NEWS COVERAGE:  Page 1 of 2
The Calif. Supreme Court unanimously rules against race and gender preferences.

State Justices Deal New Setback to Affirmative Action (12/01/00)

Excerpted from the LA Times:   "Ruling on Prop. 209, judges ban restricting job recruitment to firms owned by women or minorities."

SAN FRANCISCO -- "In a decision that threatens hundreds of affirmative action programs statewide, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that government agencies can no longer limit recruitment efforts to women and minorities.

          "The ruling was the court's first on the scope of Proposition 209, the 1996 initiative that banned racial and gender preferences by government agencies. The justices struck down a San Jose program that required contractors to show that they tried to recruit female- and minority-owned subcontracting firms.

          "The sweeping decision may affect a wide range of government programs, from contracting to student transfer policies in school districts. Lawyers for the University of California were studying the ruling Thursday and were not immediately sure whether it would affect UC's outreach efforts.

          "Some recruitment programs, however, are likely to survive because they are not limited to minorities and women, legal analysts said. Among the survivors could be a contracting effort by the city of Los Angeles, several legal experts said.

          "It is a very, very broad ruling," said Sharon Browne, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, a conservative group that brought the court case.  "It is going to impact every program in state government that employs race or sex."

          Minority groups are predicting that cities and counties will now shy away from all affirmative action programs, including legal race-neutral programs.  Preferences advocates have stated their fear that California's equitable ruling in favor of race-neutral programs will spread to other states.

          "California Supreme Court Justice [Janice] Brown wrote "With the approval of Proposition 209, the electorate chose to reassert the principle of equality of individual opportunity as a constitutional imperative."

          Justice Janice Rogers Brown is the first black woman on the state Supreme Court, and pro-quota groups had expected her to defend racial quotas and preferences -- which she resoundingly did not.  Brown was appointed to the Court by former Gov. Pete Wilson who was one of the sponsors of the original Proposition 209 ballot initiative.

          "At issue in the case was a San Jose program adopted after the passage of Proposition 209. The program required contractors to recruit a certain number of businesses owned by women and minorities. Contractors did not necessarily have to hire one of the minority- or female-owned businesses, but if they failed to hire any, they were required to explain why.

          "In 1997, the city solicited bids on a sewer project. A firm called Hi-Voltage Wire Works submitted the lowest bid but was denied the contract because it did not fulfill the recruitment requirements. The firm had planned to use its own work force without subcontracting.

          "Upholding a decision by a court of appeal, [Justice] Brown said the San Jose program was unconstitutional because it provided preferential treatment to firms owned by women and minorities and discriminated against those owned by white men. 

          "A participation goal differs from a quota or set-aside only in degree," Brown wrote. "By whatever label, it remains 'a line drawn on the basis of race and ethnic status' as well as sex."   ... Brown said [San Jose's] program amounted to "discriminating or granting preferences" in favor of minorities. The program, she said, penalized firms without evidence that they had ever discriminated against women and minorities.

          "Outreach to disseminate information about public employment, education and contracting is still permissible, she said. But she declined to describe any programs that would comply with Proposition 209 and said the court expressed "no opinion" about the legality of Los Angeles' city contracting program.

          "San Jose City Atty. Richard Doyle said ... "The court is essentially saying that any race-based programs are problematic.  While you can have generic outreach programs and try to widen your reach as much as possible, you can't focus on race."

          The decision by the highest state court will affect a great many preference and quota programs throughout the state which have been operating in direct violation of Proposition 209.  College hiring "goals" based on race even more clearly illegal in view of the decision.   Similarly, using race, gender or ethnicity to determine school admissions is clearly not allowed.

          "The decision may also have an impact on a pending lawsuit brought by the Pacific Legal Foundation's Browne against the Huntington Beach Union High School District and its student transfer policy.  [That] suit was filed after the district barred white students from transferring out of Westminster High School. The district said it acted to maintain ethnic balance in the schools."

(From the LA Times story by Times Legal Affairs writer Maura Dolan, with Jill Leovy and Daniel Yi, 12/01/00)

[link http://www.latimes.com/news/state/20001201/t000115180.html ]

California's Supreme Court Declares Minority Contracting Mandate Unconstitutional (12/01/00)

Excerpted from FoxNews:   "It is unconstitutional to require government contractors to solicit bids from female- and minority-owned businesses, California's highest court ruled on Thursday. A lower court previously decided that a San Jose city ordinance mandating such solicitation violates Proposition 209, a California initiative banning state-funded affirmative action programs."  [This is untrue:   Proposition 209 did not ban affirmative action programs, per se.  Prop. 209 banned programs that discriminate or grant preference on the basis of race or sex.   Editor]

          "The California Supreme Court upheld the lower court's verdict by a unanimous 7-0 vote.  Approved by 54 percent of voters in 1996, Proposition 209 forbids preferences in state and local contracting, employment and education.  While the measure does not define "preferences," its sponsors sought to abolish quotas, set-asides and other allowances that give groups advantages in selection.

          "… But in a separate opinion, Chief Justice Ronald M. George criticized [Justice] Brown for not distinguishing between discriminatory racial policies and race-conscious affirmative action programs that try to break down the continuing effects of segregation. Stephen Barnett, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, called Brown's opinion "gratuitously and unnecessarily political."  "For the court to appear to be taking sides politically damages the credibility of the court," Barnett said."

[link http://foxnews.com/national/120100/prop209.sml ]

State Supreme Court upholds Proposition 209 (11/30/00)

Excerpted from the Sacramento Bee:   "The California Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously upheld Proposition 209, the 1996 voter-approved initiative that banned "preferences" in state and local government hiring, contracting and education. Proposition 209 has been upheld as constitutional in the federal courts.

          "But the court's action Thursday is the first definitive ruling on whether 209 bars all forms of affirmative action or, instead, permits agencies to continue reaching out to minorities and women to assure their representation among pools of bidders and applicants.

          "The test case was filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation against the city of San Jose for continuing to award public works contracts only to firms that try to subcontract some work to women and minorities.   Lower courts have ruled in favor of the foundation. In the majority opinion by five of the seven justices, the court said San Jose's plan "is precisely what the voters were told Proposition 209 would prohibit." However, the court also said its ruling was not upholding a blanket ban on all outreach programs."

[link http://www.sacbee.com/news/beelive/show_story.cgi?prop209 ]

Minority Outreach Struck Down in High Court (11/30/00)

Excerpted from the San Francisco Chronicle:  "San Jose program ruled to violate Prop. 209"

          "In a blow to affirmative action programs throughout the state, the state Supreme Court ruled today that under Proposition 209 cities and counties cannot rely on recruitment and outreach programs for women and minorities to remedy past discrimination. The decision is the first to interpret the scope of Proposition 209, the 1996 voter-approved initiative that prohibits state and local governments from giving preference to women and minorities in contracting, hiring and college admissions.

          "After Proposition 209 passed, San Jose was among many government entities that revised their programs, turning instead to outreach efforts. San Jose required contractors to notify at least four minority or female subcontractors on city jobs of more than $50,000. In a unanimous vote today, the justices said that is illegal under Proposition 209 because it grants preferential treatment to women and minorities. The decision was written by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the only African American on the court."

[link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/11/30/MN139283.DTL ]

Affirmative Action Setback (12/01/00)

Excerpted from the San Francisco Chronicle:  "State Supreme Court rules Prop. 209 prohibits minority-based outreach"

          "In a crippling blow to affirmative action programs throughout the state, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday that Proposition 209 prohibited cities and counties from using recruitment and outreach programs that focus on women and minorities. The decision is the first time the high court has interpreted the scope of Proposition 209, the 1996 voter-approved initiative that bans state and local governments from giving preference to women and minorities in contracting, hiring and college admissions.

          "The ruling strikes down a San Jose program that required contractors to recruit, or explain why they didn't recruit, female and minority subcontractors for city contracts worth $50,000 or more. In yesterday's decision, the justices found that San Jose's program violated Proposition 209 because it gave preferential treatment based on race and gender. The decision was written by Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the only African American on the court. She was sharply critical of the evolution of affirmative action programs in general and found that San Jose's program penalized firms without evidence that they had discriminated against women or minorities. "

Story By Harriet Chiang, Chronicle Legal Affairs Writer

[link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/12/01/MN125747.DTL ]

Court backs Prop. 209 in bid case (12/01/00)

Excerpted from the Sacramento Bee:   "The state Supreme Court on Thursday bolstered Proposition 209 and sided with a lower court that ruled San Jose illegally excluded a Rancho Cordova company when it used race and gender in awarding contracts.

          "The high court's decision jeopardizes hundreds of similar efforts to specifically recruit women and minorities statewide in everything from building contracts to university enrollment, say those who opposed the 1996 initiative that eliminated preferences based on race or gender. For proposition 209 supporters, the unanimous decision is a definitive end to what some have called a reverse form of discrimination. "There is no wiggle room," said Ward Connerly, the University of California regent who pushed for the measure. "Any program based on race, any outreach, any decision making, violates the California Constitution."

          "Hi-Voltage Wire Works Inc., an electrical contracting company, bid on a job for the city of San Jose in 1997 but lost. The company that won the contract submitted a higher bid but complied with requirements to use subcontractors owned by women or minorities."

By Sacramento Bee writers M.S. Enkoji and Terri Hardy

[link http://www.capitolalert.com/news/capalert01_20001201.html ]

L.A. Program May Emerge as Model for State (12/01/00)

Excerpted from the LA Times:   "A state Supreme Court ruling that may obliterate hundreds of government outreach efforts to minorities and women appears to leave Los Angeles' program unscathed and a likely model for others statewide.

          "[Los Angeles] city officials have required contractors for years to reach out to small businesses owned by members of minorities and women, even expanding the program since voters struck down race- and sex-based preferences four years ago with Proposition 209. The city did it with finely honed legal language.

          "And on Friday that careful work paid off.  When the state's high court rejected a San Jose program that required contractors to solicit -- though not necessarily to accept -- bids from minority and women subcontractors, it cast a death shadow on all programs that exclusively target minorities and women." By LA Times writer Lee Romney.

[link http://www.latimes.com/news/state/updates/lat_outreach001201.htm ]

Preferences Law Voided (11/30/00)

Excerpted from the New York Times:   "The California Supreme Court today unanimously upheld a lower court decision that overturned a San Jose ordinance requiring government contractors to solicit bids from companies owned by women and members of minorities. The court said the ordinance was unconstitutional because it violated the state's Proposition 209. That initiative, approved by voters in 1996, amended California's Constitution to prohibit preferences for women and minorities in state and local contracting, employment and education.  San Jose's ordinance requires city construction contractors, on contracts exceeding $50,000, to contact at least four companies owned by women or members of minorities, negotiate with them and accept their bids or state legitimate reasons for rejection."

[link http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/01/national/01CALI.html ]

END News Coverage Page 1 of 2