This constitutional amendment prohibits state and local governments from "classifying" (collecting and using) data on a person's race, ethnicity, color, or national origin for the purposes of public education, contracting, or employment.

This prohibition also would apply to all other state and local governments operations, unless the Legislature passes by a two-thirds majority and the Governor signs legislation approving the collection and use of such data to "serve a compelling state interest."

The measure includes an exemption for the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) for ten years with respect to DFEH-conducted classifications in place as of March 5, 2002. The measure also has exemptions related to (1) medical research subjects and patients, (2) certain law enforcement activities, (3) existing court orders and consent decrees, and (4) actions taken to comply with federal law or to remain eligible for federal funding.

In addition, the initiative prohibits the Governor, Legislature, or any statewide agency from requiring law enforcement agencies to track individuals based on race-related information and from withholding funds on the basis of their failure to do so. The measure would take effect January 1, 2005.

Currently, the state and local governments collect race-related information on their personnel and for programmatic purposes. In the majority of cases, the federal government requires this information to ensure compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws (particularly equal employment opportunity laws) or as a condition of receiving various federal funds (for education and Medi-Cal, for example).

Proposition 209, a constitutional amendment passed in 1996, prohibits state and local governments from discriminating or granting "preferential treatment" in the areas of public employment, public education and public contracting based on race, color, ethnicity or national origin. (Proposition 209 also prohibits preferences based on gender.)

Proponents argue that we have achieved a reasonable degree of equality of opportunity and will be better served by dropping efforts to collect race-based statistics. However, opponents point out that a significant amount of discrimination continues to exist and that raced-based data is essential for identifying it and monitoring efforts to eliminate it.

Analyses by both the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) and the California Budget Project (CBP) (see "RESOURCES" below) conclude that much of the race-related data collection by the state and local governments would continue if Proposition 54 were enacted. For example, this initiative provides that agencies would continue to collect data required by the federal government.

The LAO and CBP also conclude that some race-related data collection would be restricted. For example, race-related data on prospective UC and CSU students and college students participating in loan forgiveness programs could no longer be collected.

Both reports state that there is considerably less certainty in how race-related data could be used under Proposition 54.

For example, the CBP report states that, "The lack of precise definitions for the types of activities that might qualify for the medical and patient research exemption leaves the status of much of the state's health data collection and use in question."

The LAO further notes that, "For some current government activities, the effect of the measure is unknown and would depend on future interpretation of the measure's language by courts and future actions by the Legislature."

Race-based data which is currently being used, but that could be potentially banned because of this initiative, serves many desirable purposes. For example, this data identifies groups at risk for infectious disease. If there is an outbreak of disease in one group, the data is used to identify and contain the outbreak before it spreads to the general population.

This information saves lives in other ways: for example, it tells us that white women are diagnosed with breast cancer at a higher rate, that Asians are at higher risk for Hepatitis-B, that Latinos are more likely to die from complications of diabetes and that African Americans die from heart disease at a higher rate.

The initiative's "medical exemption" allows doctors to keep information on their patients and researchers to keep data on volunteer subjects. It does not allow tracking disease rates by group or the use of patient records to survey data.

The exemption for law enforcement is poorly written. According to the Attorney General, the initiative will hurt the prosecution of hate crimes. Under Proposition 54, the State Department of Justice could no longer require local police to collect data on victims and suspects, which can help solve crimes and find missing children.

• Proposition 54 will eliminate public health programs that save lives. Public health prevention resources are targeted by race because some health problems affect different races disproportionately, and because cultural differences make different prevention approaches more effective. For example, when health officials noted that African-American women had a lower rate of detection of breast cancer than white women, they targeted outreach so as to achieve an equal rate of detection between the two groups, saving lives and taxpayer dollars.



• The exemption for "medical research subjects and patients" is narrow and vague, leaving much of the state's health data collection and use in doubt. Costly litigation will be required before the full extent of this "exemption" can be determined.



• Some forty health organizations oppose Proposition 54, including the California Medical Association, the American Heart Association, Breast Cancer Action, Kaiser Permanente, the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, the California Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, California Healthcare Association, and the California Association of Public Hospitals.



• Proposition 54 will undermine accountability in school reform. The California Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 requires schools to set goals for student achievement and to administer tests to measure achievement. Racial data allows schools to determine whether some groups are improving more than other groups and allows them to target resources for the best overall improvement.



• The California State PTA, the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers, and State Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell all oppose this initiative.



• Proposition 54 will impede efforts to end racial imbalances in housing, education, law enforcement and public health.



• Proposition 54 will complicate enforcement of antidiscrimination legislation. Without racial data, victims of discrimination in state employment or contracting won't have the information needed to meet court standards in proving racial discrimination.



• It is already against the law in California to give preferential treatment in jobs, contracting and college admissions based on race or ethnicity. We all want to live in a color-blind society. But we won't get there by banning information.



• Proposition 54 will hinder law enforcement. Hate crimes, racial profiling mitigation and community policing all rely on racial data of police officers, suspects, and victims to carry out laws.

The rebuttal to the supporters' argument was signed by Jacqueline Jacobberger, John C. Lewis, M.D., and Molly Coye, M.D., Former Director, Department of Health Services, Wilson Administration.

Organizations opposing Prop 54 include: Asian Pacific American Legal Center, California State PTA, California Common Cause, California Medical Association, California Teachers Association, Greenlining Institute, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, and University of California Regents.

Marion Taylor, LWVC Legislation Director, mtayl0r@sbcglobal.net

Trudy Schafer, LWVC Program Director/Advocate, tschafer@lwvc.org
Eric Wooten, LWVC Advocacy Aide, eric@lwvc.org
801 12th Street, Suite 220, Sacramento 95814
Phone: 916-442-9210

Coalition for an Informed California (No on 54 ), 510-452-2728, www.informedcalifornia.org

What Would Proposition 54 Mean for the State's Ability to Collect and Use Data? California Budget Project (CBP), August 2003. Available from CBP at 916-444-0500 and at www.cbp.org/props.htm

Proposition 54: Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) analysis for the Voter Information Guide (state ballot pamphlet), August 2003. Available at www.lao.ca.gov/initiatives/2003/54_10_2003.htm

You can help the campaign to defeat Proposition 54 by:

• Writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper(s). (See below for a sample letter).
• Organizing a house party in opposition to Prop 54. For complete instructions on how, see: www.informedcalifornia.org/PR/housepartykit.pdf
• Talking to your friends about Prop 54. If you have trouble explaining in a sentence or two what's wrong with initiative, refer them to the campaign Web site: www.informedcalifornia.org

Note: Please adapt this letter to your own community and check your local paper's word limit for published letters.

Editor:

Ignorance is not bliss, but the supporters of Prop 54 are trying to convince voters that a ban on information is good for Californians.

Prop 54 is opposed by the California Medical Association, the Breast Cancer Fund, the American Cancer Society, and more than 40 other health organizations. I trust medical doctors--not spin doctors--when it comes to my health. 

Prop 54 would ban data that helps save lives. Health data helps treat and prevent diseases like breast cancer, prostate cancer, and Alzeimer's Disease. Eliminating this data would make it much harder to stop preventable disease outbreaks, premature death and disability. Banning doctors from using this data is like preventing them from using other tools of the trade, like stethoscopes or blood pressure monitors.

I don't want an amendment to the California Constitution preventing my doctor from having all the information needed to make medical decisions about my health and the health of my family. Vote NO on Prop 54-it's bad medicine.

Sincerely,

(your name)