In recent years, California lawmakers have been continuously trying to overturn an anti-discrimination state constitution, and this year is no exception. Civil organizations are reminding all Californians that there is less than three weeks left to block the equity proposal based on racial factors and advocating for racial preferences in the state Senate.
The literal understanding of “equality” may lead some people to misunderstand it as everyone having equal rights, but in reality, “equality” and “equal for all” are two opposite concepts.
Taking the case of racial discrimination in admissions at prestigious universities like Harvard as an example, on June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court ruled that Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s “racial equity admissions policies” violate the constitution. Colleges and universities can no longer use race-based “affirmative action” as a clear factor in admissions.
California’s current state constitution is similar. In 1996, California passed the “Proposition 209 Constitutional Amendment,” which explicitly states that in government employment, public schools, government contract bidding, etc., individuals or groups cannot be discriminated against or given preferential treatment based on race, gender, color, ethnicity, national origin. This constitutional amendment also eliminated the quota system.
Under the protection of Proposition 209, everyone has equal legal rights. However, some Democratic lawmakers in California have been pushing various proposals and referendums to abolish this amendment, including the SCA5 Amendment introduced in 2014, the Proposition 16 referendum during the 2020 election, and the current ACA7 Amendment in progress.
The ACA7 Amendment, titled “Government Preferences: Interventions or Programs: Exceptions,” was approved by the California Assembly on September 12 last year.
The proposal advocates for the government to provide funding to support specific cultural projects based on research or research findings in any industry, as long as these projects are intended to improve the life expectancy, education, and poverty alleviation of “specific groups,” with the definition of “specific groups” based on “race, color, ethnicity, national origin, marginalized gender (non-binary gender), and sexual orientation.”
Supporters argue that ACA7 aims to bring positive changes and improvements to those disproportionately affected by systemic racism and discrimination.
Frank Xu, Chairman of the California Fair Equality Alliance (CFER), explained in a previous interview that the ACA7 proposal is essentially a replica of the SCA5 amendment and Proposition 16, but using obscure wording to add an “exemption” to the current state constitution. In other words, with the governor’s approval, having an “exemption” allows people to bypass the existing constitutional constraints and discriminate based on race, color, etc.
The grassroots organization “NO on ACA7” is reminding the public that the ACA7 proposal is currently awaiting review in the Senate, and California’s legislature must make a decision by June 27th on whether to include the ACA7 proposal on the ballot for the November 5th California election. “Since the California Democratic Party has not endorsed this proposal, we still have hope of preventing government discrimination from being placed on the ballot, but we cannot relax until all this is done.”
Saga Conroy, a member of the organization’s Board of Directors, stated that preventing the proposal from entering the ballot is currently the most effective method. The urgent task is to let the lawmakers know within less than a month why the public opposes the implementation of the ACA7 proposal and the discrimination and inequality it may cause.
“Please take a few minutes to send emails to California senators to support us, tell them the reasons you oppose ACA7, and urge them to vote against it,” Conroy added. The “NO on ACA7” official website already has a complete list of email recipients and sample email content for the public to reference. (www.noonaca7.org/oppose-aca7)