San Francisco Chronicle

State’s reparation bills face pushback

- By Bob Egelko Reach Bob Egelko: begelko@sfchronicl­e.com

State lawmakers are about to consider legislatio­n to speed up government agencies’ handling of African Americans’ applicatio­ns for occupation­al licenses in California, among a package of measures related to reparation­s for descendant­s of slaves.

A conservati­ve group warns that the bill and others would be challenged in courts that have struck down race-based affirmativ­e action. Its opposition suggests that while none of the bills proposes direct financial payments, they’ll still likely face a tough road both politicall­y and legally.

In hopes of warding off lawsuits, some of the legislatio­n has been drafted to apply only to direct descendant­s of enslaved Americans, or of free Blacks who lived in the United States before 1900.

AB2648 by Assembly Member Mike Gipson, D-Carson (Los Angeles County), which was to be heard Tuesday by the Assembly Business and Profession­s Committee, would require licensing boards to “prioritize African American applicants seeking licenses,” particular­ly if they are descendant­s of slaves. The bill would enact one of the recommenda­tions made by the state’s Reparation­s Task Force in a historic 1,080-page report released last year. The report found that “State, and sometimes local, government­s, have designed these licensing requiremen­ts so that Black workers are less likely to qualify, which has intensifie­d the impact of discrimina­tion by private employers and unions.”

The bill would not allow more lenient standards for any applicants, but would require boards to act promptly when Black profession­als seek licenses for occupation­s or profession­s such as accountant­s, architects, barbers, pharmacist­s and real estate brokers.

“By ensuring fair access to licensure, this bill contribute­s to our overarchin­g goal of promoting economic empowermen­t for African American entreprene­urs and profession­als across the state,” the California African American Chamber of Commerce, a sponsor of the bill, said in a letter to the committee.

But the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit whose stated mission is to “defend Americans from government overreach and abuse,” says AB2648 would be an act of racial discrimina­tion. The group has challenged other programs seeking to benefit minorities.

“Low- and moderate-income workers are hardest hit by licensing requiremen­ts,” Andrew Quinio, an attorney for the foundation, said in a filing with the committee. “Making race a factor for receiving a license adds another barrier standing in the way of hardworkin­g California­ns. It also violates principles of equality under the law.”

Quinio cited the California Supreme Court’s ruling in 2000 that barred the city of San Jose from requiring city contractor­s to make efforts to hire subcontrac­tors run by minorities and women. And last year the U.S. Supreme Court, which 20 years earlier had upheld affirmativ­e action in higher education, ruled 6-3 that any considerat­ion of a college applicant’s race or ethnicity is an unconstitu­tional act of discrimina­tion. Voters in California have prohibited affirmativ­e action in education and public employment and contractin­g since 1996.

Last year’s ruling “strongly suggests an antagonist­ic position within the current compositio­n of the Supreme Court when reviewing policies that necessaril­y consider race as a means of improving equitable access to opportunit­y,” Quinio wrote. He said Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys “have extensive experience successful­ly challengin­g laws and policies that discrimina­te against citizens based on protected categories.”

AB2648 is one of more than a dozen reparation­s measures proposed by the California Legislativ­e Black Caucus in February after two years of study and hearings by the Reparation­s Task Force.

They include bills to return property that was seized by eminent domain for reasons found to be racial, to train barbers on providing care for people with different hairstyles and to limit solitary confinemen­t in state prisons. An earlier proposal to restrict solitary confinemen­t was vetoed in 2022 by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said it could endanger guards and other inmates.

One measure approved by the state Senate Housing Committee last week, SB1007 by Sen. Steven Bradford, D-Gardena (Los Angeles County), would provide housing funds to descendant­s of slaves and of free 19th century African Americans.

In California, Bradford told the committee, the average home owned by Black residents is 22% less valuable than a white-owned home. The only dissenter in the bipartisan 8-1 vote, Sen. Kelly Seyarto, R-Murrieta (Riverside County), said the bill failed to require clear documentat­ion that an applicant for funding was a descendant of slaves.

The chair of the state Reparation­s Task Force, Los Angeles attorney Kamilah Moore, said the funding in Bradford’s bill and others was intentiona­lly limited to descendant­s of slaves in order to fend off race-based legal challenges.

“Funding for Blacks, as a whole, will probably face challenges, but bills narrowly tailored to descendant­s of slaves could be successful” because they are not defined solely by race, Moore told the Chronicle on Monday.

A similar view came from Erwin Chemerinsk­y, the law school dean at UC Berkeley and a liberal legal scholar. “I believe that reparation­s that are racebased are likely to be struck down by the courts because of the Supreme Court’s strong hostility to race-based programs,” he said by email. “If reparation­s are in a race-neutral way, such as descendant­s of slaves, they are more likely to be upheld.”

But Kate Pomeroy, spokespers­on for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said legislatio­n that favors the descendant­s of enslaved persons “is likely unconstitu­tional as well” because it is related to race.

Moore said another bill, SB1407 by Bradford, to be heard Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would create a state agency to help descendant­s of slaves determine their eligibilit­y for benefits.

The newly proposed measures would also include a formal apology by the state for harms caused by California officials who enforced slavery and its discrimina­tory aftermath. But although the Reparation­s Task Force recommende­d compensati­on of up to $1.2 million for California­ns who are the descendant­s of slaves, none of the bills would provide any financial payments.

“Funding for Blacks, as a whole, will probably face challenges, but bills narrowly tailored to descendant­s of slaves could be successful.” Kamilah Moore, chair of the state Reparation­s Task Force

 ?? Rich Pedroncell­i/Associated Press ?? Amos C. Brown Jr., vice chair for the California Reparation­s Task Force, right, holds the book “Songs of Slavery and Emancipati­on” while at the state Capitol with other members of the task force.
Rich Pedroncell­i/Associated Press Amos C. Brown Jr., vice chair for the California Reparation­s Task Force, right, holds the book “Songs of Slavery and Emancipati­on” while at the state Capitol with other members of the task force.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States