| By California City, Newest First: California (Statewide): Plan to Ease Rules on Minority
Designation Prompts Protests (09/29/99)
"A proposal to relax rules governing which firms can call themselves minority-owned
has ignited fierce protests by minority business organizations.
"Next month, the National Minority Supplier Diversity Council, whose policies are
followed widely by corporations, will consider allowing certain firms to keep their
minority designation if investors dilute the minority owner's interest to as little as
25%. Current rules require companies to be 51% minority-owned to receive minority
certification.
"Feeding the fears of opponents, Small Business Administration administrator Aida
Alvarez said recently that she will likely explore a similar proposal for public
contracting if the measure passes.
"Private companies are under no legal obligation to contract with minority suppliers
but do so because it makes sense when ethnic buying power tops hundreds of billions of
dollars. The federal government, however, requires that its suppliers meet contracting
goals with so-called small, disadvantaged businesses, most of which are owned by ethnic
minorities.
"A coalition of minority business organizations led by San Francisco-based
Greenlining Institute plans to protest the vote next month. In a letter objecting to the
change, the institute suggested that allowing large corporations to reap the benefit of
minority status is "akin to a proposal to promote golf among inner-city youth by
giving Tiger Woods a lifetime corporate contract." And Rep. Nydia Velasquez (D-N.Y.)
criticized it as "a deal with the devil . . . [whereby] the already rich would get
richer."
"A "yes" vote by the council--which has certified minority-owned companies
to do business with corporations for 27 years--would likely affect only a select group of
enterprises skilled enough to attract equity capital, said council President Harriet R.
Michel." (Los Angeles Times 09/29/99 by Lee Romney)
[link http://www.latimes.com/excite/990929/t000087231.html
]
California (Statewide): Davis Vetoes
Pro-Quota Bill (07/29/99)
"SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Gov. Gray Davis broke with his fellow Democrats once again
Wednesday and vetoed a bill that said outreach programs for minorities and women are
permissible under a voter-approved ban on affirmative action. Proposition 209, a 1996
ballot initiative that Davis opposed, bars preferential treatment based on race or gender
in public education, employment and contracting. Republicans, decimated in last fall's
elections, are elated at the opposition's infighting." (Associated Press, no
link)
Davis Rejects
Gender, Racial Hiring Efforts (07/29/99)
"Angering civil rights activists, [Davis] says even nonbinding outreach programs for
women and minorities violate Prop. 209."
LA Times - "Gov. Gray Davis again shocked his political allies Wednesday by rejecting
Democratic and civil rights leaders' hopes of maintaining outreach programs for minorities
and women in government hiring.
"The governor vetoed legislation that symbolically declared the state to be in
support of nonbinding outreach programs under Proposition 209, the voter-passed 1996
ballot measure to ban affirmative action in government.
"Civil rights leaders were incredulous Wednesday, saying that they never imagined
Davis--a strong opponent of Proposition 209--would veto the seemingly innocuous,
bipartisan bill, SB 44, by state Sen. Richard Polanco, a Democrat from Los Angeles. In
tones of betrayal, they added that the governor has jeopardized--if not ended--his chance
of fulfilling a cornerstone pledge of his campaign last year to heal the state's strained
race relations.
"He has, in the stroke of a pen, totally alienated the civil rights community,"
fumed Beth Parker, an attorney for Equal Rights Advocates in San Francisco. "This is
outrageous. He is not a civil rights governor in my group or anybody else's book that I
know of."
"Davis said he will appoint a Task Force on Diversity and Outreach that will report
back to him by Dec. 1 on how the state should conduct outreach programs." (LA
Times 07/29/99 by Dave Lesher)
[link http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/POLITICS/NATPOL/t000067500.html
]
| Related - Davis labeled
"turncoat" for upholding law! July 29, 1999 Davis vetoes bill allowing outreach under
209 (dead link)
"Taking a step to the right of the conservative Republican he ran against last fall,
Gov. Gray Davis on Wednesday vetoed a bill that would have authorized outreach programs to
encourage women and minorities to apply for state jobs despite Proposition 209's ban on
affirmative action.
"Many Democrats and civil rights activists were furious with Davis for rejecting SB
44, a bill by Senate Majority Leader Richard Polanco, D-Los Angeles, that would have
allowed agencies to broaden their applicant pools by reaching out to traditionally ignored
groups. The veto is the latest in a string of decisions with which Davis -- the first
Democratic California governor in 16 years -- has sought to distance himself from
traditional party positions. But in this case, his position is at odds even with that of
his gubernatorial opponent, Dan Lungren, who backed a similar bill last year when he was
attorney general."
[former link
**http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/veto29.htm]
Bill
Backing Outreach for Women, Minorities Vetoed
"In a move hailed by affirmative action foe Ward Connerly, Gov. Gray Davis yesterday
vetoed a Democratic bill that would have allowed government outreach programs for women
and minorities. Democrat Davis' action closely mirrored that of his Republican
predecessor, Pete Wilson, who last year vetoed a similar bill by the same author, Senator
Richard Polanco, D-Los Angeles. Like Wilson, Davis said Polanco's bill violated
Proposition 209, the 1996 ballot measure backed by Connerly that outlawed government
affirmative action programs."
[link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/07/29/MN2361.DTL
]
Liberal lawmakers clash with
California governor (dead link)
"After 16 years of Republicans in the governor's mansion, Democrats in the nation's
most populous state were looking forward to one of their own making their wish lists come
true. But six months after taking office, Gov. Gray Davis and the Legislature controlled
by his fellow Democrats are clashing just as bitterly as the days of divided state
government. "Davis dumps on Democrats!" shouted a recent news release from the
state GOP.
"He dumped again on Wednesday when he vetoed a bill that declared outreach programs
for minorities and women to be permissible under a voter-approved ban on affirmative
action. Proposition 209 -- a 1996 ballot initiative that Davis opposed -- bars
preferential treatment based on race or gender in public education, employment and
contracting. Outreach programs should examine other factors, such as income, Davis said.
But the American Civil Liberties Union condemned the veto." (Associated Press,
by Scott Lindlaw)
[former link
**http://cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/29/calif.dems.ap/] |
California (Statewide): Democrats Attempt to
Overturn Proposition 209! (07/19/99)
[In an
incredibly bald-faced disregard for the rule of law, and for the will of the voting public
as clearly expressed in the passage of Proposition 209 in 1996, California democrats have
chosen to simply ignore the law by unilaterally declaring that racial and gender
preferences and quotas are alive and well in California state contracting and employment.
It is as frightening as it is illegal. Read on ...]
SACRAMENTO -- "California's Democratic
leaders have reversed the state's legal position in a key affirmative action lawsuit by
filing court papers that defend two programs containing special considerations for race or
gender.
"The programs, operated by the treasurer's office and the state lottery, encourage
government contracts with women- and minority-owned businesses by establishing
participation goals and outreach efforts."
[In
attempting to gloss over the tremendous affront to democracy inherent in this Democratic
administration's refusal to recognize the law, the State Treasurer issued these seemingly
harmless sounding words in his endorsement of illegal quotas and preferences...]
"'There are a lot of people of talent in this state and they come from all races and
genders,' said state Treasurer Phil Angelides. 'Nothing is ever lost by letting new
people of talent know about the services available in the state.'" Except perhaps
respect for the law and for democratic process!
"[Democratic Governor] Lockyer and Angelides contend that programs with nonbinding
participation goals or outreach efforts are not covered by Proposition 209.
(emphasis added). Their filing essentially asks the courts to sanction such practices.
"[Lockyer and Angelides] say the ballot measure [Prop. 209] is limited to programs
with rigid quotas or requirements--like the former
construction contracting law that directed 15% of state jobs to minority-owned firms and
an additional 5% to women-owned firms. That program was rescinded after Proposition 209
and related court decisions took effect."
Thus, the minority-vote-pandering new Democratic regime in California attempts to convince
us that flexible racial and gender quotas are somehow more palatable than rigid
ones! (based on Los Angeles Times 07/19/99 story by David Lesher)
[link http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/STATE/t000064339.html
]
| RESPONSE:
Thomas E. Wood co-authored California's Proposition 209 ballot initiative.
His detailed response to Mr. Lesher's biased news coverage in the LA Times is reproduced
here: Dear Mr. Lesher (LA Times):
I write as the co-author of Prop. 209. Your article "State Defends 2
Affirmative Action Efforts" in today's L.A. Times is defective in a number of
respects.
(1) The operative clause of 209 prohibits
discrimination and preferential treatment for individuals AND groups. It also covers,
without qualification, the OPERATION of public employment, public education, and public
contracting. Since outreach is part of the operation of public employment, public
education, and public contracting, and since Prop. 209 prohibits preferential treatment of
groups as well as individuals, it follows that requirements for outreach from which only
minority and female companies benefit or are eligible violate 209.
I made these points when I testified before the Judiciary Committee of the California
State Assembly in Sacramento, California on June 30, 1998 against Polanco Bill 1735 (the
previous incarnation of SB 44). My testimony is available at the Americans Against
Discrimination and Preferences web site: (dead link:
**http://www.aadap.org/testimony.html).
Your article does not even attempt to make a case for the alternative interpretation of
209, which is extraordinarily weak, given the plain language of the text.
(2) Your article also fails to mention that the
interpretation of 209 embodied in the Polanco bill is directly contradicted by the
language of Elizabeth Hill's analysis of the measure in the official voters pamphlet for
the November 5, 1996 general election. That analysis stated that 209 prohibits
"targeted outreach" for women and minorities.
(3) You mention the Lloyd Connelly opinion (a
Superior Court decision), but fail to mention that there is now a construction of 209 by
an appellate court that is binding on all jurisdictions in California. In Hi-Voltage Wire
Works v. City of San Jose et al.--a case that directly engages the question addressed in
the Polanco bill--the Sixth DCA ruled as follows (I quote from the summary of the
opinion):
"The City is caught in a difficult position. Unquestionably it is attempting to
achieve an important objective -- to eliminate the historical underrepresentation of
minority- and women-owned businesses in public projects. The immediate purpose of the
Program -- to counteract preferences and discrimination in the use of subcontractors -- is
consistent with this overall objective and with the constitutional mandate. But
ironically, the means the City employs to accomplish that purpose only defeat it, as they
constitute prohibited preferential treatment to certain groups based on characteristics
identified by article I, section 31. However desirable the City's efforts to eradicate
discrimination, they may not contravene the intent of the voters as expressed in the plain
language of this provision.
"Because minority- and women-owned businesses enjoy special treatment under the
Program, they receive an advantage over other businesses. Such advantage is prohibited
under the broad terms of article I, section 31. The superior court correctly ruled that
the Program is unconstitutional."
The Sixth Appellate District's decision is binding on ALL state trial courts and the state
legislature unless and until review is granted by the State Supreme Court, or another
state court of appeal issues a conflicting decision (conflicting state trial court
decisions are an absolute nullity). (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 456.)
In addition, as you mention in your article, legislatures do not interpret state
constitutional amendments: courts do. This makes the Polanco bill doubly outrageous.
(3) Finally, although I greatly appreciate Ward
Connerly's service as chair of the Yes on 209! campaign and am very pleased that he has
been able to continue as a taxpayer the litigation that began as Pete Wilson and Ward
Connerly v. State Personnel Board et al. in Judge Lloyd Connelly's court, it is important
to point out, just to keep the record straight, that he was not, as your article implies,
one of the "authors" of 209. The two authors (and official proponents) of the
measure were Glynn Custred and myself. A chronology of the California Civil Rights
Initiative is available at the official CCRI/Prop. 209 web site (http://www.cadap.org/synopsis.html).
Thomas E. Wood |
California
(Statewide): Court
Declares Collection of Racial Data Illegal (06/12/99)
"A state appeals court handed former Governor Pete Wilson a victory yesterday in a
controversial anti-affirmative action case that Governor Gray Davis refused to
touch. The state Court of Appeal in San Francisco upheld Wilson's ban on state
agencies collecting data on whether women and members of minority groups are discriminated
against in public contracts.
"Wilson issued the executive order last year, saying that the data collection
violated Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action law. The data reporting was
the first major state affirmative-action effort to be eliminated after voters approved the
1996 initiative.
"In yesterday's decision, the three- judge appellate court said that the data
gathering was no longer valid because it was part of a 1988 law struck down by a federal
appeals court last year. In that decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals in San
Francisco ruled that the law requiring state contractors to set goals for hiring minority
and women subcontractors was unconstitutional under Proposition 209.
"In yesterday's decision, the state appeals court said that the data collection was
'inextricably connected' to the state contracting provision." (San Francisco
Chronicle, page A23, Sat., 06/12/99, by Harriet Chiang)
[link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/06/12/MN104188.DTL
]
California (Statewide): Calif. Senate Passes Anti-209 Bill (posted 05/12/99 - dead link)
The "Polanco Bill" would make a "legislative finding" that Proposition
209 does not prohibit racially targeted public sector outreach programs. The co-authors of
Prop. 209 (Glynn Custred and Thomas Wood) and Prop. 209 campaign chairman Ward Connerly
have repudiated this interpretation in testimony before the California State Legislature.
History: The former incarnation of this bill, SB 1735, was passed last year by both the
Senate and the Assembly. The Governor at the time, Pete Wilson, vetoed the bill on the
grounds that it directly conflicted "with Proposition 209 and the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution". After Davis was elected
Governor, Senator Polanco resurrected the bill in the belief that Davis would be more
likely to sign the bill into law than his predecessor.
Status: The current bill has passed the California State Senate and is now in front of the
Assembly. If it passes the Assembly, it will go to the Governor to be signed into law.
You are urged to contact your California Assembly Member and/or Gov. Gray Davis about this
issue. To find the contact info for your California Assembly member: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset9text.htm
Gov. Gray Davis' contact information formerly could be found at: (dead link:
**http://www.ca.gov/s/governor/graymail.html)
(Story filed by Americans Against Discrimination and Preferences (AADAP) 05/12/99)
[former link **http://www.aadap.org/polanco.htm]
California (Los Angeles): Minority-Owned Firms
Tend to Hire Within Own Ethnic Group (09/18/99)
[With government racial preference programs dictating business be given to preferred
racial and ethnic categories, it is no surprise that government-certified
"disadvantaged/minority firms" hire their own! A new old-racial-boys
network, sponsored by Uncle Sam.]
The LA Times reports that "Minority-owned businesses in Los Angeles County
overwhelmingly employ minority workers and tend to hire within their own ethnic group, a
Los Angeles Times Poll has found--a trend with key implications for the region's economic
growth and unemployment rates, particularly in low-income areas.
"Nearly three-quarters of Latinos surveyed described their work force as mostly
Latino, and 41% of black business owners reported a mostly black work force. Of Asian
firms, nearly a third employed mostly Asian workers, and almost as many had a mostly
Latino work force.
"In contrast, no more than 3% of any minority group reported a mostly white work
force, compared with a third of white-owned businesses." (LA Times 09/18/99 by
Lee Romney)
[link http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/POLLS/lat_hiring990918.htm
]
California
(Sacramento): County may halt
quota system for minority contractors (06/11/99 - dead link)
Sacramento Bee Headline - "County may halt diversity system for
contractors" - "Sacramento County supervisors next week will consider
suspending contracting rules for construction jobs that require bidders to solicit work
from women- and minority-owned businesses in the wake of a lawsuit alleging the process is
unconstitutional.
"The suit was filed Wednesday by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of Radoff
& Kellogg Construction of Citrus Heights, which lost a public works bid for failing to
make a "good-faith effort" to solicit women and minority subcontractors.
"Last month, the Sacramento-based foundation won a key state appellate case in San
Jose that said Proposition 209 forbids requiring public contractors to include a
percentage of women- or minority-owned subcontractors or document efforts to do so. The
city of San Jose may appeal to the state Supreme Court." (Sacramento Bee
06/11/99 by Robert D. Davilá)
[former link
**http://www.sacbee.com/news/news/local07_19990611.html]
California (Sacramento): Judge Strikes Down Two Quota Programs Due to Prop. 209 (dead link)
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd G. Connelly ruled that a Calif. statute requiring
15% of all state contracts for professional bond services be issued to minority-owned
businesses. The second state statute he struck down required similar treatment for
minority and women-owned businesses seeking highway and construction contracts from the
state. NOTE: The Calif. State Constitution prohibits agencies from complying
with Prop. 209 unless the race and gender programs for that agency's programs are
specifically ruled upon by a court of law. Tough times implementing the will of the
voters in California! (Los Angeles Times 12/01/98, titled "2 Laws Struck Down
Under Prop. 209" by Dave Lesher)
[former link:
http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/STATE/t000109793.html]
| Related,
Similar Stories: More News Regarding Prop. 209
Implementation... Judge Strikes Down State Race Preference Laws; Pacific Legal
Foundation Begins Enforcement of Prop. 209 in Lawsuit on Behalf of Governor Wilson
(Excite News 12/01/98)
Judge Connelly Defies Voters in
California (dead link)
"I am angered that one man,
Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly, is able to make a ruling that kills the intended
purpose of Proposition 209. The people of California decided to outlaw ...(such)
racial discrimination by the state. Because of Connelly's ruling, the color of skin
...will be officially allowed to influence whether (a person) wins or loses in
...employment or university admission." (Letter to the Editor, LA Times
12/09/98 by Mr. Robert Porter of Irvine, CA)
[former link:
http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/COMMENT/t000112194.1.html] |
End State
Set-Asides - California Page |
