California Proposition 209, Affirmative Action Initiative (1996)

California Proposition 209
Election date November 5, 1996
Topic Affirmative action
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 209, the Affirmative Action Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 5, 1996. Proposition 209 was approved.

A "yes" vote supported adding Section 31 to the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which said that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting.

A "no" vote opposed adding Section 31 to the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which said that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting.

Proposition 209 added Section 31 to the California Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which said that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences in California.

Aftermath

Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose (2000)

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."

California Proposition 16 (2020)

See also: California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020)

At the election on November 3, 2020, voters decided Proposition 16. It was rejected. If it had been approved, it would have repealed Proposition 209.

Election results

California Proposition 209
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		5,268,462	54.55%
No		4,388,733	45.45%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Analyses

Los Angeles Times exit poll

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:

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

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential. Treatment by State and Other Public Entities. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

Prohibits the state, local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, and schools, and other government instrumentalities from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, public education, or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Does not prohibit reasonably necessary, bona fide qualifications based on sex and actions necessary for receipt of federal funds. Mandates enforcement to extent permitted by federal law. Requires uniform remedies for violations. Provides for severability of provisions if invalid.

”

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

The measure could affect state and local programs that currently cost well in excess of $125 million annually. Actual savings to the state and local governments would depend on various factors (such as future court decisions and implementation actions by government entities).

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, California Constitution

The ballot measure added Section 31 to Article I of the California Constitution. The following text was added:

SEC. 31. (a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(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.

Support

Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, also known as Yes on Proposition 209, led the campaign in support of Proposition 209. Proponents referred to Proposition 209 as the California Civil Rights Initiative. Glynn Custred and Thomas Wood co-authored the ballot initiative. Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, was chairperson of the campaign. Darrell Issa served as a co-chairperson of the campaign.

Supporters

• Gov. Pete Wilson (R)
• Former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas), candidate for president in 1996

Arguments

The following is the official argument in support of Proposition 209 that appeared in the state's voter guide. Gov. Pete Wilson (R), Ward Connerly (California Civil Rights Initiative), and Pamela Lewis (California Civil Rights Initiative) signed the argument.

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

“ THE RIGHT THING TO DO! A generation ago, we did it right. We passed civil rights laws to prohibit discrimination. But special interests hijacked the civil rights movement. Instead of equality, governments imposed quotas, preferences, and set-asides. Proposition 209 is called the California Civil Rights Initiative because it restates the historic Civil Rights Act and proclaims simply and clearly: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." "REVERSE DISCRIMINATION" BASED ON RACE OR GENDER IS PLAIN WRONG! And two wrongs don't make a right! Today, students are being rejected from public universities because of their RACE. Job applicants are turned away because their RACE does not meet some "goal" or "timetable." Contracts are awarded to high bidders because they are of the preferred RACE. That's just plain wrong and unjust. Government should not discriminate. It must not give a job, a university admission, or a contract based on race or sex. Government must judge all people equally, without discrimination! And, remember, Proposition 209 keeps in place all federal and state protections against discrimination! BRING US TOGETHER! Government cannot work against discrimination if government itself discriminates. Proposition 209 will stop the terrible programs which are dividing our people and tearing us apart. People naturally feel resentment when the less qualified are preferred. We are all Americans. It's time to bring us together under a single standard of equal treatment under the law. STOP THE GIVEAWAYS! Discrimination is costly in other ways. Government agencies throughout California spend millions of your tax dollars for costly bureaucracies to administer racial and gender discrimination that masquerade as "affirmative action." They waste much more of your money awarding high-bid contracts and sweetheart deals based not on the low bid, but on unfair set-asides and preferences. This money could be used for police and fire protection, better education and other programs--for everyone. THE BETTER CHOICE: HELP ONLY THOSE WHO NEED HELP! We are individuals! Not every white person is advantaged. And not every "minority" is disadvantaged. Real "affirmative action" originally meant no discrimination and sought to provide opportunity. That's why Proposition 209 prohibits discrimination and preferences and allows any program that does not discriminate, or prefer, because of race or sex, to continue. The only honest and effective way to address inequality of opportunity is by making sure that all California children are provided with the tools to compete in our society. And then let them succeed on a fair, color-blind, race-blind, gender-blind basis. Let's not perpetuate the myth that "minorities" and women cannot compete without special preferences. Let's instead move forward by returning to the fundamentals of our democracy: individual achievement, equal opportunity and zero tolerance for discrimination against--or for--any individual. Vote for FAIRNESS . . . not favoritism! Reject preferences by voting YES on Proposition 209. ”

Committees

The following were political committees that received cash contributions to support Proposition 209:

• Yes on Proposition 209, Sponsored by Californians Against Discrimination: $5,239,287

• California Civil Rights Initiative - Kern County Campaign: $745

Donors

The following individuals and entities were listed as contributing $100,000 or more to the committees supporting Proposition 209:

• California Republican Party: $997,034

• Fieldstead & Co.: $350,000

• California Construction Advancement Program: $100,000

• Cypress Semiconductor: $100,000

• Richard M. Scaife: $100,000

• John W. Uhlmann: $100,000

• Windway Capital Corp.: $100,000

Opposition

The Campaign to Defeat 209 and No on 209 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 209.

Opponents

Officials

• President Bill Clinton (D)

Arguments

The following is the official argument against Proposition 209 that appeared in the state's voter guide. Fran Packard (League of Women Voters), Rosa Parks, and Maxine Blackwell (Congress of California Seniors) signed the argument.

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

“ HARMS EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN AND MINORITIES California law currently allows tutoring, mentoring, outreach, recruitment, and counseling to help ensure equal opportunity for women and minorities. Proposition 209 will eliminate affirmative action programs like these that help achieve equal opportunity for women and minorities in public employment, education and contracting. Instead of reforming affirmative action to make it fair for everyone, Proposition 209 makes the current problems worse. PROPOSITION 209 GOES TOO FAR The initiative's language is so broad and misleading that it eliminates equal opportunity programs including: tutoring and mentoring for minority and women students; affirmative action that encourages the hiring and promotion of qualified women and minorities; outreach and recruitment programs to encourage applicants for government jobs and contracts; and programs designed to encourage girls to study and pursue careers in math and science. The independent, non-partisan California Legislative Analyst gave the following report on the effects of Proposition 209: "[T]he measure would eliminate a variety of public school (kindergarten through grade 12) and community college programs such as counseling, tutoring, student financial aid, and financial aid to selected school districts, where these programs are targeted based on race, sex, ethnicity or national origin." [Opinion Letter to the Attorney General, 10/15/95]. PROPOSITION 209 CREATES A LOOPHOLE THAT ALLOWS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN Currently, California women have one of the strongest state constitutional protections against sex discrimination in the country. Now it is difficult for state and local government to discriminate against women in public employment, education, and the awarding of state contracts because of their gender. Proposition 209's loophole will undo this vital state constitutional protection. PROPOSITION 209 LOOPHOLE PERMITS STATE GOVERNMENT TO DENY WOMEN OPPORTUNITIES IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, AND CONTRACTING, SOLELY BASED ON THEIR GENDER. PROPOSITION 209 CREATES MORE DIVISION IN OUR COMMUNITIES It is time to put an end to politicians trying to divide our communities for their own political gain. "The initiative is a misguided effort that takes California down the road of division. Whether intentional or not, it pits communities against communities and individuals against each other." -- Reverend Kathy Cooper-Ledesma, President, California Council of Churches. GENERAL COLIN POWELL'S POSITION ON PROPOSITION 209: "Efforts such as the California Civil Rights Initiative which poses as an equal opportunities initiative, but which puts at risk every outreach program, sets back the gains made by women and puts the brakes on expanding opportunities for people in need." -- Retired General Colin Powell, 5/25/96. GENERAL COLIN POWELL IS RIGHT. VOTE NO" ON PROPOSITION 209-- EQUAL OPPORTUNITY MATTERS ”

Committees

The following were political committees that received cash contributions to oppose Proposition 209:

• Campaign to Defeat 209: $2,180,491

• No on 209: $1,131,941

• Stop Prop 209: $934,632

• Californians for Justice: $364,352

• Campaign for Equal Opportunity: $161,342

• Greater South LA Affirmative Action Project – No on Proposition 209: $113,555

• Californians for Equality: $105,526

• Supporters of Educational Equality and Diversity (SEED), A Committee to Oppose Prop. 209: $51,854

• Asian Pacific Americans for Affirmative Action of Sacramento: $18,017

• South Bay Coalition for Affirmative Action: $13,493

• Sacramento Civil Rights Network P.A.C.: $10,545

• Asian Pacific Americans for Affirmative Action of Southern California Committee Against Proposition 209: $10,449

• No on California Civil Rights Initiative, Santa Barbara Coalition: $8,519

• Angry White Guys for Affirmative Action: $4,982

• San Joaquin Valley No on CCRI – No on 209: $4,390

• Albany Coalition Against Proposition 209: $2,345

• Inland Empire Affirmative Action Coalition: $1,904

• Human Rights Coalition - No on C.C.R.I.: $1,864

• Californian’s for Equal Opportunity: $170

Donors

The following individuals and entities were listed as contributing $100,000 or more to the committees opposing Proposition 209:

• California Teachers Association Issue PAC: $584,273

• Democratic State Central Committee of CA: $275,169

• Lorraine Sheinberg: $216,159

• Feminist Majority Foundation: $184,997

• Peg Yorkin: $160,000

• California State Council of Service Employees (PAC and Issues Account)

• EMILY's List: $120,000

• Democratic National Committee: $100,000

Background

Between 1996 and 2020, voters had decided ballot measures to prohibit the use of affirmative action involving race-based and sex-based preferences in seven states. Six of the ballot measures were approved. In Florida, Idaho, and New Hampshire, legislation or executive orders banned or limited race-based affirmative action as of 2020.

With Proposition 209, California became the first 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 affirmative action on the ballot. Both of the constitutional amendments were approved.

State	Measure	Year	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”	Status
California	Proposition 209	1996	54.55%	45.45%	a Approved
Washington	Initiative 200	1998	58.22%	41.78%	a Approved
Michigan	Proposal 2	2006	57.92%	42.08%	a Approved
Colorado	Initiative 46	2008	49.19%	50.81%	d Defeated
Nebraska	Measure 424	2008	57.56%	42.44%	a Approved
Arizona	Proposition 107	2010	59.51%	40.49%	a Approved
Oklahoma	Question 759	2012	59.19%	40.81%	a Approved

Path to the ballot

Laws governing the initiative process in California

Proposition 209 was proposed as an initiated constitutional amendment. In California, initiated constitutional amendment requires a number of signatures equal to 8 percent of the votes cast for governor in the previous election. Proponents needed to collect 693,230 valid signatures for Proposition 209 to appear on the ballot. On April 16, 1996, Secretary of State Bill Jones (R) announced that at least 770,484 of the submitted signatures were valid.

See also

• California 1996 ballot propositions
• 1996 ballot measures
• List of California ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in California

External links

• Text of Proposition 209 (1996)
• California 1996 General Election Voter Guide