The Proposition 1996 Movie
Vickiana Sconyers
A "yes" vote supported adding Section 31 to the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which said that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting.
A "no" vote opposed adding Section 31 to the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which said that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting.
Proposition 209 added Section 31 to the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which said that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting.[1] Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences in California.
On November 5, 1996, the Los Angeles Times conducted an exit poll of 2,473 voters who cast ballots in the general election at 40 polling places. The margin of error was 3 percent (but higher for some subgroups). The following is the exit poll data on Proposition 209:[4]
SEC. 31. (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.
(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.
(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.[6]
Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, also known as Yes on Proposition 209, led the campaign in support of Proposition 209.[7] Proponents referred to Proposition 209 as the California Civil Rights Initiative. Glynn Custred and Thomas Wood co-authored the ballot initiative. Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, was chairperson of the campaign. Darrell Issa served as a co-chairperson of the campaign.[8]
The following is the official argument in support of Proposition 209 that appeared in the state's voter guide. Gov. Pete Wilson (R), Ward Connerly (California Civil Rights Initiative), and Pamela Lewis (California Civil Rights Initiative) signed the argument.[5]
A generation ago, we did it right. We passed civil rights laws to prohibit discrimination. But special interests hijacked the civil rights movement. Instead of equality, governments imposed quotas, preferences, and set-asides.
Proposition 209 is called the California Civil Rights Initiative because it restates the historic Civil Rights Act and proclaims simply and clearly: "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."
And two wrongs don't make a right! Today, students are being rejected from public universities because of their RACE. Job applicants are turned away because their RACE does not meet some "goal" or "timetable." Contracts are awarded to high bidders because they are of the preferred RACE.
That's just plain wrong and unjust. Government should not discriminate. It must not give a job, a university admission, or a contract based on race or sex. Government must judge all people equally, without discrimination!
Government cannot work against discrimination if government itself discriminates. Proposition 209 will stop the terrible programs which are dividing our people and tearing us apart. People naturally feel resentment when the less qualified are preferred. We are all Americans. It's time to bring us together under a single standard of equal treatment under the law.
Discrimination is costly in other ways. Government agencies throughout California spend millions of your tax dollars for costly bureaucracies to administer racial and gender discrimination that masquerade as "affirmative action." They waste much more of your money awarding high-bid contracts and sweetheart deals based not on the low bid, but on unfair set-asides and preferences. This money could be used for police and fire protection, better education and other programs--for everyone.
We are individuals! Not every white person is advantaged. And not every "minority" is disadvantaged. Real "affirmative action" originally meant no discrimination and sought to provide opportunity. That's why Proposition 209 prohibits discrimination and preferences and allows any program that does not discriminate, or prefer, because of race or sex, to continue.
The only honest and effective way to address inequality of opportunity is by making sure that all California children are provided with the tools to compete in our society. And then let them succeed on a fair, color-blind, race-blind, gender-blind basis.
Let's not perpetuate the myth that "minorities" and women cannot compete without special preferences. Let's instead move forward by returning to the fundamentals of our democracy: individual achievement, equal opportunity and zero tolerance for discrimination against--or for--any individual.
The following is the official argument against Proposition 209 that appeared in the state's voter guide. Fran Packard (League of Women Voters), Rosa Parks, and Maxine Blackwell (Congress of California Seniors) signed the argument.[5]
California law currently allows tutoring, mentoring, outreach, recruitment, and counseling to help ensure equal opportunity for women and minorities. Proposition 209 will eliminate affirmative action programs like these that help achieve equal opportunity for women and minorities in public employment, education and contracting. Instead of reforming affirmative action to make it fair for everyone, Proposition 209 makes the current problems worse.
"[T]he measure would eliminate a variety of public school (kindergarten through grade 12) and community college programs such as counseling, tutoring, student financial aid, and financial aid to selected school districts, where these programs are targeted based on race, sex, ethnicity or national origin." [Opinion Letter to the Attorney General, 10/15/95].
Currently, California women have one of the strongest state constitutional protections against sex discrimination in the country. Now it is difficult for state and local government to discriminate against women in public employment, education, and the awarding of state contracts because of their gender. Proposition 209's loophole will undo this vital state constitutional protection.
It is time to put an end to politicians trying to divide our communities for their own political gain. "The initiative is a misguided effort that takes California down the road of division. Whether intentional or not, it pits communities against communities and individuals against each other."
"Efforts such as the California Civil Rights Initiative which poses as an equal opportunities initiative, but which puts at risk every outreach program, sets back the gains made by women and puts the brakes on expanding opportunities for people in need."
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.[10]
In 1997, Ward Connerly, who chaired the campaign behind Proposition 209, founded the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI).[12] ACRI supported successful ballot measures in Washington (1998) and Michigan (2006).[13] In 2008, ACRI launched a campaign called the Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, which supported ballot initiatives in Colorado and Nebraska.[14][15] In Colorado, the ballot measure was rejected.[16]
In Arizona (2010) and Oklahoma (2012), their respective state legislatures placed constitutional amendments related to affirmative action on the ballot.[17][18] Both of the constitutional amendments were approved.[19][20]
Proposition 209 was proposed as an initiated constitutional amendment. In California, initiated constitutional amendment requires a number of signatures equal to 8 percent of the votes cast for governor in the previous election. Proponents needed to collect 693,230 valid signatures for Proposition 209 to appear on the ballot. On April 16, 1996, Secretary of State Bill Jones (R) announced that at least 770,484 of the submitted signatures were valid.[21]
c80f0f1006