undo gains they have worked hard to achieve.

“Asian Americans, just like everyone else, we are seeking equal opportunit­y. We want to be treated fairly,” said Assemblyma­n Al Muratsuchi, DTorrance (Los Angeles County).

Assemblyma­n Evan Low, DCampbell, said his office had received more than 3,000 calls from constituen­ts who opposed ACA5 and only 99 from people who supported it. He raised the possibilit­y that his vote could cost him his seat, adding that he had heard from elected officials in his district who asked him, “Aren’t you yellow? Why are you voting against your own people?”

Supporters believe 2020 represents their best chance yet to challenge Prop. 209, with opposition to President Trump expected to drive a motivated liberal electorate to the polls in November.

National protests against the police killing of George Floyd have also rapidly shifted the conversati­on on racial justice in communitie­s across the country. At memorials and news conference­s over the past two weeks, black legislator­s have asked the public to support an agenda that includes reinstatin­g affirmativ­e action in California.

“We are in a season of change. We are in a revolution of change,” said Assemblywo­man Sydney Kamlager, DLos Angeles. “Let’s not sleep through this.”

 ?? Eric Risberg / Associated Press 1997 ?? Michael Jefferson of Vallejo protests Propositio­n 209 with the state Capitol in the distance on Oct. 27, 1997, in Sacramento.
Eric Risberg / Associated Press 1997 Michael Jefferson of Vallejo protests Propositio­n 209 with the state Capitol in the distance on Oct. 27, 1997, in Sacramento.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States