 |
Prop
54 - The other
California election issue
by Tom Chatt
EDITOR'S NOTE: the following is a response to an inquiry as to
the nature of the wording of the proposed initiative. Some had thought
the wording "tricky" to understand.
Hi neighbors:
I don't believe that the wording of Prop 54 is "tricky", at least
not in the sense of other propositions that have used double-negatives
and other games to confuse voters. It's perfectly straightforward
in the sense of "against = NO" and "for = YES". As proposition language
goes, it's actually quite simple and readable. The complete text
of the proposition is appended at the end of this message.
The confusion may arise in the fact that both those "for" and "against"
Prop 54 are really trying to achieve the same thing, but disagree
as to tactics of how to get there. Proponents and opponents of 54
*both* profess (and honestly so) to believe in Martin Luther King's
dream of a future where people are judged not by the color of their
skin but by the content of their character. Both the "YES on 54"
and the "NO on 54" crowd would agree wholeheartedly with what [one
of my neighbors] likes to say, that we are all one in God's eyes.
The difference arises in the tactics of how we get to that dream.
Those against (NO) 54 argue that the government must continue to
classify people by race in order to document and fight against racial
discrimination. Those for (YES) 54 argue that the government must
set the lead in ending racial discrimination by ceasing to give
credence to racial classifications in public practice.
What may be confusing is that, if you read the text, it sounds like
the proposition is all for ending racial discrimination. And, in
fact, it is. Yet, some people who are anti-discrimination are against
this proposition. Why is that? The NO position, when oversimplified,
boils down to "we must continue to discriminate in order to end
discrimination". Is that confusing? Yes it is. Is that oversimplified?
Yes it is. Is it valid? That's what you need to decide for yourself
on October 7.
There is also the usual noise surrounding any proposition coming
from extremists on both sides. Some extremists will tell you about
a radical right-wing conspiracy scheming to set back all civil rights
progress for at least 50 years. Other extremists will talk about
a radical left-wing conspiracy scheming to stamp out white protestant
males and give all their jobs and money to illegal immigrants. There
is extremist nonsense from many angles, and you should do your best
to focus on the facts and real arguments, and filter out the noise.
There is also (as with any proposition) lots of noise about branding
it "liberal" or "conversative", "progressive" or "traditional",
"Democrat" or "Republican", and so on, or linking it with particularly
noble or vilified persons. This, in general, is a spurious way of
arguing about anything, designed to prey on those too lazy to think
for themselves. Please do your best to filter out that noise too,
and think for yourself.
I encourage all informed voters to read the arguments both pro and
con, and to make an informed decision. You can find arguments pro
and con handily consolidated in two places:
for
YES:
www.racialprivacy.org
for NO:
www.informedcalifornia.org
The
"YES" site also has the complete text of the proposition, explained
clause by clause, and that part of the website is fairly neutral.
There is no duplicity here, no conspiracy.
There is only a tough decision, with some good reasons and arguments
(buried under a ton of noise) on both sides. Do the right thing.
Cast an informed vote on October 7.
Your neighbor,
Tom
Echo Park
------------------------------------------------------------------
The full text of Proposition 54:
|
CLASSIFICATION
BY RACE, ETHNICITY,
COLOR, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN
INITIATIVE - CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Effective
January 1, 2005, prohibits state, local governments from using
race, ethnicity, color or national origin to classify current
or prospective students, contractors, or employees in public
education, contracting or employment operations. Does not
prohibit classification by sex. Prohibition also covers persons
subject to other operations of government unless Legislature
finds compelling state interest, authorizes by two-thirds
of each house, and Governor approves. "Classifying" defined
as separating, sorting, or organizing persons or personal
data. Exemptions include: law enforcement descriptions; prisoner
and undercover assignments; action taken to maintain federal
funding. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director
of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:
This measure would have a major fiscal impact of annual state
savings potentially ranging from several million dollars in
excess of $10 million beginning in 2015.
Prohibition Against Classifying by Race by State and Other
Public Entities Section 32 is added to Article I of the California
Constitution as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) The state shall not classify any individual by
race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation
of public education, public contracting or public employment.
(b) The state shall not classify any individual by race, ethnicity,
color or national origin in the operation of any other state
operations, unless the legislature specifically determines
that said classification serves a compelling state interest
and approves said classification by a 2/3 majority in both
houses of the legislature, and said classification is subsequently
approved by the governor.
(c) For purposes of this section, "classifying" by race, ethnicity,
color or national origin shall be defined as the act of separating,
sorting or organizing by race, ethnicity, color or national
origin including, but not limited to, inquiring, profiling,
or collecting such data on government forms.
(d) For purposes of subsection (a), "individual" refers to
current or prospective students, contractors or employees.
For purposes of subsection (b), "individual" refers to persons
subject to the state operations referred to in subsection
(b).
(e) The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) shall
be exempt from this section with respect to DFEH-conducted
classifications in place as of March 5, 2002.
(1)
Unless specifically extended by the legislature, this
exemption shall expire ten years after the effective date
of this measure.
(2) Notwithstanding DFEH's exemption from this section,
DFEH shall not impute a race, color, ethnicity or national
origin to any individual. |
(f) Otherwise lawful classification of medical research subjects
and patients shall be exempt from this section.
(g) Nothing in this section shall prevent law enforcement
officers, while carrying out their law enforcement duties,
from describing particular persons in otherwise lawful ways.
Neither the governor, the legislature nor any statewide agency
shall require law enforcement officers to maintain records
that track individuals on the basis of said classifications,
nor shall the governor, the legislature or any statewide agency
withhold funding to law enforcement agencies on the basis
of the failure to maintain such records.
(h) Otherwise lawful assignment of prisoners and undercover
law enforcement officers shall be exempt from this section.
(i) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting
action which must be taken to comply with federal law, or
establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program,
where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds
to the state.
(j) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating
any valid consent decree or court order which is in force
as of the effective date of this section.
(k) 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, California State University,
community college district, school district, special district,
or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality
of or within the state.
(l) This section shall become effective January 1, 2005.
(m) 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.
|
|
|
