eco
HaoyangDeng
Ballotpedia_Prop16.pdf
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 1/27
California Proposition
16
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Af�rmative action
Status Defeated
Type
Constitutional
amendment
Origin
State
legislature
List of California measures
Submit
California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action
Amendment (2020) California Proposition 16, the Repeal Proposition 209 Af�rmative Action Amendment, was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. Proposition 16 was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.
A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment, thereby keeping Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.
Election results
California Proposition 16
Result Votes Percentage
Yes 7,042,077 42.85%
No 9,390,914 57.15%
SUBSCRIBE DONATE
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 2/27
Precincts reporting: 100%
Election results are unof�cial until certi�ed. These results were last updated on November 17, 2020 at 11:05:36 AM
Eastern Time.
Source
Reactions The following is a list of reactions to the defeat of Proposition 16:
Vincent Pan, executive director of Chinese for Af�rmative Action, said, "Both in
California and across the country, we’re not witnessing a repudiation of Trumpism that
we’d like to see. There’s a lot of work to do to help enlist more folks who are
championing the promotion of policies that really �x structural racism."
University of California Regents Chair John Perez said, "The failure of Proposition 16
means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and
California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue
addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity."
Roger Clegg, board member of the Center for Equal Opportunity, stated, "So we have
our most populous, and very blue, state rejecting by a decisive vote — apparently a
greater margin than the 1996 vote — a measure that would reinstate politically correct
discrimination, a.k.a. 'af�rmative action.' Not only that, but the extremely diverse people
of California did so in the year of the 'woke' and they did so despite the fact that the
proposition’s supporters vastly outspent its opponents and had overwhelming support
from all the usual establishment suspects."
Yukong Zhao, president of the Asian American Coalition for Education, said, "Going
forward, I’d like to warn liberal politicians in California and nationwide: focus your
efforts on devising effective measures to improve K-12 education for Black and
Hispanic children, instead of introducing racially divisive and discriminatory laws time
and again. You have failed in California in 2014, as well as Washington State and New
York City in 2019."
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote, "This rejection of identity politics in one
of America’s bluest and most diverse states should echo around America, not least at
the U.S. Supreme Court. ... And as welcome as it will be for Californians to keep their
state of�cially colorblind, it may also help with two big cases about the use of race in
college admissions that could end up at the Supreme Court."
Overview
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 3/27
What was Proposition 16?
See also: Changes to the California Constitution
Proposition 16 was a constitutional amendment that would have repealed Proposition 209, passed in 1996, from the California Constitution. Proposition 209 stated that discrimination and preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public contracting on account of a person's or group's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of af�rmative action involving race-based or sex- based preferences in California.
Without Proposition 209, the state government, local governments, public universities, and other political subdivisions and public entities would—within the limits of federal law—be allowed to develop and use af�rmative action programs that grant preferences based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.
What do discrimination and preferential treatment mean within the context of Proposition 209?
In Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose (2000), the California Supreme Court held that, within the context of Proposition 209:
discrimination means "to make distinctions in treatment; show partiality (in favor of ) or
prejudice (against)" and
preferential means "a giving of priority or advantage to one person ... over others."
There was disagreement about the signi�cance of Proposition 209 including language to prohibit discrimination. Assembly Judiciary Committee counsel Thomas Clark said, "The measure's language prohibiting 'discrimination' was largely super�uous, given that state and federal law, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, already prohibit such discrimination. What was new about Proposition 209, therefore, was the prohibition on 'preferential treatment.'" Wenyuan Wu, executive director of the campaign opposed to Proposition 16, responded, "If the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution could suf�ciently render anti-discrimination laws at the state level super�uous, then there would have been no need to establish or keep laws such as Article I Section 7 of the State Constitution which explicitly reaf�rms the U.S. Constitution’s principle of equal protection of the laws and equal opportunity, the California State Education Code (EDC), Article 3 Section 220, or Donahoe Higher Education Act, Article 2 Section 66010.2 (C). Or one could argue these aforementioned laws could render one another 'super�uous'?"
From Proposition 209 to Proposition 16
See also: Background of Proposition 16
Proposition 209 received 54.55 percent of the vote at the election on November 5, 1996, making California the �rst state to adopt a constitutional ban on race-based and sex-based af�rmative action.
[6]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 4/27
Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, led the campaign behind Proposition 209. "Af�rmative action was meant to be temporary," wrote Connerly, "It was meant to be a stronger dose of equal opportunity for individuals, and the prescription was intended to expire when the body politic had developed suf�cient immunity to the virus of prejudice and discrimination." He added, "Three decades later, af�rmative action is permanent and �rmly entrenched as a matter of public policy. ... not because of any moral imperative but because it has become the battleground for a political and economic war that has racial self- interest as its centerpiece." In 1997, Connerly founded the American Civil Rights Institute, which supported ballot initiatives modeled on Proposition 209 in Washington, Michigan, Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, and Oklahoma.
In 2020, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) introduced the legislation that would become Proposition 16, stating that "the ongoing [coronavirus] pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police violence, is forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still matter." She also said, "This is probably an opportune time given people’s interest in politics and given the kind of turnout that is anticipated — and given the fact that this is a different generation, that it may be possible for us to begin to work to reverse Prop. 209." Connerly, responding to the proposal to repeal Proposition 209, said, "I believe we would win by a landslide once we let people know what af�rmative action is really about."
What types of af�rmative action would have been allowed?
See also: U.S. Supreme Court on af�rmative action laws, policies, and programs
Proposition 16 would have removed the ban on af�rmative action involving race-based or sex- based preferences from the California Constitution. Therefore, federal case law would have de�ned the parameters of af�rmative action. The U.S. Supreme Court held that race-based af�rmative action in higher education and government contracting must be reviewed under strict scrutiny. In the U.S., strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that requires a law, policy, or program to serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to address that interest. Courts had ruled that strict racial quotas and racial point systems in higher education admissions are unconstitutional but that individualized, holistic reviews that consider race, when tailored to serve a compelling interest (such as educational diversity), are constitutional.
Text of measure
Ballot title The ballot title was as follows:
“ Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. ”
Ballot summary
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 5/27
The ballot summary was as follows:
“ Permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin to address diversity by repealing article I, section
31, of the California Constitution, which was added by Proposition 209 in
1996.
Proposition 209 generally prohibits state and local governments from
discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, individuals or
groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the
operation of public employment, education, or contracting.
Does not alter other state and federal laws guaranteeing equal protection and
prohibiting unlawful discrimination. ”
Fiscal impact statement The �scal impact statement was as follows:
“ No direct �scal effect on state and local entities because the measure does
not require any change to current policies or programs.
Possible �scal effects would depend on future choices by state and local
entities to implement policies or programs that consider race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, and public
contracting. These �scal effects are high uncertain. ”
Constitutional changes
See also: Article I, California Constitution
The measure would have repealed Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following struck-through text would have been repealed:
Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.
[15]
[16]
[15]
[16]
[6]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 6/27
Readability score
See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas,
Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability
scores are designed to indicate the reading dif�culty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas
account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the
dif�culty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this
measure.
The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 18, and the FRE is -21. The word count for the ballot title is 15, and the estimated reading time is 4 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 22, and the FRE is -9. The word count for the ballot summary is 85, and the estimated reading time is 22 seconds.
Support
The Opportunity for All Coalition, also known as Yes on Prop 16, led the campaign in support of Proposition 16. In the California State Legislature, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) was the lead sponsor of the constitutional amendment. Chairpersons of Yes on 16 include Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society; Vincent Pan, co-executive director of Chinese for Af�rmative Action; and Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Supporters
(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 �de quali�cations 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
[17]
[18][19][20][21][22]
[23]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 7/27
The campaign provided a list of endorsements, which is available here .
Of�cials U.S. Senator Dianne
Feinstein (D)
U.S. Senator Kamala D.
Harris (D)
Vermont U.S. Senator
Bernie Sanders
(Independent)
U.S. Representative
Nanette Barragán (D)
U.S. Representative Karen
Bass (D)
U.S. Representative Ami
Bera (D)
U.S. Representative Julia
Brownley (D)
U.S. Representative TJ Cox
(D)
U.S. Representative Mark
DeSaulnier (D)
U.S. Representative Anna
Eshoo (D)
U.S. Representative Jimmy
Gomez (D)
U.S. Representative Jared
Huffman (D)
U.S. Representative Ro
Khanna (D)
U.S. Representative
Barbara Lee (D)
U.S. Representative Ted
Lieu (D)
U.S. Representative Alan
Lowenthal (D)
U.S. Representative Doris
Matsui (D)
U.S. Representative Jerry
McNerney (D)
U.S. Representative Grace
Napolitano (D)
Speaker of the U.S. House
Nancy Pelosi (D)
U.S. Representative Katie
Porter (D)
U.S. Representative Lucille
Roybal-Allard (D)
U.S. Representative Raul
Ruiz (D)
U.S. Representative Brad
Sherman (D)
U.S. Representative Jackie
Speier (D)
U.S. Representative Eric
Swalwell (D)
U.S. Representative Linda
Sánchez (D)
U.S. Representative Mark
Takano (D)
U.S. Representative Juan
Vargas (D)
U.S. Representative
Maxine Waters (D)
Governor Gavin Newsom
(D)
State Senator Steven
Bradford (D)
State Senator Richard Pan
(D)
State Senator Scott
Wiener (D)
Assemblymember Lorena
Gonzalez Fletcher (D)
Assemblymember Miguel
Santiago (D)
Assemblymember Shirley
Weber (D)
Assemblymember Buffy
Wicks (D)
San Diego Mayor Kevin
Faulconer (Nonpartisan)
Long Beach Mayor Robert
Garcia (Nonpartisan)
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 8/27
Former Of�cials Former U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D)
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former U.S. Representative Mike Honda (D)
Former State Senate President Kevin de León (D)
Political Parties California Democratic Party
Government Entities University of California Board of Regents
Los Angeles County Board of Education
San Jose City Council
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Individuals Dolores Huerta - Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers
Bernice King - President of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social
Change
Tom Steyer (D) - Founder of NextGen America
Unions AFSCME California
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California Nurses Association
California Teachers Association
National Nurses United
SEIU California State Council
Corporations
San Jose Mayor Sam
Liccardo (Nonpartisan)
San Francisco Mayor
London Breed
(Nonpartisan)
Los Angeles Mayor Eric
Garcetti (D)
Oakland Mayor Libby
Schaaf
Stockton Mayor Michael
Tubbs (Nonpartisan)
Lieutenant Governor Eleni
Kounalakis (D)
Secretary of State Alex
Padilla (D)
State Superintendent of
Public Instruction Tony
Thurmond (Nonpartisan)
State Controller Betty Yee
(D)
AirBnB
Blue Shield of California
Golden State Warriors
Instacart
Kaiser Permanente
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 9/27
Organizations
Arguments
State Sen. Steven Bradford (D-35): "I know about discrimination. I live it every day. We
live it in this building. Quit lying to yourselves and saying race is not a factor... the
bedrock of who we are in this country is based on race."
U.S. Rep. Karen Bass (D-37): "Proposition 209, deceptively titled the California Civil
Rights Initiative, passed by referendum in 1996 amidst an orchestrated campaign of
dog-whistle politics attacking all attempts to level the playing �eld for women and
people of color. Before Prop 209, those efforts at advancing equity had made real
progress. But the Wall Street-backed authors of the initiative saw a threat to their
economic stranglehold from an increasingly diverse and highly educated population in
California; a population better situated to compete in jobs, education, government
contracts and other areas of the state’s economy. In passing Prop 209, those groups
limited competition in their industries and bene�ted their own businesses by erecting
new institutional barriers burdening the ability of California’s women and people of
color achieve positions of economic and business leadership."
University of California President Janet Napolitano: "It makes little sense to exclude
any consideration of race in admissions when the aim of the University’s holistic
process is to fully understand and evaluate each applicant through multiple
Lyft
Oakland Athletics
PG&E Corporation
San Francisco 49ers
San Francisco Giants
Uber
United Airlines
Wells Fargo
ACLU of California
ACLU of Northern California
ACLU of Southern California
Alliance of Californians for Community
Empowerment
American Beverage Association
Anti-Defamation League
Asian Paci�c Islander Legislative Caucus
California Asian Chamber of Commerce
California Black Chamber of Commerce
California Charter Schools Association
California Hispanic Chambers of
Commerce
California NAACP State Conference
California State Association of Counties
California State Student Association
Center for American Progress
Center for American Progress
Chinese for Af�rmative Action
Democracy for America
Environmental Defense Fund
Equality California
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
National Organization for Women
Natural Resources Defense Council
NextGen California
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 10/27
dimensions. Proposition 209 has forced California public institutions to try to address
racial inequality without factoring in race, even where allowed by federal law. The
diversity of our university and higher education institutions across California, should —
and must — represent the rich diversity of our state."
Varsha Sarveshwar, president of the University of California Student Association:
"Today, colleges can consider whether you’re from the suburbs, a city or a rural area.
They can consider what high school you went to. They can consider your family’s
economic background. They can look at virtually everything about you – but not race. It
makes no sense – and is unfair – that schools can’t consider something that is so core
to our lived experience. Repealing Prop. 209 will not create quotas or caps. These are
illegal under a Supreme Court decision and would remain so."
Otto Lee, former mayor of Sunnyvale, California, and founder of the Intellectual
Property Law Group LLP: "With President Trump’s latest proclamations of Chinese
virus, or “Kung Flu,” many Asian Americans recently have experienced racial
discrimination and have been told to “Go back to China.” As a Chinese American, I
recognize the urgent need for us to build bridges with all people of color, as
discrimination against one is discrimination against all. We must stand tall together to
call out these unacceptable behaviors and not allow ACA 5 to become a wedge that
divides us."
Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79): Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79), the principal sponsor of the
constitutional amendment and chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus, stated the
following:
"Californians have built the �fth largest and strongest economy in the world,
but too many hardworking Californians are not sharing in our state’s
prosperity—particularly women, families of color, and low-wage workers.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 will help improve all of our daily lives
by repealing Proposition 209 and eliminating discrimination in state contracts,
hiring and education. [ACA 5] is about equal opportunity for all and investment
in our communities."
"We have all survived and endured Proposition 209, and it has not been a
luxury. It has been a hard journey. And it has caused a lot of losses."
"Since Proposition 209’s passage, California has become one of only eight
states that do not allow race or gender to be among the many factors
considered in hiring, allotting state contracts or accepting students into the
state’s public colleges and universities."
"As we look around the world, we see there is an urgent cry — an urgent cry for
change. After 25 years of quantitative and qualitative data, we see that race-
neutral solutions cannot �x problems steeped in race."
"The ongoing pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police violence, is
forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 11/27
reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still
matter."
Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society: "People of color are treated
differently. One way that people can act on their desire to eliminate systemic racism is
to vote for Proposition 16. It gives people of color, and women, more power, more
money. If you have more money you have more access, more clout in the political
system."
Of�cial arguments
The following is the argument in support of Proposition 16 found in the Of�cial Voter Information Guide:
Opposition
Californians for Equal Rights, also known as No on 16, led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 16. Ward Connerly, who was chairperson of the campaign behind California Proposition 209 (1996), was chairperson of Californians for Equal Rights.
Opponents The campaign provided a full list of coalition members and endorsements on its website, which is available here .
Of�cials State Senator Ling Ling Chang (R)
State Senator Melissa Melendez (R)
Former Of�cials Former U.S. Representative Tom Campbell (R)
Former Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff (R)
Of�cial Voter Information Guide: YES on Prop. 16 means EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair
wages, good jobs, and quality schools. Despite living in the most diverse state in
the nation, white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power
in California. Although women, and especially women of color, are on the front
lines of the COVID-19 response, they are not rewarded for their sacri�ces.
Women should have the same chance of success as men. Today, nearly all public
contracts, and the jobs that go with them, go to large companies run by older
white men. White women make 80¢ on the dollar. The wage disparity is even
worse for women of color and single moms As a result an elite few are able to
[24]
[25]
[26]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 12/27
Former U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R)
Political Parties Republican Party of California
Individuals Ward Connerly - Chairperson of the campaign behind California Proposition 209 (1996)
Organizations American Civil Rights Institute
American Freedom Alliance
Association for Education Fairness
Chinese American Civic Action Alliance
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.
Arguments
Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington,
D.C.: "Because it is much cheaper to provide racial preferences to upper middle class
Latino and African American students than it is to do the hard work of recruiting
economically disadvantaged and working-class Latino and African American students,
I fear that many of these progressive reforms could be diluted if 209 is repealed."
Former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R): "Nevertheless, if more spaces are to be made for
the under-represented, they must come from the over-represented. Asian Americans
are 15.3 percent of Californians, yet 39.72 percent of UC enrollees. Those numbers are
why bringing this issue forward now would inevitably divide Californians racially: Latino
Americans and African Americans on one side, Asian Americans on the other. The
politics are inescapably racial."
Wenyuan Wu, director of administration for the Asian American Coalition for
Education: "Built on partial evidence and shallow prescriptions for an unrealistic utopia,
ACA-5 is in essence divisive and discriminatory. Its overarching goal to undo
Proposition 209, a bill that won the popular vote in 1996 and has withstood legal
scrutiny over time, is misguided in that ACA-5 proposes instant but wrong solutions to
persistent social ills."
Wen Fa, an attorney with the Paci�c Legal Foundation: "We’re de�nitely going to take
a hard look at that and see whether it complies with the 14th Amendment, or whether
it violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law. Racial preferences are
wrong, no matter who they bene�t."
Asm. Steven S. Choi (R-68): "Is it right to give someone a job just because they are
white, or black or green or yellow? Or just because they are male? Repealing
Proposition 209, enacted by voters 24 years ago, is to repeal the prohibition of
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 13/27
judgment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin. We are talking about
legalizing racism and sexism."
Sen. Ling Ling Chang (R-29): "I have experienced racial discrimination so I know what
that’s like. But the answer to racial discrimination is not more discrimination which is
what this bill proposes. The answer is to strengthen our institutions by improving our
education system so all students have access to a quality education, and give
opportunities to those who are economically disadvantaged. ACA 5 legalizes racial
discrimination and that’s wrong."
John Fund, national-affairs reporter for the National Review: "Liberals in California’s
one-party state are on an ideological crusade to continue a racial spoils system forever.
They should realize how much of the country disagrees with them and how the politics
of the issue could once again surprise them and blow up in their face."
Michelle Steel, chairwoman of the Orange County Board of Supervisors: "The
Californians who voted to pass Prop. 209 knew that discrimination, though long
entrenched in our society, is against the fundamental values of American culture. Prop.
209 applied to California the essence of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a nation
where individuals would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of
their character."
Former Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff (R): "California is the most diverse state in
the nation and must step up to the challenges that brings. The real solution for racial
equality is comprehensive public-school reform in our K-12 system, not government
sanctioned discrimination to create more losers than winners as Proposition 16 will
do."
Ward Connerly, chairperson of the campaign behind Proposition 209: "The
fundamental nature of our nation is that we are a collection of free people who have
rights given to us by our Creator. Liberty and equality are precious rights deemed
essential to our pursuit of that which ful�lls our objective of happiness. More than just
for the pursuit of happiness, however, equality is essential to the maintenance of a civil
society. This is especially so in a state now identi�ed as a “majority minority” state. ... I
ask you all to vote No on Proposition 16, which would delete that commitment to
equality from the California Constitution."
Haibo Huang, co-founder of San Diego Asian Americans for Equality: "Race is a
forbidden classi�cation for good reason, because it demeans the dignity and worth of a
person to be judged by ancestry instead of his or her own merit and essential qualities.
Racial preference is not transformed from patently unconstitutional into a compelling
state interest simply by relabeling it racial diversity. ... Judging people by their skin color
is morally repugnant. Equal opportunity is referenced to individual merits, it never
guarantees equal results. To the contrary, enforcing equal outcome regardless of
quali�cation and effort bears the hallmark of communism."
Former U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R), who served as the co-chairperson of the campaign
behind Proposition 209: "You can support af�rmative action by looking for legitimate
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 14/27
outreach on other issues, people who have just come to the United States and would
have been at a disadvantage in their education, people who are economically at a
different level. There’s nothing in our constitution that prohibits outreach, but the fact
is Proposition 209 has worked, the minority graduation rate has risen under this and I
support the continuation of our constitution."
Betty Chu, a co-chair of Californians for Equal Rights: "In my lifetime, I have seen
Asian Americans prevail against racism to be treated as fully American, as equal
citizens, employees and leaders. This has occurred in large part because racism itself
has become unacceptable in America. What a triumph! ... This response minimizes the
concerns of Asian Americans about a measure that will allow the state to put them at a
disadvantage solely on the basis of their race. Those of us who believe that people
should be treated as individuals, not merely as members of groups or tokens, know
Prop. 16 only sows division and is plain wrong. Yet, such racial animus is today implicitly
endorsed by the supporters of Prop. 16: a whole slew of corporate interests, politically
connected high-bid contractors who wish to win government contracts based on race
and a biased media that refuses to cover a potential amendment to the California
Constitution fairly."
Of�cial arguments
The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 16 found in the Of�cial Voter Information Guide:
Campaign �nance
The campaign �nance information on this page re�ects the most recently scheduled
reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through October 17, 2020. The deadline
for the next scheduled reports is February 1, 2021.
Of�cial Voter Information Guide: The California Legislature wants you to strike
these precious words from our state Constitution: "The state shall not
discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group,
on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting." Don’t do it! Vote NO.
Those words—adopted by California voters in 1996 as Proposition 209—should
remain �rmly in place. Only by treating everyone equally can a state as brilliantly
diverse as California be fair to everyone. REPEAL WOULD BE A STEP
BACKWARD Discrimination of this kind is poisonous. It will divide us at a time we
desperately need to unite Politicians want to give preferential treatment to their
[27]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 15/27
See also: Campaign �nance requirements for California ballot measures
The Opportunity for All Coalition was organized as a political action committee (PAC) to support Proposition 16. The campaign had raised $20.39 million. M. Quinn Delaney was the largest donor, contributing $5.5 million.
Californians for Equal Rights and Parents and Students for Racial Equality were organized to oppose Proposition 16. Together, the committees had raised $1.49 million, including $50,000 from Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Support $19,182,536.84 $1,204,417.91 $20,386,954.75 $17,841,327.69 $19,045,745.60
Oppose $1,494,542.17 $0.00 $1,494,542.17 $1,250,148.79 $1,250,148.79
Support The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative.
Committees in support of Proposition 16
Committee Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Yes on 16,
Opportunity
for All
Coalition
$15,186,003.09 $1,150,382.54 $16,336,385.63 $15,326,118.11 $16,476,500.65
Educators for
Equity, Yes on
15 and 16,
Sponsored by
California
Teachers
Association
$3,500,000.00 $0.00 $3,500,000.00 $2,309,490.50 $2,309,490.50
Alex Padilla
Ballot
Measure
Committee for
Democracy
and Justice -
Yes on
Propositions
16, 17, and 18
$369,533.75 $0.00 $369,533.75 $130,576.68 $130,576.68
[28]
[28]
[28]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 16/27
Yes on Prop.
16, California
Businesses
and Working
Families for
Fair
Opportunities
$127,000.00 $54,035.37 $181,035.37 $75,142.40 $129,177.77
Total $19,182,536.84 $1,204,417.91 $20,386,954.75 $17,841,327.69 $19,045,745.60
Donors
The following were the top �ve donors who contributed to the support committee.
Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
M. Quinn Delaney $5,500,000.00 $0.00 $5,500,000.00
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
Inc. $1,500,000.00 $0.00 $1,500,000.00
Patty Quillin $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00
California Teachers
Association / Issues PAC $550,000.00 $3,409.00 $553,409.00
American Civil Liberties Union $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Blue Shield of California $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Connie Ballmer $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Steve Ballmer $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Opposition The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.
Committees in opposition to Proposition 16
Committee Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Californians
for Equal
Rights
$1,470,559.33 $0.00 $1,470,559.33 $1,230,858.54 $1,230,858.54
Parents and
Students for
Racial Equality,
No on Prop 16
$23,982.84 $0.00 $23,982.84 $19,290.25 $19,290.25
Total $1,494,542.17 $0.00 $1,494,542.17 $1,250,148.79 $1,250,148.79
Donors
The following was the top donor who contributed to the opposition committee.
Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
[28]
[28]
[28]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 17/27
Students for Fair Admissions,
Inc. $50,000.00 $0.00 $50,000.00
Gail Heriot $49,999.00 $0.00 $49,999.00
Frank Xu $15,040.00 $0.00 $15,040.00
John Grassi $15,000.00 $0.00 $15,000.00
Manuel Klausner $10,030.00 $0.00 $10,030.00
Media editorials
Support The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "Nearly a quarter of a century ago, California
voters passed the deceptively named California Civil Rights Initiative. But Proposition
209 was not about advancing civil rights. It was about prohibiting the consideration of
race and gender in public education, employment and contracting. ... It was just about
shutting the door on efforts to overcome those institutional barriers to the full
participation of women and minorities. It was wrong in 1996, when it was passed by
55% of California voters, and it is wrong now. It should be repealed."
Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "The events of this year have
highlighted the level of racial injustice that exists across the nation, including California.
The disparity between Black and Latino residents and their White counterparts is
readily apparent when it comes to income, health, education and the criminal justice
system. Reducing those disparities will require a major effort on multiple fronts.
Proposition 16 would give the state’s universities and government a valuable tool they
need to �ght existing structural inequalities."
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "The death of George Floyd, yet another unarmed
Black man killed by police, and the COVID-19 pandemic‘s disproportionate toll on Black
and Latino Americans have been a wake-up call for this country. We must act to
dismantle the racism baked into our institutions, and voting yes on Proposition 16 on
Nov. 3 will help. ... If we want to live in a country that better re�ects our national
narrative of equal opportunity, we have to build it. That means using the right tools,
such as af�rmative action. Vote yes on Proposition 16."
The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "Though Proposition 16 only addresses elimination of
Proposition 209’s constitutional language, which speci�cally addresses state and local
public agency conduct, greater efforts to bring underrepresented people into all ranks
and levels in the already highly diverse civil workplace and government contracting
universe can only help to greater diversify and strengthen the ranks of the private
sector. Giving those previously disadvantaged — due in large part to life circumstances
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 18/27
often strongly determined by their race or gender — “a leg onto the ladder” in the
public education and civil sector world will help them transition to other “ladders,” if
they choose, in the private sector."
San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "We can safely remove barriers to inequality
and increase diversity and opportunity."
San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "It is hard to think of an initiative that �ts the
moment better than Proposition 16. [...] So if California joined the 42 other states
allowing communities of color to have preferences in college admissions, government
hiring and the awarding of contracts — where women- and minority-owned businesses
are generally on shakier ground �nancially and struggle to compete — that would be
constructive and positive. Proposition 16 is needed. Now. But if it passes, The San
Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board hopes that all the lawmakers — and all the voters
— who supported it monitor its impact on Asian American students — and heed the
same arguments for its adoption when considering education reform. We recommend
a yes vote on Proposition 16."
The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "The Press Democrat opposed Proposition 209,
the 1996 initiative that banned af�rmative action in California, arguing that
'discrimination is a continuing reality in our society.' We hope that one day that’s no
longer true. For now, it still is. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on
Proposition 16."
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "This country has been forced to reckon with
the devastating effects of systemic racism in the wake of the senseless killing of
George Floyd by Minneapolis police. The killing of Breonna Taylor by Louisville police
created yet another national moment that forced us to reckon with how this country
mistreats and disregards people of color. Af�rmative action, along with other policies
speci�cally designed to address the legacy of systemic racism, can help to reconcile
our long history of injustice. California, as the nation’s most diverse state, should be
leading the nation in these efforts. Our state policies should re�ect a deep
commitment to addressing systemic racism and ensuring that our institutions re�ect
our communities."
Opposition The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: "Now it’s up to the voters. Last November
voters in Washington state narrowly defeated a similar amendment, though opponents
were vastly outspent by those favoring racial preferences. California is a more liberal
state and its political class and nearly all media will support repeal. But judging
individuals by the color of their skin is antithetical to equal justice under the law. Let’s
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 19/27
hope Californians hold on to this American principle of equality that goes back to the
Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment, and the civil-rights movement."
The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "With or without Prop. 209, we can
count on public institutions continuing to re�ect the diversity of the state and
continuing to provide opportunities to Californians of all backgrounds. California can
continue to build on its reputation as a wonderfully diverse state without government
judging people based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Ultimately, we
don’t think the case has been made for scrapping Prop. 209 and the fundamental
principle of treating all people on equal terms."
The Bakers�eld Californian Editorial Board: "There are better ways to achieve desired
educational and economic diversity than af�rmative action. ... Innovative minority
recruitment strategies are a more effective way to increase diversity on university
campuses, in public workforces and in public contracting. Vote NO on Prop. 16."
ACA 5 The following media editorial boards took positions on whether ACA 5 should be placed on the ballot in 2020:
Los Angeles Times: "We wish race didn’t matter in hiring and college admissions. We
wish that everyone had an equal opportunity to access quality education and achieve
economic prosperity. But they didn’t in 1996 and still don’t in 2020. Race and gender
are still automatic disadvantages that are dif�cult to overcome. Helping to shrink the
opportunity gap with a tiny leg up doesn’t give them an unfair advantage over those
born already ahead, just a slightly better chance than they have now. That’s not
discrimination. That’s justice. And it’s time Californians had another debate about how
to achieve it."
The Sacramento Bee: "In 1996, Prop. 209 passed with nearly 55 percent support from
California voters. That year, Republicans seized on af�rmative action as a wedge issue
to in�ame racial division and drive voter turnout in an effort to unseat incumbent
President Bill Clinton. Masquerading behind civil rights language, it abolished a key tool
for addressing systemic discrimination people of color and women. Then-Gov. Pete
Wilson endorsed it, as did Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole. The California
State Legislature should strongly support ACA 5 and let the people decide in
November."
Polls
See also: 2020 ballot measure polls
[29]
[30]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 20/27
[hide]California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Af�rmative Action Amendment
(2020)
Poll Support Oppose Undecided Margin of error Sample size
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely
voters)
10/16/2020 - 10/21/2020
38.0% 49.0% 13.0% +/-2.0 5,352
David Binder Research
(likely voters)
10/17/2020 - 10/19/2020
45.0% 45.0% 10.0% +/-4.0 600
PPIC Statewide Survey
(likely voters)
10/9/2020 - 10/18/2020
37.0% 50.% 12.0% +/-4.3 1,185
SurveyUSA (likely voters)
9/26/2020 - 9/28/2020 40.0% 26.0% 34.0% +/-5.4 588
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely
voters)
9/9/2020 - 9/15/2020
33.0% 41.0% 26.0% +/-2.0 5,942
PPIC (likely voters)
9/4/2020 - 9/13/2020 31.0% 47.0% 22.0% +/-4.3 1,168
AVERAGES 37.33% 43% 19.5% +/-3.67 2,472.5
Note: The polls above may not re�ect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a
random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the
table, send an email to [email protected].
Background
Measures
California Proposition 209 (1996)
See also: California Proposition 209, Af�rmative Action Initiative (1996)
California Proposition 209 was approved at the presidential election on November 5, 1996, receiving 54.55 percent of the vote. Proposition 209 added Section 31 to the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which read, "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."[31]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 21/27
Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, also known as Yes on Proposition 209, led the campaign in support of Proposition 209. Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, was chairperson of the campaign. Yes on Proposition 209 had the support of the California Republican Party, Gov. Pete Wilson (R), and U.S. Sen. Bob Dole (R- Kansas), who was the Republican presidential nominee in the 1996 election.
The Campaign to Defeat 209 had the backing of incumbent President Bill Clinton (D), the California Democratic Party, and the California Teachers Association.
In 1996, California was a divided government. Pete Wilson, a Republican, was the state's governor. Republicans controlled the California State Assembly. Democrats controlled the California State Senate.
California Proposition 54 (2003)
See also: California Proposition 54, Prohibit State Classi�cation Based on Race in Education,
Employment, and Contracting Initiative (October 2003)
In 2003, voters rejected Proposition 54, which would have prohibited the state from classifying prospective students, contractors, or employees based on race, ethnicity, color, or national origin in public education, contracting, or employment.
Ward Connerly, who chaired the campaign behind Proposition 209, was the chief proponent of Proposition 54. He said, "My motivation is to present the nation, by way of California, with a different option for the kind of nation that it’s going to become." Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, responded to Proposition 54, saying, "We’d all like to live in a society where race doesn’t matter. But this initiative... will not end racial discrimination in this state. It will only hide it."
States
See also: Af�rmative action on the ballot
Between 1996 and 2020, voters had decided ballot measures to prohibit the use of af�rmative 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 af�rmative action as of 2020.
With Proposition 209, California became the �rst state to enact a formal ban on racial preferences, according to the Pew Research Center.
In 1997, Ward Connerly, who chaired the campaign behind Proposition 209, founded the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI). ACRI supported successful ballot measures in Washington (1998) and Michigan (2006). In 2008, ACRI launched a campaign called the Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, which supported ballot initiatives in Colorado and Nebraska. In Colorado, the ballot measure was rejected.
In Arizona (2010) and Oklahoma (2012), their respective state legislatures placed constitutional amendments related to af�rmative action on the ballot. Both of the constitutional amendments were approved.
State Measure Year Percent
“Yes”
Percent
“No” Status
[32]
[33]
[32][33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41][42] [43]
[44][45]
[46][47]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 22/27
State Measure Year Percent
“Yes”
Percent
“No” Status
California Proposition
209 1996 54.55% 45.45% Approved
Washington Initiative 200 1998 58.22% 41.78% Approved
Michigan Proposal 2 2006 57.92% 42.08% Approved
Colorado Initiative 46 2008 49.19% 50.81% Defeated
Nebraska Measure 424 2008 57.56% 42.44% Approved
Arizona Proposition
107 2010 59.51% 40.49% Approved
Oklahoma Question 759 2012 59.19% 40.81% Approved
Washington Referendum 88 (2019)
See also: Washington Referendum 88, Vote on I-1000 Af�rmative Action Measure (2019)
Voters in Washington rejected a ballot measure, titled Referendum 88, on November 5, 2019. "Yes" received 49.44 percent of the vote. "No" received 50.56 percent of the vote. Referendum 88 would have amended Initiative 200, approved in 1998, to allow af�rmative action policies that do not utilize quotas or constitute preferential treatment.
Initiative 200 prohibited the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. Initiative 200 did not de�ne preferential treatment. Referendum 88 would have de�ned preferential treatment as actions that use race, sex, or other speci�ed identities as the "sole qualifying factor to select a lesser quali�ed candidate over a more quali�ed candidate for a public education, public employment, or public contracting opportunity."
Campaigns surrounding Referendum 88 raised a combined $3.41 million. Committees that supported a "Yes" vote on Referendum 88 raised $361,815 more than opponents.
U.S. Supreme Court
See also: Af�rmative action and anti-discrimination lawsuits
Cases related to af�rmative action in higher education
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): The U.S. Supreme Court held
that race was a legitimate factor in college admissions, but that the racial quota system
of the UC Davis School of Medicine, which reserved 16 of 100 places for quali�ed
minorities, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan's Of�ce of Undergraduate
Admissions (OUA) used a 150-point scale to rank undergraduate applicants, with 100
points needed to guarantee admission. Factors that were assigned points included high
school grades, test scores, curriculum strength, alumni relationships, and others.
Applicants received 20 points for being from an underrepresented racial or ethnic
group (de�ned as African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans). The U.S.
[48]
[48]
[49]
[50][51]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 23/27
Supreme Court held that the OUA's assignment of points for underrepresented group
status did not meet the individual consideration requirement established in Regents of
the University of California v. Bakke.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan Law School, like the OUA,
considered the race of applicants in making admissions decisions. However, the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld the law school's use of race in admissions. Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion, stated that the law school employed a "highly
individualized, holistic review of each applicant's �le." Justice O'Connor also stated that
the law school had a compelling state interest in considering race: "In order to cultivate
a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path
to leadership be visibly open to talented and quali�ed individuals of every race and
ethnicity."
Fisher v. University of Texas (2016): The University of Texas (UT) admitted each in-
state student who graduated in the top 10 percent of their graduating senior class.
Students who did not graduate in the top 10 percent of their class were evaluated for
admissions based on a holistic, full-�le review, according to UT. One factor that was
considered is an applicant's race. In 2013, the case �rst went before the U.S. Supreme
Court, which remanded the case for further consideration back to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In 2015, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which upheld UT's use of race in considering applicants for admissions. Justice
Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority's opinion, stated that the use of race served a
compelling interest ("educational bene�ts that �ow from student body diversity") and
was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Cases related to af�rmative action in employment and contracting
United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979): Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp, as part of a
collective agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, implemented an
af�rmative action program within their training program; half the positions in the
program were reserved for black workers until the percentage of black workers in the
plant corresponded with the percentage of black workers in the local labor force. The
U.S. Supreme Court upheld the program as within the scope of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Justice William Brennan, writing the court's opinion, stated, "We
need not today de�ne in detail the line of demarcation between permissible and
impermissible af�rmative action plans. It suf�ces to hold that the challenged Kaiser-
USWA af�rmative action plan falls on the permissible side of the line. The purposes of
the plan mirror those of the statute. Both were designed to break down old patterns of
racial segregation and hierarchy. Both were structured to "open employment
opportunities for Negroes in occupations which have been traditionally closed to
them."
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986): In the 1980s, the contract between the
school board of Jackson, Michigan, and the teachers' union aimed to (a) protect
teachers with the most seniority from layoffs and (b) require that the percentage of
laid-off teachers who were minorities be no greater than the percentage of teachers
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 24/27
who were minorities under the contract. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the board
could not terminate non-minorities' employment for the purpose of protecting
minorities' employment. According to Justice Lewis Powell, there was a difference
between preferential treatment in hiring and preferential treatment in layoffs: "While
hiring goals impose a diffuse burden, often foreclosing only one of several
opportunities, layoffs impose the entire burden of achieving racial equality on particular
individuals, often resulting in serious disruption of their lives. That burden is too
intrusive."
United States v. Paradise (1987): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of one-black-
for-one-white promotional quotas for the Alabama Department of Public Safety (DPS).
In the 1970s, the Alabama DPS was required to use promotional quotas until at least 25
percent of the department's upper ranks were Black persons. According to the U.S.
District Court, which mandated the promotional quotas, their purpose was to address
the "Department's pervasive, systematic, and obstinate discriminatory exclusion of
blacks." Justice William Brennan, writing the supreme court's opinion, stated, "The one-
for-one requirement did not impose an unacceptable burden on innocent third parties.
... Nor has the court imposed an "absolute bar" to white advancement. ... Accordingly,
the one-for-one promotion requirement imposed in this case does not
disproportionately harm the interests, or unnecessarily trammel the rights, of innocent
individuals."
City of Richmond v. Croson (1989): In Richmond, Virginia, construction contractors
were required to subcontract 30 percent of their business to Minority Business
Enterprises. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the subcontractor requirement violated
the Equal Protection Clause and that race-based action by state and local governments
required strict scrutiny. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion,
stated that Richmond's justi�cation ("past societal discrimination") for the
subcontractor requirement could not "serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences."
Richmond, according to Justice O'Connor, had not linked the subcontractor
requirement to an identi�ed speci�c discrimination nor tailored the requirement to the
relevant labor pool (quali�ed MBE subcontractors).
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995): Adarand Constructors, Inc. submitted the
lowest bid as a subcontractor for a highway project funded by the United States
Department of Transportation. Gonzales Construction Company, a different
subcontractor, submitted a higher bid but received the contract. Gonzales Construction
was certi�ed as a disadvantaged business by the Small Business Administration, which
meant that the prime contracting company would receive additional compensation for
hiring Gonzales Construction. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court
of Appeals. Justice O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion, concluded that strict
scrutiny applied to federal racial classi�cations: "All racial classi�cations, imposed by
whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing
court under strict scrutiny."
[56][51]
[57][51]
[58][59]
[60][61]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 25/27
Ricci v. DeStefano (2009): The New Haven Fire Department required civil service
examinations to �ll managerial positions. In 2003, 118 �re�ghters took the
examinations; based on the results, 19 candidates, who were white or Hispanic, could
be considered for the managerial positions. The New Haven Civil Service Board,
considering the disparate impact the results would have on employment, discarded the
exams. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against New Haven. According to Justice
Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the court's opinion, an employer cannot engage in
intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) to avoid a disparate impact unless
there is a strong basis in evidence that the employer would be subject to disparate
impact liability. New Haven failed to demonstrate a strong basis in evidence, according
to Justice Kennedy, since the exams were job-related and consistent with business
necessity and there was no evidence that an "equally valid, less-discriminatory
alternative" was available.
Path to the ballot
See also: Amending the California Constitution
In California, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
The constitutional amendment was introduced into the California State Legislature as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (ACA 5) on January 18, 2019. On June 10, 2020, the California State Assembly voted 60 to 14 to pass ACA 5. As one seat was vacant in the Assembly, 53 votes were needed to pass ACA 5. On June 24, 2020, the California State Senate voted 30 to 10 to pass ACA 5. At least 27 votes were needed in the Senate. With approval in the Assembly and Senate, ACA 5 was placed on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020.
[62][63]
[6]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 26/27
[show]
2020 ballot
measures
Af�rmative action
on the ballot
2020 legislative
sessions
California ballot
measures
California ballot
measure laws
Af�rmative action
Ballot measure
lawsuits
Ballot measure
readability
Ballot measure
polls
Vote in the California State Assembly
June 10, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all
members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 53
Yes No
Not
voting
Total 60 14 5
Total percent 75.95% 17.72% 6.33%
Democrat 58 0 3
Republican 1 14 2
Independent 1 0 0
Vote in the California State Senate
June 24, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all
members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27
Yes No
Not
voting
Total 30 10 0
Total percent 75.00% 25.00% 0.00%
Democrat 29 0 0
Republican 1 10 0
How to cast a vote
See also: Voting in California
Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identi�cation requirements, and poll times in California.
How to cast a vote in California
See also
2020 measures California News and analysis
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) - Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 27/27
Ballotpedia features 318,845 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued
expansion.
External links
Information
California Assembly Concurrent Resolution 5 (2020)
Of�cial Voter Information Guide
Support
Opportunity for All Coalition - Yes on Prop 16
Opportunity for All Coalition - Yes on Prop 16 Facebook
Opportunity for All Coalition - Yes on Prop 16 Twitter
Opposition
California for Equal Rights - No on 16
California for Equal Rights - No on 16 Facebook
California for Equal Rights - No on 16 Twitter
Footnotes
Only the �rst few references on this page are shown above. Click to show more.
1. San Francisco Chronicle, "Prop. 16: Why California voters refused to lift af�rmative
action ban," November 4, 2020
2. Ed Source, "Unclear ballot language, lack of time to connect with voters explain
af�rmative action loss, backers say," November 5, 2020
3. National Review, "Good News from California Indeed," November 4, 2020
4. Insider Higher Ed, "Why Did Prop 16 Fail?" November 9, 2020
5. Wall Street Journal, "Racial Thunder Out of California," November 4, 2020
