#California #Prop16 #Proposition16 #Discrimination #BLM
A "yes" vote supports 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, s**, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.
A "no" vote opposes 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, s**, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.
Proposition 16 is a constitutional amendment that would repeal 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, s**, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of affirmative action involving race-based or s**-based preferences in California.[1]
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, s**, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.[1]
In Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose (2000), the California Supreme Court held that, within the context of Proposition 209:[2]
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 is disagreement about the significance of Proposition 209 including 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.'"[3] 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'?"[4]
