This week, the legislature in California voted to remove the constitutional prohibition on “discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.” That’s right, California just voted to allow racial and gender discrimination in all its public activities. The bill will move to the ballot in November for a popular vote.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported:
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 race-neutral solutions cannot fix problems steeped in race.”
The measure would repeal Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following struck-through text would be repealed:
(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.
The California legislature has now voted to strike these words from our state— Steve Miller (@SteveMillerOC) June 24, 2020
“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.”
I’m speechless. pic.twitter.com/X09mWlM9sX
This is an example of the kind of policy, upheld by federal courts despite the equal protection clause of the federal constitution, that ACA5 is intended to allow and that we want to prevent happening in California:https://t.co/1CvHRpMpiU— Steve Miller (@SteveMillerOC) June 26, 2020
But judging individuals by the color of their skin is antithetical to equal justice under the law. https://t.co/RURqvDlvuX— Concerned Californians - No to #ACA5 (@ECalifornians) June 26, 2020
No on #ACA5! #MeritOverRacism #ACA5IsRacism #VoteNoOnACA5#FavoritismIsDiscrimination #NoRacialQuota