California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 16
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 3, 2020
Topic
Affirmative action
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
Constitutional amendment		Origin
State legislature

California Proposition 16, the Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment, was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. Proposition 16 was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment, thereby keeping Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.


Election results

California Proposition 16

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 7,217,064 42.77%

Defeated No

9,655,595 57.23%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Reactions

The following is a list of reactions to the defeat of Proposition 16:

  • Vincent Pan, executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, said, "Both in California and across the country, we’re not witnessing a repudiation of Trumpism that we’d like to see. There’s a lot of work to do to help enlist more folks who are championing the promotion of policies that really fix structural racism."[1]
  • University of California Regents Chair John Perez said, "The failure of Proposition 16 means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity."[2]
  • Roger Clegg, board member of the Center for Equal Opportunity, stated, "So we have our most populous, and very blue, state rejecting by a decisive vote — apparently a greater margin than the 1996 vote — a measure that would reinstate politically correct discrimination, a.k.a. 'affirmative action.' Not only that, but the extremely diverse people of California did so in the year of the 'woke' and they did so despite the fact that the proposition’s supporters vastly outspent its opponents and had overwhelming support from all the usual establishment suspects."[3]
  • Yukong Zhao, president of the Asian American Coalition for Education, said, "Going forward, I’d like to warn liberal politicians in California and nationwide: focus your efforts on devising effective measures to improve K-12 education for Black and Hispanic children, instead of introducing racially divisive and discriminatory laws time and again. You have failed in California in 2014, as well as Washington State and New York City in 2019."[4]
  • The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote, "This rejection of identity politics in one of America’s bluest and most diverse states should echo around America, not least at the U.S. Supreme Court. ... And as welcome as it will be for Californians to keep their state officially colorblind, it may also help with two big cases about the use of race in college admissions that could end up at the Supreme Court."[5]

Overview

What was Proposition 16?

See also: Changes to the California Constitution

Proposition 16 was a constitutional amendment that would have repealed Proposition 209, passed in 1996, from the California Constitution. Proposition 209 stated that discrimination and preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public contracting on account of a person's or group's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences in California.[6]

Without Proposition 209, the state government, local governments, public universities, and other political subdivisions and public entities would—within the limits of federal law—be allowed to develop and use affirmative action programs that grant preferences based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.[6]

What do discrimination and preferential treatment mean within the context of Proposition 209?

In Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose (2000), the California Supreme Court held that, within the context of Proposition 209:[7]

  • discrimination means "to make distinctions in treatment; show partiality (in favor of) or prejudice (against)" and
  • preferential means "a giving of priority or advantage to one person ... over others."

There was disagreement about the significance of Proposition 209 including the language to prohibit discrimination. Assembly Judiciary Committee counsel Thomas Clark said, "The measure's language prohibiting 'discrimination' was largely superfluous, given that state and federal law, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, already prohibit such discrimination. What was new about Proposition 209, therefore, was the prohibition on 'preferential treatment.'"[8] Wenyuan Wu, executive director of the campaign opposed to Proposition 16, responded, "If the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution could sufficiently render anti-discrimination laws at the state level superfluous, then there would have been no need to establish or keep laws such as Article I Section 7 of the State Constitution which explicitly reaffirms the U.S. Constitution’s principle of equal protection of the laws and equal opportunity, the California State Education Code (EDC), Article 3 Section 220, or Donahoe Higher Education Act, Article 2 Section 66010.2 (C). Or one could argue these aforementioned laws could render one another 'superfluous'?"[9]

From Proposition 209 to Proposition 16

See also: Background of Proposition 16

Proposition 209 received 54.55 percent of the vote at the election on November 5, 1996, making California the first state to adopt a constitutional ban on race-based and sex-based affirmative action.

Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, led the campaign behind Proposition 209. "Affirmative action was meant to be temporary," wrote Connerly, "It was meant to be a stronger dose of equal opportunity for individuals, and the prescription was intended to expire when the body politic had developed sufficient immunity to the virus of prejudice and discrimination." He added, "Three decades later, affirmative action is permanent and firmly entrenched as a matter of public policy. ... not because of any moral imperative but because it has become the battleground for a political and economic war that has racial self-interest as its centerpiece."[10] In 1997, Connerly founded the American Civil Rights Institute, which supported ballot initiatives modeled on Proposition 209 in Washington, Michigan, Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, and Oklahoma.[11]

In 2020, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) introduced the legislation that would become Proposition 16, stating that "the ongoing [coronavirus] 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."[12] She also said, "This is probably an opportune time given people’s interest in politics and given the kind of turnout that is anticipated — and given the fact that this is a different generation, that it may be possible for us to begin to work to reverse Prop. 209."[13] Connerly, responding to the proposal to repeal Proposition 209, said, "I believe we would win by a landslide once we let people know what affirmative action is really about."[14]

What types of affirmative action would have been allowed?

See also: U.S. Supreme Court on affirmative action laws, policies, and programs

Proposition 16 would have removed the ban on affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences from the California Constitution. Therefore, federal case law would have defined the parameters of affirmative action. The U.S. Supreme Court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education and government contracting must be reviewed under strict scrutiny. In the U.S., strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that requires a law, policy, or program to serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to address that interest. Courts had ruled that strict racial quotas and racial point systems in higher education admissions are unconstitutional but that individualized, holistic reviews that consider race, when tailored to serve a compelling interest (such as educational diversity), are constitutional.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[15]

“

Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.[16]

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:[15]

“
  • 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.[16]
 ”

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[15]

“
  • 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 high uncertain.[16]
 ”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, California Constitution

The measure would have repealed Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following struck-through text would have been repealed:[6]

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.[16]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 18, and the FRE is -21. The word count for the ballot title is 15, and the estimated reading time is 4 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 22, and the FRE is -9. The word count for the ballot summary is 85, and the estimated reading time is 22 seconds.


Support

California Yes on 16 2020.png

The Opportunity for All Coalition, also known as Yes on Prop 16, led the campaign in support of Proposition 16.[17] In the California State Legislature, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) was the lead sponsor of the constitutional amendment.[18][19][20][21][22] 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.[23]

Supporters

The campaign provided a list of endorsements, which is available here.

Officials

Former Officials

Political Parties

Government Entities

  • San Jose City Council
  • Monterey County Board of Supervisors
  • University of California Board of Regents
  • Los Angeles County Board of Education

Corporations

  • AirBnB
  • Blue Shield of California
  • Facebook
  • Golden State Warriors
  • Instacart
  • Kaiser Permanente
  • Lyft
  • Oakland Athletics
  • PG&E Corporation
  • Reddit
  • San Francisco 49ers
  • San Francisco Giants
  • Twitter
  • Uber
  • United Airlines
  • Wells Fargo

Unions

Organizations

  • ACLU of California
  • ACLU of Northern California
  • ACLU of Southern California
  • Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
  • American Beverage Association
  • Anti-Defamation League
  • Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus
  • California Asian Chamber of Commerce
  • California Black Chamber of Commerce
  • California Charter Schools Association
  • California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
  • California NAACP State Conference
  • California State Association of Counties
  • California State Student Association
  • Center for American Progress
  • Center for American Progress
  • Chinese for Affirmative Action
  • Democracy for America
  • Environmental Defense Fund
  • Equality California
  • Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
  • Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
  • National Organization for Women
  • Natural Resources Defense Council
  • NextGen California
  • San Francisco Chamber of Commerce

Individuals

  • Dolores Huerta - Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers
  • Bernice King - President of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change
  • Tom Steyer (D) - Founder of NextGen America


Arguments

  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79): 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."
    • "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."
    • "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."
    • "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."
    • "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."
  • Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society: "People of color are treated differently. One way that people can act on their desire to eliminate systemic racism is to vote for Proposition 16. It gives people of color, and women, more power, more money. If you have more money you have more access, more clout in the political system."


Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 16 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[24]

  • Official Voter Information Guide: 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

Opposition

Californians for Equal Rights 2020.png

Californians for Equal Rights, also known as No on 16, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 16.[25] Ward Connerly, who was chairperson of the campaign behind California Proposition 209 (1996), was chairperson of Californians for Equal Rights.[26]

Opponents

The campaign provided a full list of coalition members and endorsements on its website, which is available here.

Officials

Former Officials

Political Parties

Organizations

  • American Civil Rights Institute
  • American Freedom Alliance
  • Association for Education Fairness
  • Chinese American Civic Action Alliance
  • Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.

Individuals

  • Ward Connerly - Chairperson of the campaign behind California Proposition 209 (1996)


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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • 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."
  • Former U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R), who served as the co-chairperson of the campaign behind Proposition 209: "You can support affirmative action by looking for legitimate outreach on other issues, people who have just come to the United States and would have been at a disadvantage in their education, people who are economically at a different level. There’s nothing in our constitution that prohibits outreach, but the fact is Proposition 209 has worked, the minority graduation rate has risen under this and I support the continuation of our constitution."
  • Betty Chu, a co-chair of Californians for Equal Rights: "In my lifetime, I have seen Asian Americans prevail against racism to be treated as fully American, as equal citizens, employees and leaders. This has occurred in large part because racism itself has become unacceptable in America. What a triumph! ... This response minimizes the concerns of Asian Americans about a measure that will allow the state to put them at a disadvantage solely on the basis of their race. Those of us who believe that people should be treated as individuals, not merely as members of groups or tokens, know Prop. 16 only sows division and is plain wrong. Yet, such racial animus is today implicitly endorsed by the supporters of Prop. 16: a whole slew of corporate interests, politically connected high-bid contractors who wish to win government contracts based on race and a biased media that refuses to cover a potential amendment to the California Constitution fairly."


Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 16 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[27]

  • Official Voter Information Guide: 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

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

The Opportunity for All Coalition was organized as a political action committee (PAC) to support Proposition 16. The campaign raised $25.13 million. M. Quinn Delaney was the largest donor, contributing $6.7 million.[28]

Californians for Equal Rights and Parents and Students for Racial Equality were organized to oppose Proposition 16. Together, the committees had raised $1.76 million, including $50,000 from Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.[28]

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $23,346,267.34 $1,788,336.73 $25,134,604.07 $23,909,126.38 $25,697,463.11
Oppose $1,762,511.20 $1,500.00 $1,764,011.20 $1,748,243.55 $1,749,743.55

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.[28]

Committees in support of Proposition 16
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Yes on 16, Opportunity for All Coalition $19,760,983.09 $1,734,301.36 $21,495,284.45 $20,452,304.67 $22,186,606.03
Educators for Equity, Yes on 15 and 16, Sponsored by California Teachers Association $3,000,000.00 $0.00 $3,000,000.00 $2,877,710.32 $2,877,710.32
Alex Padilla Ballot Measure Committee for Democracy and Justice - Yes on Propositions 16, 17, and 18 $417,159.25 $0.00 $417,159.25 $410,986.39 $410,986.39
Yes on Prop. 16, California Businesses and Working Families for Fair Opportunities $168,125.00 $54,035.37 $222,160.37 $168,125.00 $222,160.37
Total $23,346,267.34 $1,788,336.73 $25,134,604.07 $23,909,126.38 $25,697,463.11

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committee.[28]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
M. Quinn Delaney $6,700,000.00 $0.00 $6,700,000.00
California Teachers Association Issues PAC $3,500,000.00 $0.00 $3,500,000.00
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. $1,500,000.00 $0.00 $1,500,000.00
Patty Quillin $1,500,000.00 $0.00 $1,500,000.00
American Civil Liberties Union $1,000,000.00 $331,704.32 $1,331,704.32
Open Society Policy Center $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.[28]

Committees in opposition to Proposition 16
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Californians for Equal Rights $1,723,242.66 $0.00 $1,723,242.66 $1,701,225.01 $1,701,225.01
Parents and Students for Racial Equality, No on Prop 16 $39,268.54 $1,500.00 $40,768.54 $47,018.54 $48,518.54
Total $1,762,511.20 $1,500.00 $1,764,011.20 $1,748,243.55 $1,749,743.55

Donors

The following was the top donor who contributed to the opposition committee.[28]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. $50,000.00 $0.00 $50,000.00
Gail Heriot $49,999.00 $0.00 $49,999.00
Manuel Klausner $25,030.00 $0.00 $25,030.00
Frank Xu $16,040.00 $0.00 $16,040.00
John Grassi $15,000.00 $0.00 $15,000.00

Media editorials

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

  • San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "Nearly a quarter of a century ago, California voters passed the deceptively named California Civil Rights Initiative. But Proposition 209 was not about advancing civil rights. It was about prohibiting the consideration of race and gender in public education, employment and contracting. ... It was just about shutting the door on efforts to overcome those institutional barriers to the full participation of women and minorities. It was wrong in 1996, when it was passed by 55% of California voters, and it is wrong now. It should be repealed."
  • Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "The events of this year have highlighted the level of racial injustice that exists across the nation, including California. The disparity between Black and Latino residents and their White counterparts is readily apparent when it comes to income, health, education and the criminal justice system. Reducing those disparities will require a major effort on multiple fronts. Proposition 16 would give the state’s universities and government a valuable tool they need to fight existing structural inequalities."
  • Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "The death of George Floyd, yet another unarmed Black man killed by police, and the COVID-19 pandemic‘s disproportionate toll on Black and Latino Americans have been a wake-up call for this country. We must act to dismantle the racism baked into our institutions, and voting yes on Proposition 16 on Nov. 3 will help. ... If we want to live in a country that better reflects our national narrative of equal opportunity, we have to build it. That means using the right tools, such as affirmative action. Vote yes on Proposition 16."
  • The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "Though Proposition 16 only addresses elimination of Proposition 209’s constitutional language, which specifically addresses state and local public agency conduct, greater efforts to bring underrepresented people into all ranks and levels in the already highly diverse civil workplace and government contracting universe can only help to greater diversify and strengthen the ranks of the private sector. Giving those previously disadvantaged — due in large part to life circumstances often strongly determined by their race or gender — “a leg onto the ladder” in the public education and civil sector world will help them transition to other “ladders,” if they choose, in the private sector."
  • San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "We can safely remove barriers to inequality and increase diversity and opportunity."
  • San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "It is hard to think of an initiative that fits the moment better than Proposition 16. [...] So if California joined the 42 other states allowing communities of color to have preferences in college admissions, government hiring and the awarding of contracts — where women- and minority-owned businesses are generally on shakier ground financially and struggle to compete — that would be constructive and positive. Proposition 16 is needed. Now. But if it passes, The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board hopes that all the lawmakers — and all the voters — who supported it monitor its impact on Asian American students — and heed the same arguments for its adoption when considering education reform. We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 16."
  • The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "The Press Democrat opposed Proposition 209, the 1996 initiative that banned affirmative action in California, arguing that 'discrimination is a continuing reality in our society.' We hope that one day that’s no longer true. For now, it still is. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on Proposition 16."
  • The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "This country has been forced to reckon with the devastating effects of systemic racism in the wake of the senseless killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. The killing of Breonna Taylor by Louisville police created yet another national moment that forced us to reckon with how this country mistreats and disregards people of color. Affirmative action, along with other policies specifically designed to address the legacy of systemic racism, can help to reconcile our long history of injustice. California, as the nation’s most diverse state, should be leading the nation in these efforts. Our state policies should reflect a deep commitment to addressing systemic racism and ensuring that our institutions reflect our communities."


Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

  • The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: "Now it’s up to the voters. Last November voters in Washington state narrowly defeated a similar amendment, though opponents were vastly outspent by those favoring racial preferences. California is a more liberal state and its political class and nearly all media will support repeal. But judging individuals by the color of their skin is antithetical to equal justice under the law. Let’s hope Californians hold on to this American principle of equality that goes back to the Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment, and the civil-rights movement."
  • The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "With or without Prop. 209, we can count on public institutions continuing to reflect the diversity of the state and continuing to provide opportunities to Californians of all backgrounds. California can continue to build on its reputation as a wonderfully diverse state without government judging people based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Ultimately, we don’t think the case has been made for scrapping Prop. 209 and the fundamental principle of treating all people on equal terms."
  • The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "There are better ways to achieve desired educational and economic diversity than affirmative action. ... Innovative minority recruitment strategies are a more effective way to increase diversity on university campuses, in public workforces and in public contracting. Vote NO on Prop. 16."


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."[29]
  • 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."[30]

Polls

See also: 2020 ballot measure polls
California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020)
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of errorSample size
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely voters)
10/16/2020 - 10/21/2020		 38.0%49.0%13.0%+/-2.05,352
David Binder Research (likely voters)
10/17/2020 - 10/19/2020		 45.0%45.0%10.0%+/-4.0600
PPIC Statewide Survey (likely voters)
10/9/2020 - 10/18/2020		 37.0%50.%12.0%+/-4.31,185
SurveyUSA (likely voters)
9/26/2020 - 9/28/2020		 40.0%26.0%34.0%+/-5.4588
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely voters)
9/9/2020 - 9/15/2020		 33.0%41.0%26.0%+/-2.05,942
PPIC (likely voters)
9/4/2020 - 9/13/2020		 31.0%47.0%22.0%+/-4.31,168
AVERAGES 37.33% 43% 19.5% +/-3.67 2,472.5
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Measures

California Proposition 209 (1996)

See also: California Proposition 209, Affirmative Action Initiative (1996)

California Proposition 209 was approved at the presidential election on November 5, 1996, receiving 54.55 percent of the vote. Proposition 209 added Section 31 to the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which read, "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."[31]

Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, also known as Yes on Proposition 209, led the campaign in support of Proposition 209. Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, was chairperson of the campaign.[32] Yes on Proposition 209 had the support of the California Republican Party, Gov. Pete Wilson (R), and U.S. Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas), who was the Republican presidential nominee in the 1996 election.[33]

The Campaign to Defeat 209 had the backing of incumbent President Bill Clinton (D), the California Democratic Party, and the California Teachers Association.[32][33]

In 1996, California was a divided government. Pete Wilson, a Republican, was the state's governor. Republicans controlled the California State Assembly. Democrats controlled the California State Senate.

California Proposition 54 (2003)

See also: California Proposition 54, Prohibit State Classification Based on Race in Education, Employment, and Contracting Initiative (October 2003)

In 2003, voters rejected Proposition 54, which would have prohibited the state from classifying prospective students, contractors, or employees based on race, ethnicity, color, or national origin in public education, contracting, or employment.[34]

Ward Connerly, who chaired the campaign behind Proposition 209, was the chief proponent of Proposition 54. He said, "My motivation is to present the nation, by way of California, with a different option for the kind of nation that it’s going to become."[35] Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, responded to Proposition 54, saying, "We’d all like to live in a society where race doesn’t matter. But this initiative... will not end racial discrimination in this state. It will only hide it."[36]

States

See also: Affirmative action on the ballot

Between 1996 and 2020, voters had decided ballot measures to prohibit the use of affirmative action involving race-based and sex-based preferences in seven states. Six of the ballot measures were approved. In Florida, Idaho, and New Hampshire, legislation or executive orders banned or limited race-based affirmative action as of 2020.[37]

With Proposition 209, California became the first state to enact a formal ban on racial preferences, according to the Pew Research Center.[38]

In 1997, Ward Connerly, who chaired the campaign behind Proposition 209, founded the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI).[39] ACRI supported successful ballot measures in Washington (1998) and Michigan (2006).[40] In 2008, ACRI launched a campaign called the Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, which supported ballot initiatives in Colorado and Nebraska.[41][42] In Colorado, the ballot measure was rejected.[43]

In Arizona (2010) and Oklahoma (2012), their respective state legislatures placed constitutional amendments related to affirmative action on the ballot.[44][45] Both of the constitutional amendments were approved.[46][47]

State Measure Year Percent “Yes” Percent “No” Status
California Proposition 209 1996 54.55% 45.45% Approveda Approved
Washington Initiative 200 1998 58.22% 41.78% Approveda Approved
Michigan Proposal 2 2006 57.92% 42.08% Approveda Approved
Colorado Initiative 46 2008 49.19% 50.81% Defeatedd Defeated
Nebraska Measure 424 2008 57.56% 42.44% Approveda Approved
Arizona Proposition 107 2010 59.51% 40.49% Approveda Approved
Oklahoma Question 759 2012 59.19% 40.81% Approveda Approved

Washington Referendum 88 (2019)

See also: Washington Referendum 88, Vote on I-1000 Affirmative Action Measure (2019)

Voters in Washington rejected a ballot measure, titled Referendum 88, on November 5, 2019. "Yes" received 49.44 percent of the vote. "No" received 50.56 percent of the vote. Referendum 88 would have amended Initiative 200, approved in 1998, to allow affirmative action policies that do not utilize quotas or constitute preferential treatment.[48]

Initiative 200 prohibited the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. Initiative 200 did not define preferential treatment. Referendum 88 would have defined preferential treatment as actions that use race, sex, or other specified identities as the "sole qualifying factor to select a lesser qualified candidate over a more qualified candidate for a public education, public employment, or public contracting opportunity."[48]

Campaigns surrounding Referendum 88 raised a combined $3.41 million. Committees that supported a "Yes" vote on Referendum 88 raised $361,815 more than opponents.[49]

U.S. Supreme Court

See also: Affirmative action and anti-discrimination lawsuits

Cases related to affirmative action in higher education

  • Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): The U.S. Supreme Court held that race was a legitimate factor in college admissions, but that the racial quota system of the UC Davis School of Medicine, which reserved 16 of 100 places for qualified minorities, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[50][51]
  • Gratz v. Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan's Office of Undergraduate Admissions (OUA) used a 150-point scale to rank undergraduate applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. Factors that were assigned points included high school grades, test scores, curriculum strength, alumni relationships, and others. Applicants received 20 points for being from an underrepresented racial or ethnic group (defined as African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans). The U.S. Supreme Court held that the OUA's assignment of points for underrepresented group status did not meet the individual consideration requirement established in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.[52]
  • Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan Law School, like the OUA, considered the race of applicants in making admissions decisions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law school's use of race in admissions. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion, stated that the law school employed a "highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file." Justice O'Connor also stated that the law school had a compelling state interest in considering race: "In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity."[53]
  • Fisher v. University of Texas (2016): The University of Texas (UT) admitted each in-state student who graduated in the top 10 percent of their graduating senior class. Students who did not graduate in the top 10 percent of their class were evaluated for admissions based on a holistic, full-file review, according to UT. One factor that was considered is an applicant's race. In 2013, the case first went before the U.S. Supreme Court, which remanded the case for further consideration back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In 2015, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld UT's use of race in considering applicants for admissions. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority's opinion, stated that the use of race served a compelling interest ("educational benefits that flow from student body diversity") and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.[54]

Cases related to affirmative action in employment and contracting

  • United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979): Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp, as part of a collective agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, implemented an affirmative action program within their training program; half the positions in the program were reserved for black workers until the percentage of black workers in the plant corresponded with the percentage of black workers in the local labor force. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the program as within the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice William Brennan, writing the court's opinion, stated, "We need not today define in detail the line of demarcation between permissible and impermissible affirmative action plans. It suffices to hold that the challenged Kaiser-USWA affirmative action plan falls on the permissible side of the line. The purposes of the plan mirror those of the statute. Both were designed to break down old patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy. Both were structured to "open employment opportunities for Negroes in occupations which have been traditionally closed to them."[55]
  • Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986): In the 1980s, the contract between the school board of Jackson, Michigan, and the teachers' union aimed to (a) protect teachers with the most seniority from layoffs and (b) require that the percentage of laid-off teachers who were minorities be no greater than the percentage of teachers who were minorities under the contract. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the board could not terminate non-minorities' employment for the purpose of protecting minorities' employment. According to Justice Lewis Powell, there was a difference between preferential treatment in hiring and preferential treatment in layoffs: "While hiring goals impose a diffuse burden, often foreclosing only one of several opportunities, layoffs impose the entire burden of achieving racial equality on particular individuals, often resulting in serious disruption of their lives. That burden is too intrusive."[56][51]
  • United States v. Paradise (1987): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of one-black-for-one-white promotional quotas for the Alabama Department of Public Safety (DPS). In the 1970s, the Alabama DPS was required to use promotional quotas until at least 25 percent of the department's upper ranks were Black persons. According to the U.S. District Court, which mandated the promotional quotas, their purpose was to address the "Department's pervasive, systematic, and obstinate discriminatory exclusion of blacks." Justice William Brennan, writing the supreme court's opinion, stated, "The one-for-one requirement did not impose an unacceptable burden on innocent third parties. ... Nor has the court imposed an "absolute bar" to white advancement. ... Accordingly, the one-for-one promotion requirement imposed in this case does not disproportionately harm the interests, or unnecessarily trammel the rights, of innocent individuals."[57][51]
  • City of Richmond v. Croson (1989): In Richmond, Virginia, construction contractors were required to subcontract 30 percent of their business to Minority Business Enterprises. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the subcontractor requirement violated the Equal Protection Clause and that race-based action by state and local governments required strict scrutiny. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion, stated that Richmond's justification ("past societal discrimination") for the subcontractor requirement could not "serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences." Richmond, according to Justice O'Connor, had not linked the subcontractor requirement to an identified specific discrimination nor tailored the requirement to the relevant labor pool (qualified MBE subcontractors).[58][59]
  • Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995): Adarand Constructors, Inc. submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for a highway project funded by the United States Department of Transportation. Gonzales Construction Company, a different subcontractor, submitted a higher bid but received the contract. Gonzales Construction was certified as a disadvantaged business by the Small Business Administration, which meant that the prime contracting company would receive additional compensation for hiring Gonzales Construction. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. Justice O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion, concluded that strict scrutiny applied to federal racial classifications: "All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny."[60][61]
  • Ricci v. DeStefano (2009): The New Haven Fire Department required civil service examinations to fill managerial positions. In 2003, 118 firefighters took the examinations; based on the results, 19 candidates, who were white or Hispanic, could be considered for the managerial positions. The New Haven Civil Service Board, considering the disparate impact the results would have on employment, discarded the exams. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against New Haven. According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the court's opinion, an employer cannot engage in intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) to avoid a disparate impact unless there is a strong basis in evidence that the employer would be subject to disparate impact liability. New Haven failed to demonstrate a strong basis in evidence, according to Justice Kennedy, since the exams were job-related and consistent with business necessity and there was no evidence that an "equally valid, less-discriminatory alternative" was available.[62][63]

Path to the ballot

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. On June 10, 2020, the California State Assembly voted 60 to 14 to pass ACA 5. As one seat was vacant in the Assembly, 53 votes were needed to pass ACA 5. On June 24, 2020, the California State Senate voted 30 to 10 to pass ACA 5. At least 27 votes were needed in the Senate. With approval in the Assembly and Senate, ACA 5 was placed on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020.[6]

Vote in the California State Assembly
June 10, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 53  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total60145
Total percent75.95%17.72%6.33%
Democrat5803
Republican1142
Independent100
Vote in the California State Senate
June 24, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total30100
Total percent75.00%25.00%0.00%
Democrat2900
Republican1100

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

See also

External links

Information

Support

Opposition

Footnotes

  1. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Prop. 16: Why California voters refused to lift affirmative action ban," November 4, 2020
  2. ↑ Ed Source, "Unclear ballot language, lack of time to connect with voters explain affirmative action loss, backers say," November 5, 2020
  3. ↑ National Review, "Good News from California Indeed," November 4, 2020
  4. ↑ Insider Higher Ed, "Why Did Prop 16 Fail?" November 9, 2020
  5. ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Racial Thunder Out of California," November 4, 2020
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 California State Legislature, "ACA 5," accessed May 6, 2020
  7. ↑ California Supreme Court, "Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose," November 30, 2000
  8. ↑ California Assembly Judiciary Committee, "Affirmative Outreach and Data Collection: Limits (Real and Imagined) on Public Contracting Since Proposition 209," accessed August 27, 2020
  9. ↑ Ryan Byrne, "Email with Wenyuan Wu," August 24, 2020
  10. ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Debate: Affirmative Action - Danger lies on this road to divisions," May 26, 1996
  11. ↑ American Civil Rights Institute, "About Us," accessed July 17, 2020
  12. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Plan to restore affirmative action in California clears hurdle after emotional debate," June 10, 2020
  13. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "To dismantle systemic racism, California Legislature must let voters consider Prop. 209," June 10, 2020
  14. ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Ward Connerly Rides Again," June 1, 2020
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 California Secretary of State, "Ballot Title and Summary," accessed July 28, 2020
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  17. ↑ Opportunity for All Coalition, "Homepage," accessed June 24, 2020
  18. ↑ California State Legislature, "ACA 5 Committee Analyses," accessed June 2, 2020
  19. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "California’s affirmative action ban, Proposition 209, targeted for repeal," March 10, 2020
  20. ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Commentary: Why California should repeal Prop. 209 and allow state institutions to consider race," June 9, 2020
  21. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "California bill asking voters whether to repeal anti-affirmative action Prop. 209 advances," June 10, 2020
  22. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Plan to restore affirmative action in California clears hurdle after emotional debate," June 10, 2020
  23. ↑ Yes on 16, "Steering Committee," acessed August 17, 2020
  24. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
  25. ↑ Californians for Equal Rights, "Homepage," accessed July 27, 2020
  26. ↑ Californians for Equal Rights, "Our Leaders," accessed August 17, 2020
  27. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 Cal-Access, "Homepage," accessed June 24, 2020
  29. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Editorial: Of course race matters. Put affirmative action back on California’s ballot," June 12, 2020
  30. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "To dismantle systemic racism, California Legislature must let voters consider Prop. 209," June 10, 2020
  31. ↑ California Secretary of State, "California Proposition 209," accessed June 11, 2020
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 California Secretary of State, "Financing California's Statewide Ballot Measures: 1996 Primary and General Elections," accessed June 11, 2020
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Los Angeles Times, "President Spells Out Opposition to Prop. 209," November 1, 1996
  34. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Guide, October 2003," accessed July 6, 2020
  35. ↑ Nevada Appeal, "Backer of Proposition 54 challenges the way Californians look at race," September 15, 2003
  36. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Prop. 54: Coping With Race Distinctions," September 28, 2003
  37. ↑ Courthouse News Service, "Idaho Governor Signs Restrictions on Affirmative Action, Trans Athletes," March 30, 2020
  38. ↑ Pew Research Center, "Supreme Court says states can ban affirmative action; 8 already have," April 22, 2014
  39. ↑ New York Times, "Foes of Affirmative Action Form a National Group," January 16, 1997
  40. ↑ New York Times, "In a Battle Over Preferences, Race and Gender are at Odds," October 20, 1998
  41. ↑ The Colorado Independent, "Ward Connerly’s Anti-Affirmative Action Machine," March 10, 2008
  42. ↑ The Hill, "Affirmative action emerges as wedge issue in election," March 11, 2008
  43. ↑ Vail Daily, "Colorado voters preserve affirmative action," November 6, 2008
  44. ↑ East Valley Tribune, "Proposition 107 would outlaw affirmative action programs," September 24, 2010
  45. ↑ StateImpact Oklahoma, "State Question 759: Does Oklahoma Still Need Affirmative Action?" October 18, 2012
  46. ↑ Phoenix Business Journal, "Arizona repeals affirmative action," November 3, 2010
  47. ↑ Jurist, "Oklahoma voters approve affirmative action ban," November 7, 2012
  48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 Washington Secretary of State, "Initiative #1000 Text," accessed September 19, 2018
  49. ↑ Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, "Initiative Committees (Statewide)," accessed October 30, 2019
  50. ↑ Oyez, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke," accessed July 7, 2020
  51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 University of Rhode Island, "Affirmative Action History," accessed July 7, 2020
  52. ↑ Oyez, "Gratz v. Bollinger," accessed July 7, 2020
  53. ↑ Oyez, "Grutter v. Bollinger," accessed July 7, 2020
  54. ↑ Oyez, "Fisher v. University of Texas," accessed July 7, 2020
  55. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber," June 27, 1979
  56. ↑ Oyez, "Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education," accessed July 7, 2020
  57. ↑ Oyez, "States v. Paradise," accessed July 7, 2020
  58. ↑ Oyez, "City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company," accessed July 8, 2020
  59. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company," January 23, 1989
  60. ↑ Oyez, "Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña," accessed July 8, 2020
  61. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña," June 12, 1995
  62. ↑ Oyez, "Ricci v. DeStefano," accessed July 8, 2020
  63. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Ricci v. DeStefano," June 29, 2009
  64. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed April 4, 2023
  65. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed April 4, 2023
  66. ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Brown approves automatic voter registration for Californians," October 10, 2015
  67. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "California voter law could register millions–for a start," October 20, 2015
  68. ↑ 68.0 68.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed April 4, 2023
  69. ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed April 4, 2023
  70. ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed April 4, 2023
v • e
2020 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming
Non I&R States
 • Alabama • Georgia • Iowa • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Jersey • Rhode Island • Virginia • Wisconsin
Political topics
Other
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)&oldid=9130234"