Jump to content

1996 California Proposition 209: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Support: No one has disputed the fact that David Duke supported prop 209. Removing "Disputed section" template as it is for cases where factual accuracy is disputed, not for weight or NPOV issues.
m acronym
 
(39 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Referendum banning affirmative action}}
{{Infobox referendum
| name = Proposition 209
| country = California
| date = {{Start date|1996|11|05}}
| title = '''Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment by State and other Public Entities. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.'''
| yes = 5,268,462
| no = 4,388,733
| total = 10,263,490
| electorate = 15,562,075
| map = 1996 California Proposition 209 by County.svg
| mapdivision =
| map_caption =
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
'''Yes'''
{{legend|#47729E|70–80% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#7D9CBB|60–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#B6C8D9|50–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{col-2}}
'''No'''
{{legend|#8B8B54|70–80% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#BCBC83|60–70% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{legend|#DEDEBD|50–60% |border=1px #AAAAAA solid}}
{{col-end}}
| notes = Source: [https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/1996-general/sov-complete.pdf 1996 Statement of Vote]
}}
{{ElectionsCA}}
{{ElectionsCA}}
'''Proposition 209''' (also known as the '''California Civil Rights Initiative''' or '''CCRI''') is a [[California ballot proposition]] which, upon approval in November 1996, [[Constitutional amendment|amended]] the state [[Constitution of California|constitution]] to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], [[sex]], or [[ethnic group|ethnicity]], specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of [[Affirmative action in the United States|affirmative action]] policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed.
'''Proposition 209''' (also known as the '''California Civil Rights Initiative''' or '''CCRI''') is a [[California ballot proposition]] which, upon approval in November 1996, [[Constitutional amendment|amended]] the state [[Constitution of California|constitution]] to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], [[sex]], or [[ethnic group|ethnicity]], specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of [[Affirmative action in the United States|affirmative action]] policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed, thereby banning affirmative action in the state's public sector.

A proposal to repeal Prop 209 was placed on the ballot for the [[2020 California elections]] as [[2020 California Proposition 16|Proposition 16]]. It was rejected by a margin of 57% to 43%, implying that Californians were at least as supportive of race neutrality as they had been a quarter of a century earlier.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Friedersdorf|first=Conor|date=2020-11-10|title=Why California Rejected Racial Preferences, Again|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-california-rejected-affirmative-action-again/617049/|access-date=2020-11-13|website=The Atlantic|language=en-US}}</ref>


==History==
==History==


=== Context ===
=== Context ===
The controversy pertaining to affirmative action in California can most notably be traced back to the historic 1978 Supreme Court case ''[[Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke|Regents of the University of California v. Bakke]].''<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Affirmative Action Revisited|last=Nelson|first=Patricia M|publisher=Nova Science Pub Inc|year=2001|isbn=978-1560729587|edition=UK}}</ref> There were two major decisions from the case that still stand today. Firstly, the quota system that was once used by the [[University of California, Davis]]’ admission process for minority students was ruled unlawful. Secondly, higher-level academic institutions were not prohibited from considering race in the admissions process. The ruling determined in ''[[Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke|Bakke]]'' acted as “a catalyst for voluntary affirmative action programs.” <ref name=":0" /> Researchers suggest that the development of such programs for the sake of increasing campus diversity explains the controversy surrounding the implementation of Proposition 209 and ''[[Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke|Bakke]]'' marks the origination of affirmative action debates.<ref name=":0" /> Consequently, judiciaries and politicians have since devoted efforts to reinterpreting affirmative action, its related practices, and consequences for students.<ref name=":0" />
The controversy pertaining to affirmative action in California can most notably be traced back to the historic 1978 Supreme Court case ''[[Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke|Regents of the University of California v. Bakke]].''<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Affirmative Action Revisited|last=Nelson|first=Patricia M|publisher=Nova Science Pub Inc|year=2001|isbn=978-1560729587|edition=UK}}</ref> There were two major decisions from the case that still stand today. Firstly, the quota system that was once used by the [[University of California, Davis]]’ admission process for minority students was ruled unlawful. Secondly, higher-level academic institutions were not prohibited from considering race in the admissions process. The ruling determined in ''[[Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke|Bakke]]'' acted as “a catalyst for voluntary affirmative action programs.” <ref name=":0" /> Researchers suggest that the development of such programs for the sake of increasing campus diversity explains the controversy surrounding the implementation of Proposition 209 and ''[[Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke|Bakke]]'' marks the origination of affirmative action debates.<ref name=":0" />


=== Origins ===
=== Origins ===
The political campaign to place the language of CCRI on the California ballot as a constitutional amendment was initiated by Joe Gelman (president of the Board of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles), Arnold Steinberg (a pollster and political strategist) and Larry Arnn (president of the [[Claremont Institute]]). It was later endorsed by Governor [[Pete Wilson]] and supported and funded by the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign, led by [[University of California]] [[Regents of the University of California|Regent]] [[Ward Connerly]], a Wilson ally. A key co-chair of the campaign was law professor [[Gail Heriot]], who served as a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The initiative was opposed by [[affirmative action]] advocates and traditional civil rights and feminist organizations on the left side of the political spectrum. Proposition 209 was voted into law on November 5, 1996, with 55 percent of the vote, and has withstood legal scrutiny ever since.
The political campaign to place the language of CCRI on the California ballot as a constitutional amendment was initiated by Joe Gelman (president of the Board of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles), Arnold Steinberg (a pollster and political strategist) and Larry Arnn (president of the [[Claremont Institute]]). It was later endorsed by Governor [[Pete Wilson]] and supported and funded by the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign, led by [[University of California]] [[Regents of the University of California|Regent]] [[Ward Connerly]], a Wilson ally. A key co-chair of the campaign was law professor [[Gail Heriot]], who served as a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The initiative was opposed by [[affirmative action]] advocates and traditional civil rights and feminist organizations on the left side of the political spectrum. Proposition 209 was voted into law on November 5, 1996, with 55 percent of the vote, and has withstood legal scrutiny ever since.

=== Senate Bill 185 ===
On September 1, 2011, SB 185 passed both chambers of the California State Legislature, but was vetoed by [[Governor of California|Governor]] [[Jerry Brown]]. SB 185 would have countered Proposition 209 and authorized the University of California and the California State University to consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, to the maximum extent permitted by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution, and relevant case law. SB 185 was strongly supported by the [[University of California Students Association]].

=== Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5 ===
On December 3, 2012, California State Senator [[Edward Hernandez]] introduced [[Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5|California Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5]] (SCA-5) in the State Senate. This initiative proposed an amendment to the state constitution to remove provisions of California Proposition 209 related to public post-secondary education, to permit state universities to consider applicants' race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admission decisions. If passed by both the State Senate and State Assembly, SCA-5 would have been presented to California voters in the November 2014 election. SCA-5 was passed by the California State Senate on January 30, 2014. On February 24, 2014, Gene D. Block, chancellor of UCLA, sent an open letter to all students and faculty expressing his strong opposition to Proposition 209.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chancellor.ucla.edu/updates/the-impact-of-proposition-209-and-our-duty-to-our-students|title=The Impact of Proposition 209 and our Duty to our Students - UCLA Chancellor|website=ucla.edu|access-date=3 April 2018}}</ref> Following resistance from various citizen groups, including Asian American groups, Senator Hernandez withdrew his measure from consideration.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Huang |first1=Josie |title=In California, A Vocal Minority of Asian Parents Helped Defeat Affirmative Action Once Before. This Time It Could Be Harder. |url=https://laist.com/2020/06/12/affirmative_action_california_aca_5_sca_5_asian_americans_chinese_universities_education_black_lives.php |access-date=24 July 2020 |agency=LAist |publisher=Southern California Public Radio |archive-date=25 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625003754/https://laist.com/2020/06/12/affirmative_action_california_aca_5_sca_5_asian_americans_chinese_universities_education_black_lives.php |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Proposition 16 ===
The legislation that later became [[2020 California Proposition 16|Proposition 16]] was first introduced as California Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5 (ACA 5). It was introduced by Assemblymembers [[Shirley Weber]], [[Mike Gipson]], and [[Miguel Santiago]] on January 18, 2019.<ref>{{cite web| url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200ACA5| title=ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 5(January 18, 2019)}}</ref> ACA 5 is a proposed constitutional amendment that repeals the provisions enacted by Proposition 209. In June 2020, the California State Legislature passed ACA 5 with more than a two-thirds vote in each house, allowing the proposal to become a qualified ballot measure and later Proposition 16. Proposition 16 was rejected by voters in the [[2020 California elections|November 2020 election]], meaning that Prop 209 remains in the California Constitution. 57% of voters rejected Proposition 16, and favored keeping Prop 209, implying that Californians support race neutrality more than they did in 1996.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Friedersdorf|first=Conor|date=2020-11-10|title=Why California Rejected Racial Preferences, Again|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-california-rejected-affirmative-action-again/617049/|access-date=2020-11-13|website=The Atlantic|language=en-US}}</ref>


=== National impact ===
=== National impact ===
In November 2006, a similar amendment modeled on California's Proposition 209 was passed in Michigan, titled the [[Michigan Civil Rights Initiative]]. The constitutionality of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was challenged in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, ''[[Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action]]'', made its way to the United States Supreme Court. On April 22, 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is constitutional, and that states had the right to ban the practice of racial and gender preferences/affirmative action if they chose to do so through the electoral process.
In November 2006, a similar amendment modeled on California's Proposition 209 was passed in Michigan, titled the [[Michigan Civil Rights Initiative]]. The constitutionality of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was challenged in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, ''[[Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action]]'', made its way to the United States Supreme Court. On April 22, 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is constitutional, and that states had the right to ban the practice of racial and gender preferences/affirmative action if they chose to do so through the electoral process.

==Legal challenges==
On November 27, 1996, U.S. District Court Judge [[Thelton Henderson]] blocked enforcement of the proposition. A three-judge panel of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Circuit Court of Appeals]] subsequently overturned that ruling. Proposition 209 has been the subject of many lawsuits in state courts since its passage but has withstood legal scrutiny over the years.

On August 2, 2010, the Supreme Court of California found for the second time that Proposition 209 was constitutional.<ref>''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14114204470669411023 Coral Construction, Inc., v. City and County of San Francisco]'', S152934 (August 2, 2010)</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 209 affirmative action ban|first=Howard |last=Mintz |date=August 2, 2010|work=San Jose Mercury News}}</ref> The ruling, by a 6-1 majority, followed a unanimous affirmation in 2000 of the constitutionality of Prop. 209 by the same court.<ref>See Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. City of San Jose, 24 Cal.4th 537 (2000).</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Mintz|first=Howard|title=California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 209 affirmative action ban|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_15659364?source=rss|work=[[San Jose Mercury News]]|access-date=5 October 2013|date=2010-08-02}}</ref>

On April 2, 2012, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the latest challenge to Proposition 209. The three-judge panel concluded that it was bound by a 9th Circuit ruling in 1997 upholding the constitutionality of the affirmative action ban. Ninth Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima disagreed in part with the ruling, saying he believes the court "wrongly decided" the issue in 1997.<ref>{{cite news|title=California affirmative action ban challenge rejected |first=Howard |last=Mintz |date=April 2, 2012|work=San Jose Mercury News}}</ref>

==Effect on enrollment, graduation, and income==
According to UC Office of the President, "Proposition 209 instigated a dramatic change in UC admissions policy, with URG [under represented group] enrollment at the Berkeley and UCLA campuses immediately falling by more than 60 percent and systemwide URG enrollment falling by at least 12 percent."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Blemmer |first1=Zachary |title=UC Affirmative Action |url=https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/uc-affirmative-action.pdf |website=Institutional Research and Academic Planning |publisher=University of California Office of the President |access-date=24 August 2020}}</ref> The same report concluded that "Prop 209 led URG applicants to cascade out of UC into measurably less-advantageous universities, which combined with declines in degree attainment and STEM persistence to lower each URG applicant’s wages by about 5 percent between ages 23 and 35."

Based on "University of California Applicants, Admits and New Enrollees by Campus, Race/Ethnicity", prepared by Institutional Research, the University of California Office of the President, August 11, 2011, enrollment percentages of the four major ethnic groups university-wide are:

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Ethnic group enrollment percentages in first-year enrollment of University of California (%)
|-
! Ethnic group !! 1994 !! 1995 !! 1996 !! 1997 !! 1998 !! 1999 !! 2000 !! 2001 !! 2002 !! 2003 !! 2004 !! 2005 !! 2006 !! 2007 !! 2008 !! 2009 !! 2010
|-
| African American || 4.3 || 4.2 || 3.7 || 3.8 || 2.9 || 2.8 || 3.0 || 2.8 || 3.0 || 3.1 || 2.8 || 2.9 || 3.0 || 3.6 || 3.8 || 3.6 || 3.7
|-
| Asian American || 37.1 || 35.2 || 36.1 || 36.4 || 35.3 || 37.4 || 37.4 || 38.1 || 38.6 || 37.9 || 40.0 || 40.1 || 41.3 || 40.8 || 38.8 || 39.9 || 39.8
|-
| Chicano/Latino || 15.2 || 15.1 || 13.4 || 12.7 || 11.3 || 11.9 || 12.2 || 12.9 || 13.4 || 13.9 || 14.2 || 14.7 || 15.5 || 16.7 || 18.1 || 19.2 || 20.7
|-
| White || 36.2 || 37.4 || 38.4 || 40.2 || 33.8 || 37.8 || 36.7 || 35.9 || 35.7 || 34.9 || 33.8 || 33.9 || 31.9 || 31.3 || 30.6 || 29.7 || 26.8
|}

African American enrollment rates dropped significantly immediately after the passage of Prop 209.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2830-2004Nov21.html |title=Universities Record Drop In Black Admissions |work=washingtonpost.com |date= 2004-11-22|access-date=2010-09-24}}</ref> Criticism was raised that of the 4,422 students in [[UCLA]]'s freshman class of 2006, only 96 (2.26%) were African American.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=38750 |title=Daily Bruin |publisher=Dailybruin.ucla.edu |access-date=2010-09-24 }}{{Dead link|date=November 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

The percentage of Latino students admitted to the UC system as of 2007 exceeded the Proposition 209 level; however, this is a reflection of the increase in the Latino population in the state of California and the increased capacity within the UC system.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Kaufmann|first=Susan W|date=2007|title=The History and Impact of State Initiatives to Eliminate Affirmative Action|journal=New Directions for Teaching and Learning|volume=2007|issue=111|pages=3–9|doi=10.1002/tl.280|hdl=2027.42/57348|hdl-access=free}}</ref>

Researchers also found that enrollment statistics for Native American students beginning in 1997 through 2006 declined by 38% cumulatively and, unlike other ethnic groups, has not increased since.<ref name=":1" />

A comprehensive but non-peer reviewed study by Zachary Bleemer found that Prop 209 has had a negative impact on graduation rates, graduate school attendance, and income for black and hispanic students.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Carey |first1=Kevin |title=A Detailed Look at the Downside of California's Ban on Affirmative Action |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/21/upshot/00up-affirmative-action-california-study.html |access-date=15 October 2020 |work=The New York Times |date=21 August 2020}}</ref>


==Text==
==Text==
The text of Proposition 209 was drafted by Cal State anthropology professor Glynn Custred and California Association of Scholars Executive Director Thomas Wood. Its passage amended the California constitution to include a new section (Section 31 of Article I), which now reads:
The text of Proposition 209 was drafted by Cal State anthropology professor Glynn Custred and California Association of Scholars Executive Director Thomas Wood. Its passage amended the California constitution to include a new section (Section 31 of Article I), which now reads:


{{blockquote|
(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.
(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.


Line 76: Line 59:


(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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209text.htm|title=Text of Proposition 209|website=ca.gov|access-date=3 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19971210154224/http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209text.htm|archive-date=10 December 1997|url-status=dead}}</ref>
(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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209text.htm|title=Text of Proposition 209|website=ca.gov|access-date=3 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19971210154224/http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209text.htm|archive-date=10 December 1997|url-status=dead}}</ref>
}}

=== Failed attempts to repeal ===

=== Senate Bill 185 ===
On September 1, 2011, SB 185 passed both chambers of the California State Legislature, but was vetoed by [[Governor of California|Governor]] [[Jerry Brown]]. SB 185 would have countered Proposition 209 and authorized the University of California and the California State University to consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, to the maximum extent permitted by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution, and relevant case law. SB 185 was strongly supported by the [[University of California Students Association]].

=== Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5 ===
On December 3, 2012, California State Senator [[Edward Hernandez]] introduced [[Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5|California Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5]] (SCA-5) in the State Senate. This initiative proposed an amendment to the state constitution to remove provisions of California Proposition 209 related to public post-secondary education, to permit state universities to consider applicants' race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admission decisions. If passed by both the State Senate and State Assembly, SCA-5 would have been presented to California voters in the November 2014 election. SCA-5 was passed by the California State Senate on January 30, 2014. On February 24, 2014, Gene D. Block, chancellor of UCLA, sent an open letter to all students and faculty expressing his strong opposition to Proposition 209.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Impact of Proposition 209 and our Duty to our Students - UCLA Chancellor |url=http://chancellor.ucla.edu/updates/the-impact-of-proposition-209-and-our-duty-to-our-students |access-date=3 April 2018 |website=ucla.edu}}</ref> Following resistance from various citizen groups, including Asian American groups, Senator Hernandez withdrew his measure from consideration.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Huang |first1=Josie |title=In California, A Vocal Minority of Asian Parents Helped Defeat Affirmative Action Once Before. This Time It Could Be Harder. |url=https://laist.com/2020/06/12/affirmative_action_california_aca_5_sca_5_asian_americans_chinese_universities_education_black_lives.php |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200625003754/https://laist.com/2020/06/12/affirmative_action_california_aca_5_sca_5_asian_americans_chinese_universities_education_black_lives.php |archive-date=25 June 2020 |access-date=24 July 2020 |publisher=Southern California Public Radio |agency=LAist}}</ref>

=== Proposition 16 ===
On January 18, 2019, Assemblymembers [[Shirley Weber]], [[Mike Gipson]], and [[Miguel Santiago]] introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5 (ACA 5)<ref>{{cite web |title=ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 5(January 18, 2019) |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200ACA5}}</ref> ACA 5 was a proposed constitutional amendment that would have repealed the provisions enacted by Proposition 209. In June 2020, the California State Legislature passed ACA 5 with more than a two-thirds vote in each house, allowing the proposal to become a qualified ballot measure and later [[2020 California Proposition 16|Proposition 16]]. Proposition 16 was rejected by 57.23% of voters in the [[2020 California elections|November 2020 election]], meaning that Prop 209 remains in the California Constitution.

=== Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7 ===
In 2023, Assemblymember [[Corey Jackson (politician)|Corey Jackson]] introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7 (ACA 7).<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zinshteyn |first=Mikhail |date=2023-06-21 |title=California voters may again vote on whether to bring back affirmative action, but in limited form |url=http://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2023/06/affirmative-action-aca-7/ |access-date=2024-01-17 |work=CalMatters |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Bill Text - ACA-7 Government preferences: programs: exceptions. |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240ACA7 |access-date=2024-01-17 |website=leginfo.legislature.ca.gov}}</ref> The amendment's author decided to let the proposal die, in part due to the fear that "... voters wouldn’t pass the measure..."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Network |first=CALmatters |date=2024-06-26 |title=Affirmative action proposal off ballot, to return in future election |url=https://sacobserver.com/2024/06/the-effort-to-bring-back-affirmative-action-in-limited-form-is-dead/#:~:text=(CALMATTERS)%20%E2%80%93%20A%20proposed%20California%20constitutional%20amendment%20to%20permit%20some |access-date=2024-10-08 |website=The Sacramento Observer |language=en-US}}</ref>


==Support==
==Support==
Supporters of Proposition 209 contended that existing affirmative action programs led public employers and universities to reject applicants based on their race, and that Proposition 209 would "restore and reconfirm the historic intention of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209yesarg.htm|title=Argument in Favor of Proposition 209|website=ca.gov|access-date=3 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051122081714/http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209yesarg.htm|archive-date=22 November 2005|url-status=dead}}</ref> The basic and simple premise of Proposition 209 is that every individual has a right, and that right is not to be discriminated against, or granted a preference, based on their race or gender. Since the number of available positions are limited, discriminating against or giving unearned preference to a person based solely, or even partially on race or gender deprives qualified applicants of all races an equal opportunity to succeed. It also pits one group against another and perpetuates social tension.
Supporters of Proposition 209 contended that existing affirmative action programs led public employers and universities to reject applicants based on their race, and that Proposition 209 would "restore and reconfirm the historic intention of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209yesarg.htm|title=Argument in Favor of Proposition 209|website=ca.gov|access-date=3 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051122081714/http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209yesarg.htm|archive-date=22 November 2005|url-status=dead}}</ref> The basic and simple premise of Proposition 209 is that every individual has a right, and that right is not to be discriminated against, or granted a preference, based on their race or gender. Since the number of available positions are limited, discriminating against or giving unearned preference to a person based solely, or even partially on race or gender deprives qualified applicants of all races an equal opportunity to succeed. It also pits one group against another and perpetuates social tension.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Arcidiacono |first1=Peter |last2=Aucejo |first2=Esteban |last3=Coate |first3=Patrick |last4=Hotz |first4=V. Joseph |date=2014-09-15 |title=Affirmative action and university fit: evidence from Proposition 209 |journal=IZA Journal of Labor Economics |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=7 |doi=10.1186/2193-8997-3-7 |doi-access=free |issn=2193-8997|hdl=10419/152333 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>


;Individuals in support
;Individuals in support
* [[Ward Connerly]]
* [[Ward Connerly]]
* [[Bob Dole]], 1996 presidential candidate
* [[Bob Dole]], 1996 presidential candidate
* [[David Duke]], former [[Grand Wizard]] of the [[Ku Klux Klan]]<ref>{{cite news |last1=Burdman |first1=Pamela |title=David Duke Accepts Debate Invitation / Backers of Bias initiative furious, cite Willie Horton |url=https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PAGE-ONE-David-Duke-Accepts-Debate-Invitation-2967607.php |access-date=24 July 2020 |agency=SFGate |publisher=San Francisco Chronicle |date=5 September 1996}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Bernstein |first1=Sharon |title=Storm Rises Over Ex-Klansman at Debate |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-09-11-mn-47864-story.html |work=LA Times |access-date=18 October 2020}}</ref>
* [[Dan Lungren]], California Attorney General
* [[Dan Lungren]], California Attorney General
* [[Pete Wilson]], Governor of California
* [[Pete Wilson]], Governor of California
* [[Gail Heriot]]
* [[Eugene Volokh]]
* [[Darrell Issa]]
* [[Roger Hedgecock]]
* Lance Izumi
* Sally Pipes


;Organizations in support
;Organizations in support
* American Civil Rights Institute
* American Civil Rights Institute
* [[California Republican Party]] <ref>{{cite news |last1=Lempinen |first1=Edward |title=King Ad for Prop. 209 on Hold / State GOP halts TV campaign after protests erupts|url=https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/King-Ad-for-Prop-209-on-Hold-State-GOP-halts-2962154.php |access-date=24 July 2020 |agency=SFGate |publisher=San Francisco Chronicle |date=24 October 1996}}</ref>
* [[California Republican Party]]<ref>{{cite news |last1=Lempinen |first1=Edward |title=King Ad for Prop. 209 on Hold / State GOP halts TV campaign after protests erupts|url=https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/King-Ad-for-Prop-209-on-Hold-State-GOP-halts-2962154.php |access-date=24 July 2020 |agency=SFGate |publisher=San Francisco Chronicle |date=24 October 1996}}</ref>
* Center for Equal Opportunity
* Center for Equal Opportunity
* [[Pacific Legal Foundation]] (PLF)<ref>{{Cite news |last=McKinley |first=Jesse |date=2009-04-23 |title=Attorney General Challenges Anti-Bias Law in California |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/23calif.html |access-date=2024-05-29 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
* Pacific Legal Foundation


==Opposition==
==Opposition==
Opponents of Proposition 209 argued that it would end affirmative action practices of tutoring, mentoring, outreach and recruitment of women and minorities in California universities and businesses and would gut state and local protections against discrimination.<ref>{{cite web|title=Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 209|url=http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209yesrbt.htm|publisher=California Secretary of State|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060219001207/http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209yesrbt.htm|archive-date=February 19, 2006|url-status=dead}}</ref> After passage of Proposition 209, some students protested at universities including [[University of California, Berkeley|UC Berkeley]], [[University of California, Los Angeles|UCLA]], [[University of California, Santa Cruz|UC Santa Cruz]], and [[San Francisco State University]].<ref>"Students Protest Proposition 209". United Press International, November 7, 1996.</ref>
[[Image:Resist209flyer.jpg|right|thumb|Hundreds of students at U.C. Berkeley protested against the implementation of Proposition 209.]]
Opponents of Proposition 209 argued that it would end affirmative action practices of tutoring, mentoring, outreach and recruitment of women and minorities in California universities and businesses and would gut state and local protections against discrimination.<ref>{{cite web|title=Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 209|url=http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209yesrbt.htm|publisher=California Secretary of State|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060219001207/http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/209yesrbt.htm|archive-date=February 19, 2006|url-status=dead}}</ref> A large, multiethnic coalition of civil rights groups, politicians, and celebrities stood in opposition to Proposition 209. Immediately after passage of Proposition 209, students held demonstrations and walk-outs in protest at several universities including [[University of California, Berkeley|UC Berkeley]], [[University of California, Los Angeles|UCLA]], [[University of California, Santa Cruz|UC Santa Cruz]], and [[San Francisco State University]].<ref>"Students Protest Proposition 209". United Press International, November 7, 1996.</ref>


;Individuals in opposition
;Individuals in opposition
Line 120: Line 122:
* By Any Means Necessary ([[BAMN]])
* By Any Means Necessary ([[BAMN]])
* California [[American Association of University Women]]
* California [[American Association of University Women]]
* California Business Council of Organizations for Equal Opportunity
* California Catholic Conference
* California Labor Council, [[AFL-CIO]]
* California Labor Council, [[AFL-CIO]]
* [[California Teachers Association]]
* [[California Teachers Association]]
* California Votes NO! on 209
* [[Chinese for Affirmative Action]]
* [[Chinese for Affirmative Action]]
* [[Feminist Majority Foundation|Feminist Majority]]
* [[Feminist Majority Foundation|Feminist Majority]]
* [[Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund]] (MALDEF)
* [[Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund]] (MALDEF)
* Latino Civil Rights Network
* [[Leadership Conference on Civil Rights]]
* [[Leadership Conference on Civil Rights]]
* [[League of Women Voters]] of California
* [[League of Women Voters]] of California
Line 134: Line 132:
* [[National Lawyers Guild]]
* [[National Lawyers Guild]]
* [[National Organization for Women]] (NOW)
* [[National Organization for Women]] (NOW)
* National Rainbow Coalition
* OUT THERE!
* [[Pacific Gas and Electric]]
* [[Pacific Gas and Electric]]
* San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
* [[Southern Christian Leadership Conference]]
* [[Southern Christian Leadership Conference]]
* [[University of California Student Association]] (UCSA)
* [[University of California Student Association]] (UCSA)
Line 144: Line 139:


==Results==
==Results==
[[File:CANov1996Prop209.svg|right|250px]]
[[File:1996 California Proposition 209 results map by county.svg|right|250px]]


{{Referendum
{{Referendum
Line 162: Line 157:
}}
}}


==Exit poll==
===Voter demographics===
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:<ref>{{cite news |title=State Propositions: A Snapshot of Voters |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-11-07-mn-62330-story.html |access-date=24 July 2020 |agency=Los Angeles Times |work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref>
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 (higher for subgroups). The following is the exit poll data on Proposition 209:<ref>{{cite news |title=State Propositions: A Snapshot of Voters |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-11-07-mn-62330-story.html |access-date=24 July 2020 |agency=Los Angeles Times |work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable sortable"
{| class="wikitable"
|+ ''Los Angeles Times'' Exit Poll
|+ ''Los Angeles Times'' Exit Poll
|-
|-
! Group !! Percent of Sample !! Support !! Oppose
! Demographic subgroup !! Support !! Oppose!! % of
total vote
|-
|-
| All Voters || 100% || 54% || 46%
| All Voters
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''54% '''
|46%
|100%
|-
|-
! colspan="4" |Ideology
| Gender: Male || 47% || 61% || 39%
|-
|-
|Liberal
| Gender: Female || 53% || 48% || 52%
|27%
|style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"|'''73%'''
|21%
|-
|-
|Moderate
| Age: 18-29 || 19% || 50% || 50%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''52%'''
|48%
|47%
|-
|-
|Conservative
| Age: 30-44 || 35% || 51% || 49%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''77%'''
|23%
|32%
|-
|-
! colspan="4" |Party
| Age: 45-64 || 35% || 58% || 42%
|-
|-
|Democratic
| Age: 65+ || 11% || 60% || 40%
|31%
|style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"|'''69%'''
|21%
|-
|-
|Republican
| Race/Ethnicity: White || 74% || 63% || 37%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''80%'''
|20%
|38%
|-
|-
|Independent
| Race/Ethnicity: Black || 7% || 26% || 74%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''59%'''
|41%
|14%
|-
|-
! colspan="4" |Gender
| Race/Ethnicity: Latino || 10% || 24% || 76%
|-
|-
| Male
| Race/Ethnicity: Asian || 5% || 39% || 61%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''61%'''
|39%
|47%
|-
|-
| Female
| Education: High School or Less || 20% || 54% || 46%
|48%
|style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"|'''52%'''
|53%
|-
|-
! colspan="4" |Race
| Education: Some College || 29% || 60% || 40%
|-
|-
|White
| Education: College or More || 27% || 54% || 46%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''63%'''
|37%
|74%
|-
|-
|Black
| Education: Post-Graduate || 24% || 48% || 52%
|26%
|style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"|'''74%'''
|7%
|-
|-
|Latino
| Income: Less than $20,000 || 12% || 41% || 59%
|24%
|style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"|'''76%'''
|10%
|-
|-
|Asian
| Income: $20,000 to $39,999 || 24% || 48% || 52%
|39%
|style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"|'''61%'''
|5%
|-
|-
! colspan="4" |Age
| Income: $40,000 to $59,999 || 23% || 56% || 44%
|-
|-
| 18–29
| Income: $60,000 to $74,999 || 15% || 65% || 35%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''50%'''
|style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"|'''50%'''
|19%
|-
|-
| 30–44
| Income: $75,000+ || 26% || 59% || 41%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''51%'''
|49%
|35%
|-
|-
| 45–64
| Ideology: Liberal || 21% || 27% || 73%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''58%'''
|42%
|35%
|-
|-
| 65+
| Ideology: Moderate || 47% || 52% || 48%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''60%'''
|40%
|11%
|-
|-
! colspan="4" |Family income
| Ideology: Conservative || 32% || 77% || 23%
|-
|-
|Less than $20,000
| Party: Democratic || 21% || 31% || 69%
|41%
|style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"|'''59%'''
|12%
|-
|-
| $20,000 to $39,999
| Party: Republican || 38%|| 80% || 20%
|48%
|style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"|'''52%'''
|24%
|-
|-
| $40,000 to $59,999
| Party: Independent || 14% || 59% || 41%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''56%'''
|44%
|23%
|-
|-
| $60,000 to $74,999
| Religion: Protestant || 49% || 62% || 38%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''65%'''
|35%
|15%
|-
|-
| $75,000+
| Religion: Catholic || 24% || 54% || 46%
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''59%'''
|41%
|26%
|-
|-
! colspan="4" |Education
| Religion: Jewish || 6% || 42% || 58%
|-
| High School or Less
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''54%'''
|46%
|20%
|-
| Some College
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''60%'''
|40%
|29%
|-
| College or More
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''54%'''
|46%
|27%
|-
| Post-Graduate
|48%
|style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"|'''52%'''
|24%
|-
! colspan="4" | Religion
|-
| Protestant
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''62%'''
|38%
|49%
|-
| Catholic
|style="background: rgb(1, 223, 116);"|'''54%'''
|46%
|24%
|-
| Jewish
|42%
|style="background: rgb(233, 107, 103);"|'''58%'''
|6%
|}
|}


== Aftermath ==
==Private sector response==
One response to Proposition 209 was the establishment of the [[IDEAL Scholars Fund]] to provide community and financial support for underrepresented students at the University of California, Berkeley. Private universities and colleges, as well as employers, are not subject to Proposition 209 unless they receive public contracts.


===Legal challenges===
==Public opinion regarding affirmative action==
Proposition 209 has been the subject of many lawsuits in state courts since its passage but has withstood legal scrutiny over the years. On November 27, 1996, U.S. District Court Judge [[Thelton Henderson]] blocked enforcement of the proposition.<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson|court=[[United States District Court for the Northern District of California|N.D. Cal.]]|reporter=F.Supp.|vol=946|opinion=1480|date=1996|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9427952452190215542&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1|access-date=2021-07-31}}</ref> A three-judge panel of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Circuit Court of Appeals]] subsequently overturned that ruling.<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson|court=[[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]]|reporter=F.3d|vol=122|opinion=692|date=1997|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2658730258715710529&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1|access-date=2021-07-31}}</ref>
Public opinion polls on affirmative action have varied significantly. It is likely that survey design and the framing of the survey question itself may have significant effects on the survey results.


On August 2, 2010, in a case brought before the Supreme Court of California by the [[Pacific Legal Foundation]] (PLF) found for the second time that Proposition 209 was constitutional.<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Coral Construction, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco|court=[[Supreme Court of California|Cal.]]|reporter=Cal.4th|vol=50|opinion=315|date=2010-08-02|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14114204470669411023|access-date=2021-07-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Mintz|first=Howard|date=August 2, 2010|title=California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 209 affirmative action ban|work=San Jose Mercury News}}</ref> The ruling, by a 6–1 majority, followed a unanimous affirmation in 2000 of the constitutionality of Prop. 209 by the same court.<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose|court=[[Supreme Court of California|Cal.]]|reporter=Cal.4th|vol=24|opinion=537|date=2000|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17070939689329645259&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47|access-date=2021-07-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Mintz|first=Howard|date=2010-08-02|title=California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 209 affirmative action ban|url=http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_15659364?source=rss|access-date=5 October 2013|work=[[San Jose Mercury News]]}}</ref>
In a survey conducted by Gallup in 2013,<ref>{{cite web|last=Jones|first=Jeffery M.|url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/163655/reject-considering-race-college-admissions.aspx
|title=In U.S., Most Reject Considering Race in College Admissions: Sixty-seven percent say decisions should be based solely on merit|website=Gallup |date= 23 July 2013}}</ref> 67% of U.S. adults believed college admission should be solely based on merit. According to Gallup: "One of the clearest examples of affirmative action in practice is colleges' taking into account a person's racial or ethnic background when deciding which applicants will be admitted. Americans seem reluctant to endorse such a practice, and even blacks, who have historically been helped by such programs, are divided on the matter. Aside from blacks, a majority of all other major subgroups believe colleges should determine admissions solely on merit."


On April 2, 2012, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the latest challenge to Proposition 209. The three-judge panel concluded that it was bound by a 9th Circuit ruling in 1997 upholding the constitutionality of the affirmative action ban. Ninth Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima disagreed in part with the ruling, saying he believes the court "wrongly decided" the issue in 1997.<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown|court=[[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|9th Cir.]]|reporter=F.3d|vol=674|opinion=1128|date=2012|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17037297804491829624&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr|access-date=2021-07-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Mintz|first=Howard|date=April 2, 2012|title=California affirmative action ban challenge rejected|work=San Jose Mercury News}}</ref>
In a national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014, among 3,335 Americans, 63% felt that affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses are a good thing.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/legacy-questionnaires/4-22-14%20Affirmative%20Action%20Topline.pdf
|title= 4-22-14 Affirmative Action Topline|publisher=Pew Research Center|access-date=22 April 2014}}</ref>


===Effect on enrollment, graduation, and income===
In October 2018, APIA Vote and AAPI Data published the results of their 2018 Asian American Voter Survey and found that 66% of Asian Americans favor "affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities get better access to education."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Ramakrishnan |first1=Karthick |title= Infographic 2018 Affirmative Action Favor - AAPI Data |url=https://aapidata.com/infographic-2018-affirmative-action-favor/ |website=AAPIData |publisher=AAPIData |access-date=24 July 2020}}</ref> Previous reports by these organizations have found consistent support for affirmative action by Asian Americans over time, in multiple surveys.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Wong |first1=Janelle |last2=Lee |first2=Jennifer |last3=Tran |first3=Van |title=Asian Americans' Attitudes toward Affirmative Action: Framing Matters |url=http://aapidata.com/blog/aa-attitudes-affirmative-action/ |website=AAPIData |publisher=AAPIData |access-date=24 July 2020}}</ref>
According to UC Office of the President, "Proposition 209 instigated a dramatic change in UC admissions policy, with URG [under represented group] enrollment at the Berkeley and UCLA campuses immediately falling by more than 60 percent and systemwide URG enrollment falling by at least 12 percent."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Blemmer|first1=Zachary|title=UC Affirmative Action|url=https://www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academic-planning/_files/uc-affirmative-action.pdf|access-date=24 August 2020|website=Institutional Research and Academic Planning|publisher=University of California Office of the President}}</ref> The same report concluded that "Prop 209 led URG applicants to cascade out of UC into measurably less-advantageous universities, which combined with declines in degree attainment and STEM persistence to lower each URG applicant's wages by about 5 percent between ages 23 and 35." Another study found that while enrollment of minority students dropped immediately in the wake of Prop 209, the grades and academic achievements of the students in the system rose significantly.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Heriot |first=Gail L. |date=9 May 2018 |title=The Politics of Admissions in California |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3174776 |journal=San Diego Legal Studies Paper|ssrn=3174776 }}</ref>


Based on "University of California Applicants, Admits and New Enrollees by Campus, Race/Ethnicity", prepared by Institutional Research, the University of California Office of the President, August 11, 2011, enrollment percentages of the four major ethnic groups university-wide are:
In February 2019, Gallup published the results of a November and December 2018 survey and found that support for affirmative action programs was growing.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Norman |first1=Jim |title=Americans' Support for Affirmative Action Programs Rises |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/247046/americans-support-affirmative-action-programs-rises.aspx |publisher=Gallup |access-date=24 July 2020}}</ref> They polled 6,502 Americans. Of survey respondents, 65% favored affirmative action programs for women and 61% favored affirmative action programs for minorities.


{| class="wikitable sortable"
Also in February 2019, the Pew Research Center published the results of a January and February 2019 survey and found that 73% of its respondents said that race or ethnicity should not be a factor in college admissions decisions.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/25/most-americans-say-colleges-should-not-consider-race-or-ethnicity-in-admissions/
|+ Ethnic group enrollment percentages in first-year enrollment of University of California (%)<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-01-19 |title=Fall enrollment at a glance |url=https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/about-us/information-center/fall-enrollment-glance |access-date=2024-09-29 |website=University of California |language=en}}</ref>
|title= 2-25-19 Most Americans say colleges should not consider race or ethnicity in admissions|publisher=Pew Research Center|access-date=25 February 2019}}</ref> According to this survey's results, majorities across racial and ethnic groups agree that race should not be a factor in college admissions decisions. White adults are particularly likely to hold this view: 78% say this, compared with 65% of Hispanics, 62% of blacks, and 58% of Asians.
|-
! Ethnic group !! African
American
! Asian !! Latino !! White
(Non-Hispanic)
|-
! 1999
| 2.7 || 29.4 || 10.8 || 41.2
|-
! 2000
| 2.8 || 29.1 || 11.2 || 39.8
|-
! 2001
| 2.7 || 29.5 || 11.8 || 38.7
|-
!2002
| 2.9 || 30.4 || 12.1 || 38.3
|-
!2003
|2.9
|29.8
|12.7
|37.5
|-
!2004
|2.8
|30.8
|12.7
|36.9
|-
!2005
|2.8
|32.1
|13.0
|37.0
|-
!2006
|3.0
|32.6
|13.6
|35.9
|-
!2007
|3.3
|32.2
|14.2
|35.0
|-
!2008
|3.4
|31.6
|15.4
|34.0
|-
!2009
|3.3
|31.6
|15.9
|33.7
|-
!2010
|3.5
|32.4
|17.1
|31.4
|-
!2011
|3.5
|32.0
|18.6
|30.8
|-
!2012
|3.7
|31.7
|18.7
|28.0
|-
!2013
|3.6
|30.1
|19.3
|27.9
|-
!2014
|3.7
|29.7
|19.9
|26.4
|-
!2015
|3.6
|28.9
|19.5
|25.4
|-
!2016
|4.1
|28.5
|21.7
|24.4
|-
!2017
|4.1
|28.5
|21.6
|24.2
|-
!2018
|4.2
|29.2
|21.4
|23.0
|-
!2019
|4.2
|29.6
|21.8
|23.1
|-
!2020
|4.5
|31.7
|22.5
|22.9
|-
!2021
|4.7
|30.2
|22.8
|22.3
|-
!2022
|4.7
|32.6
|23.2
|21.1
|-
!2023
|4.8
|32.5
|24.3
|20.6
|}

African American enrollment rates dropped significantly immediately after the passage of Prop 209.<ref>{{cite news|date=2004-11-22|title=Universities Record Drop In Black Admissions|work=washingtonpost.com|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2830-2004Nov21.html|access-date=2010-09-24}}</ref> Criticism was raised that of the 4,422 students in [[UCLA]]'s freshman class of 2006, only 96 (2.26%) were African American.<ref>{{cite web|title=Daily Bruin|url=http://dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=38750|access-date=2010-09-24|publisher=Dailybruin.ucla.edu}}{{Dead link|date=November 2018|bot=InternetArchiveBot|fix-attempted=yes}}</ref> Despite this, African American enrollment has rebounded and even exceeded its pre-Prop 209 percentages.<ref name=":2" />

The percentage of Latino students admitted to the UC system as of 2007 exceeded the Proposition 209 level, though this is also correlated with an increase in the Latino population in the state of California.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Kaufmann|first=Susan W|date=2007|title=The History and Impact of State Initiatives to Eliminate Affirmative Action|journal=New Directions for Teaching and Learning|volume=2007|issue=111|pages=3–9|doi=10.1002/tl.280|hdl-access=free|hdl=2027.42/57348}}</ref>

Researchers also found that enrollment statistics for Native American students beginning in 1997 through 2006 declined by 38% cumulatively and, unlike other ethnic groups, have not increased since.<ref name=":1" />

A comprehensive, peer-reviewed study by Zachary Bleemer found that Prop 209 has had a negative impact on graduation rates, graduate school attendance, and income for black and Hispanic students.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Carey|first1=Kevin|date=21 August 2020|title=A Detailed Look at the Downside of California's Ban on Affirmative Action|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/21/upshot/00up-affirmative-action-california-study.html|access-date=15 October 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility After California's Proposition 209, by Zachary Bleemer, CSHE 10.20 (August 2020) {{!}} Center for Studies in Higher Education |url=https://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/affirmative-action-mismatch-and-economic-mobility-after-california%E2%80%99s-proposition-209 |access-date=2024-01-17 |website=cshe.berkeley.edu}}</ref>

In 2021, the University of California freshmen class reached an all-time high with 84,223 students. Latinos were the largest group at 37%, followed by Asian Americans at 34%; Non-Hispanic White students at 20%; African Americans at 5%; and 4% were composed of members of other groups, including American Indians, Pacific Islanders or those who declined to state their race or ethnicity.<ref>{{Cite news|first= |last= |authorlink= |title= UC system admits largest, most diverse undergraduate class |newspaper=[[Associated Press]]|date=July 20, 2021 |url= https://apnews.com/article/education-race-and-ethnicity-79f7d0e7eb812ce36538b9e112c38956 |via=|archive-url=| archive-date=}}</ref>

===Private sector response===
One response to Proposition 209 was the establishment of the [[IDEAL Scholars Fund]] to provide community and financial support for underrepresented students at the University of California, Berkeley. Private universities and colleges, as well as employers, are not subject to Proposition 209 unless they receive public contracts.


==See also==
==See also==
* [[2020 California Proposition 16]]
* ''[[Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard]]''
* ''[[Regents of the University of California v. Bakke]]'' (1978)
* ''[[Regents of the University of California v. Bakke]]'' (1978)
* ''[[Grutter v. Bollinger]]'' (2003)
* ''[[Grutter v. Bollinger]]'' (2003)
Line 256: Line 512:


==Scholarship and commentary==
==Scholarship and commentary==
{{refbegin}}
*Heriot, Gail (2001). University of California Admissions under Proposition 209: Unheralded Gains Face an Uncertain Future, NEXUS: A Journal of Opinion 6:163.
* {{cite journal | last=Heriot | first=Gail | date=2001 | title=University of California admissions under Proposition 209: Unheralded gains face an uncertain future | journal=NEXUS: A Journal of Opinion | volume=6 | pages=163ff | url=https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/nex6&section=15 | url-access=subscription}}
*Jamison, Cynthia C. (2004). The Cost of Defiance: Plaintiffs’ Entitlement to Damages Under the California Civil Rights Initiative, Southwestern Univ. Law Review 33:521.
* {{cite journal | last=Jamison | first=Cynthia Cook | date=2004 | title=The cost of defiance: Plaintiffs' entitlement to damages under the California Civil Rights Initiative | journal=Southwestern Univ. Law Review | volume=33 | pages=521ff | url=https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/swulr33&section=31 | url-access=subscription | ssrn=699641 | ssrn-access=free}}
*McCutcheon, Stephen R., Jr., & Travis J. Lindsey (2004). The Last Refuge of Official Discrimination: The Federal Funding Exception to California's Proposition 209, 44 Santa Clara Law Review 457.
* {{cite journal | last1=McCutcheon | first1=Stephen R. Jr. | first2=Travis J. | last2=Lindsey | date=2004 | title=The last refuge of official discrimination: The federal funding exception to California's Proposition 209 | volume=44 | journal=Santa Clara Law Review | pages=457–495 | url=https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1246&context=lawreview | ssrn=643965 | ssrn-access=free}}
*Myers, Caitlin Knowles (2007). A Cure for Discrimination? Affirmative Action and the Case of California's Proposition 209, Industrial & Labor Relations Review 60:379.
* {{cite journal | last=Myers | first=Caitlin Knowles | date=2007 | title=A cure for discrimination? Affirmative action and the case of California's Proposition 209 | journal=Industrial & Labor Relations Review | volume=60 | issue=3 | issn=0019-7939 | doi=10.1177/001979390706000304 | pages=379–396}} Originally published as {{citation | last=Myers | first=Caitlin Knowles | date=2005 | title=A cure for discrimination? Affirmative action and the case of California Proposition 209 | series=IZA Discussion Papers | volume=1674 | publisher=Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) | publication-place=Bonn | hdl=10419/33452 | url=http://repec.iza.org/dp1674.pdf}}
{{refend}}


==External links==
==External links==

Latest revision as of 08:13, 8 November 2024

Proposition 209
November 5, 1996 (1996-11-05)
Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment by State and other Public Entities. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Results
Choice
 Votes %
Yes 5,268,462 54.55%
No 4,388,733 45.45%
Valid votes 9,657,195 94.09%
Invalid or blank votes 606,295 5.91%
Total votes 10,263,490 100.00%
Registered voters/turnout 15,562,075 65.95%
Source: 1996 Statement of Vote
Elections in California
Federal government
U.S. President
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
State government
Executive
Governor
Lieutenant governor
Attorney general
Secretary of state
Treasurer
Controller
Insurance commissioner
Superintendent
Board of equalization
Legislature
Senate
Assembly
Judiciary
Court of appeals
Elections by year
State propositions
1910–1919
1960–1969
1970–1979
1980–1989
1990–1999
2000–2009
2010–2019
2020–2029
Full list
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County
Board of supervisors
Ballot measures
  • 1980
  • 2008
  • 2012
  • 2016
Elections
Los Angeles
Mayor
City attorney
Ballot measures
  • 1986
  • 2017
Elections
Long Beach
Mayor
Orange County
Orange County
Board of supervisors
District attorney
Anaheim
Mayor
Irvine
Mayor
Costa Mesa
Municipal
Sacramento
Mayor
San Diego County
San Diego County
Board of supervisors
San Diego
Mayor
City attorney
City council
San Francisco
Mayor
District attorney
Board of supervisors
Board of education
Ballot measures
  • 2024
Elections
San Jose
Mayor
Other localities
Bakersfield

Mayoral elections:

Fresno

Mayoral elections:

Oakland

Mayoral elections:

Riverside

Mayoral elections:

San Bernardino

Mayoral elections:

Stockton

Mayoral elections:

Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative or CCRI) is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed, thereby banning affirmative action in the state's public sector.

History

[edit]

Context

[edit]

The controversy pertaining to affirmative action in California can most notably be traced back to the historic 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.[1] There were two major decisions from the case that still stand today. Firstly, the quota system that was once used by the University of California, Davis’ admission process for minority students was ruled unlawful. Secondly, higher-level academic institutions were not prohibited from considering race in the admissions process. The ruling determined in Bakke acted as “a catalyst for voluntary affirmative action programs.” [1] Researchers suggest that the development of such programs for the sake of increasing campus diversity explains the controversy surrounding the implementation of Proposition 209 and Bakke marks the origination of affirmative action debates.[1]

Origins

[edit]

The political campaign to place the language of CCRI on the California ballot as a constitutional amendment was initiated by Joe Gelman (president of the Board of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles), Arnold Steinberg (a pollster and political strategist) and Larry Arnn (president of the Claremont Institute). It was later endorsed by Governor Pete Wilson and supported and funded by the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign, led by University of California Regent Ward Connerly, a Wilson ally. A key co-chair of the campaign was law professor Gail Heriot, who served as a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The initiative was opposed by affirmative action advocates and traditional civil rights and feminist organizations on the left side of the political spectrum. Proposition 209 was voted into law on November 5, 1996, with 55 percent of the vote, and has withstood legal scrutiny ever since.

National impact

[edit]

In November 2006, a similar amendment modeled on California's Proposition 209 was passed in Michigan, titled the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. The constitutionality of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was challenged in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, made its way to the United States Supreme Court. On April 22, 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is constitutional, and that states had the right to ban the practice of racial and gender preferences/affirmative action if they chose to do so through the electoral process.

Text

[edit]

The text of Proposition 209 was drafted by Cal State anthropology professor Glynn Custred and California Association of Scholars Executive Director Thomas Wood. Its passage amended the California constitution to include a new section (Section 31 of Article I), which now reads:

(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.[2]

Failed attempts to repeal

[edit]

Senate Bill 185

[edit]

On September 1, 2011, SB 185 passed both chambers of the California State Legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown. SB 185 would have countered Proposition 209 and authorized the University of California and the California State University to consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, to the maximum extent permitted by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution, and relevant case law. SB 185 was strongly supported by the University of California Students Association.

Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5

[edit]

On December 3, 2012, California State Senator Edward Hernandez introduced California Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5 (SCA-5) in the State Senate. This initiative proposed an amendment to the state constitution to remove provisions of California Proposition 209 related to public post-secondary education, to permit state universities to consider applicants' race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admission decisions. If passed by both the State Senate and State Assembly, SCA-5 would have been presented to California voters in the November 2014 election. SCA-5 was passed by the California State Senate on January 30, 2014. On February 24, 2014, Gene D. Block, chancellor of UCLA, sent an open letter to all students and faculty expressing his strong opposition to Proposition 209.[3] Following resistance from various citizen groups, including Asian American groups, Senator Hernandez withdrew his measure from consideration.[4]

Proposition 16

[edit]

On January 18, 2019, Assemblymembers Shirley Weber, Mike Gipson, and Miguel Santiago introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5 (ACA 5)[5] ACA 5 was a proposed constitutional amendment that would have repealed the provisions enacted by Proposition 209. In June 2020, the California State Legislature passed ACA 5 with more than a two-thirds vote in each house, allowing the proposal to become a qualified ballot measure and later Proposition 16. Proposition 16 was rejected by 57.23% of voters in the November 2020 election, meaning that Prop 209 remains in the California Constitution.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7

[edit]

In 2023, Assemblymember Corey Jackson introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7 (ACA 7).[6][7] The amendment's author decided to let the proposal die, in part due to the fear that "... voters wouldn’t pass the measure..."[8]

Support

[edit]

Supporters of Proposition 209 contended that existing affirmative action programs led public employers and universities to reject applicants based on their race, and that Proposition 209 would "restore and reconfirm the historic intention of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."[9] The basic and simple premise of Proposition 209 is that every individual has a right, and that right is not to be discriminated against, or granted a preference, based on their race or gender. Since the number of available positions are limited, discriminating against or giving unearned preference to a person based solely, or even partially on race or gender deprives qualified applicants of all races an equal opportunity to succeed. It also pits one group against another and perpetuates social tension.[10]

Individuals in support
Organizations in support

Opposition

[edit]

Opponents of Proposition 209 argued that it would end affirmative action practices of tutoring, mentoring, outreach and recruitment of women and minorities in California universities and businesses and would gut state and local protections against discrimination.[13] After passage of Proposition 209, some students protested at universities including UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Santa Cruz, and San Francisco State University.[14]

Individuals in opposition
Organizations in opposition [15]

Results

[edit]
Proposition 209
Choice Votes %
Referendum passed Yes 5,268,462 54.55
No 4,388,733 45.45
Valid votes 9,657,195 94.11
Invalid or blank votes 604,444 5.89
Total votes 10,261,639 100.00
Registered voters/turnout 15,662,075 65.53
Source: November 5, 1996, Complete General Election Statement of Vote

Voter demographics

[edit]

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 (higher for subgroups). The following is the exit poll data on Proposition 209:[16]

Los Angeles Times Exit Poll
Demographic subgroup Support Oppose % of

total vote

All Voters 54% 46% 100%
Ideology
Liberal 27% 73% 21%
Moderate 52% 48% 47%
Conservative 77% 23% 32%
Party
Democratic 31% 69% 21%
Republican 80% 20% 38%
Independent 59% 41% 14%
Gender
Male 61% 39% 47%
Female 48% 52% 53%
Race
White 63% 37% 74%
Black 26% 74% 7%
Latino 24% 76% 10%
Asian 39% 61% 5%
Age
18–29 50% 50% 19%
30–44 51% 49% 35%
45–64 58% 42% 35%
65+ 60% 40% 11%
Family income
Less than $20,000 41% 59% 12%
$20,000 to $39,999 48% 52% 24%
$40,000 to $59,999 56% 44% 23%
$60,000 to $74,999 65% 35% 15%
$75,000+ 59% 41% 26%
Education
High School or Less 54% 46% 20%
Some College 60% 40% 29%
College or More 54% 46% 27%
Post-Graduate 48% 52% 24%
Religion
Protestant 62% 38% 49%
Catholic 54% 46% 24%
Jewish 42% 58% 6%

Aftermath

[edit]
[edit]

Proposition 209 has been the subject of many lawsuits in state courts since its passage but has withstood legal scrutiny over the years. On November 27, 1996, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson blocked enforcement of the proposition.[17] A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently overturned that ruling.[18]

On August 2, 2010, in a case brought before the Supreme Court of California by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) found for the second time that Proposition 209 was constitutional.[19][20] The ruling, by a 6–1 majority, followed a unanimous affirmation in 2000 of the constitutionality of Prop. 209 by the same court.[21][22]

On April 2, 2012, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the latest challenge to Proposition 209. The three-judge panel concluded that it was bound by a 9th Circuit ruling in 1997 upholding the constitutionality of the affirmative action ban. Ninth Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima disagreed in part with the ruling, saying he believes the court "wrongly decided" the issue in 1997.[23][24]

Effect on enrollment, graduation, and income

[edit]

According to UC Office of the President, "Proposition 209 instigated a dramatic change in UC admissions policy, with URG [under represented group] enrollment at the Berkeley and UCLA campuses immediately falling by more than 60 percent and systemwide URG enrollment falling by at least 12 percent."[25] The same report concluded that "Prop 209 led URG applicants to cascade out of UC into measurably less-advantageous universities, which combined with declines in degree attainment and STEM persistence to lower each URG applicant's wages by about 5 percent between ages 23 and 35." Another study found that while enrollment of minority students dropped immediately in the wake of Prop 209, the grades and academic achievements of the students in the system rose significantly.[26]

Based on "University of California Applicants, Admits and New Enrollees by Campus, Race/Ethnicity", prepared by Institutional Research, the University of California Office of the President, August 11, 2011, enrollment percentages of the four major ethnic groups university-wide are:

Ethnic group enrollment percentages in first-year enrollment of University of California (%)[27]
Ethnic group African

American

Asian Latino White

(Non-Hispanic)

1999 2.7 29.4 10.8 41.2
2000 2.8 29.1 11.2 39.8
2001 2.7 29.5 11.8 38.7
2002 2.9 30.4 12.1 38.3
2003 2.9 29.8 12.7 37.5
2004 2.8 30.8 12.7 36.9
2005 2.8 32.1 13.0 37.0
2006 3.0 32.6 13.6 35.9
2007 3.3 32.2 14.2 35.0
2008 3.4 31.6 15.4 34.0
2009 3.3 31.6 15.9 33.7
2010 3.5 32.4 17.1 31.4
2011 3.5 32.0 18.6 30.8
2012 3.7 31.7 18.7 28.0
2013 3.6 30.1 19.3 27.9
2014 3.7 29.7 19.9 26.4
2015 3.6 28.9 19.5 25.4
2016 4.1 28.5 21.7 24.4
2017 4.1 28.5 21.6 24.2
2018 4.2 29.2 21.4 23.0
2019 4.2 29.6 21.8 23.1
2020 4.5 31.7 22.5 22.9
2021 4.7 30.2 22.8 22.3
2022 4.7 32.6 23.2 21.1
2023 4.8 32.5 24.3 20.6

African American enrollment rates dropped significantly immediately after the passage of Prop 209.[28] Criticism was raised that of the 4,422 students in UCLA's freshman class of 2006, only 96 (2.26%) were African American.[29] Despite this, African American enrollment has rebounded and even exceeded its pre-Prop 209 percentages.[10]

The percentage of Latino students admitted to the UC system as of 2007 exceeded the Proposition 209 level, though this is also correlated with an increase in the Latino population in the state of California.[30]

Researchers also found that enrollment statistics for Native American students beginning in 1997 through 2006 declined by 38% cumulatively and, unlike other ethnic groups, have not increased since.[30]

A comprehensive, peer-reviewed study by Zachary Bleemer found that Prop 209 has had a negative impact on graduation rates, graduate school attendance, and income for black and Hispanic students.[31][32]

In 2021, the University of California freshmen class reached an all-time high with 84,223 students. Latinos were the largest group at 37%, followed by Asian Americans at 34%; Non-Hispanic White students at 20%; African Americans at 5%; and 4% were composed of members of other groups, including American Indians, Pacific Islanders or those who declined to state their race or ethnicity.[33]

Private sector response

[edit]

One response to Proposition 209 was the establishment of the IDEAL Scholars Fund to provide community and financial support for underrepresented students at the University of California, Berkeley. Private universities and colleges, as well as employers, are not subject to Proposition 209 unless they receive public contracts.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c Nelson, Patricia M (2001). Affirmative Action Revisited (UK ed.). Nova Science Pub Inc. ISBN 978-1560729587.
  2. ^ "Text of Proposition 209". ca.gov. Archived from the original on 10 December 1997. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
  3. ^ "The Impact of Proposition 209 and our Duty to our Students - UCLA Chancellor". ucla.edu. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
  4. ^ Huang, Josie. "In California, A Vocal Minority of Asian Parents Helped Defeat Affirmative Action Once Before. This Time It Could Be Harder". Southern California Public Radio. LAist. Archived from the original on 25 June 2020. Retrieved 24 July 2020.
  5. ^ "ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 5(January 18, 2019)".
  6. ^ Zinshteyn, Mikhail (2023-06-21). "California voters may again vote on whether to bring back affirmative action, but in limited form". CalMatters. Retrieved 2024-01-17.
  7. ^ "Bill Text - ACA-7 Government preferences: programs: exceptions". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Retrieved 2024-01-17.
  8. ^ Network, CALmatters (2024-06-26). "Affirmative action proposal off ballot, to return in future election". The Sacramento Observer. Retrieved 2024-10-08.
  9. ^ "Argument in Favor of Proposition 209". ca.gov. Archived from the original on 22 November 2005. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
  10. ^ a b Arcidiacono, Peter; Aucejo, Esteban; Coate, Patrick; Hotz, V. Joseph (2014-09-15). "Affirmative action and university fit: evidence from Proposition 209". IZA Journal of Labor Economics. 3 (1): 7. doi:10.1186/2193-8997-3-7. hdl:10419/152333. ISSN 2193-8997.
  11. ^ Lempinen, Edward (24 October 1996). "King Ad for Prop. 209 on Hold / State GOP halts TV campaign after protests erupts". San Francisco Chronicle. SFGate. Retrieved 24 July 2020.
  12. ^ McKinley, Jesse (2009-04-23). "Attorney General Challenges Anti-Bias Law in California". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-05-29.
  13. ^ "Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 209". California Secretary of State. Archived from the original on February 19, 2006.
  14. ^ "Students Protest Proposition 209". United Press International, November 7, 1996.
  15. ^ "Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment by State and Other Public Entities. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Official Title and Summary prepared by the Attorney General". Ballot Pamphlet. California Secretary of State. Retrieved 24 July 2020.
  16. ^ "State Propositions: A Snapshot of Voters". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 24 July 2020.
  17. ^ Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 946 F.Supp. 1480 (N.D. Cal. 1996).
  18. ^ Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1997).
  19. ^ Coral Construction, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 50 Cal.4th 315 (Cal. 2010-08-02).
  20. ^ Mintz, Howard (August 2, 2010). "California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 209 affirmative action ban". San Jose Mercury News.
  21. ^ Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose, 24 Cal.4th 537 (Cal. 2000).
  22. ^ Mintz, Howard (2010-08-02). "California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 209 affirmative action ban". San Jose Mercury News. Retrieved 5 October 2013.
  23. ^ Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown, 674 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2012).
  24. ^ Mintz, Howard (April 2, 2012). "California affirmative action ban challenge rejected". San Jose Mercury News.
  25. ^ Blemmer, Zachary. "UC Affirmative Action" (PDF). Institutional Research and Academic Planning. University of California Office of the President. Retrieved 24 August 2020.
  26. ^ Heriot, Gail L. (9 May 2018). "The Politics of Admissions in California". San Diego Legal Studies Paper. SSRN 3174776.
  27. ^ "Fall enrollment at a glance". University of California. 2024-01-19. Retrieved 2024-09-29.
  28. ^ "Universities Record Drop In Black Admissions". washingtonpost.com. 2004-11-22. Retrieved 2010-09-24.
  29. ^ "Daily Bruin". Dailybruin.ucla.edu. Retrieved 2010-09-24.[permanent dead link‍]
  30. ^ a b Kaufmann, Susan W (2007). "The History and Impact of State Initiatives to Eliminate Affirmative Action". New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 2007 (111): 3–9. doi:10.1002/tl.280. hdl:2027.42/57348.
  31. ^ Carey, Kevin (21 August 2020). "A Detailed Look at the Downside of California's Ban on Affirmative Action". The New York Times. Retrieved 15 October 2020.
  32. ^ "Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility After California's Proposition 209, by Zachary Bleemer, CSHE 10.20 (August 2020) | Center for Studies in Higher Education". cshe.berkeley.edu. Retrieved 2024-01-17.
  33. ^ "UC system admits largest, most diverse undergraduate class". Associated Press. July 20, 2021.

Scholarship and commentary

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=1996_California_Proposition_209&oldid=1256115101"