LWVC HOME - ELECTION '96 - VOTING Q&As - OUR ISSUES - ABOUT US -/- BALLOT MEASURES

League of Women Voters of California

LWV California Education Fund Nonpartisan Analysis of

Proposition 209

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

Initiative Constitutional Amendment

The Question

Should the California Constitution prohibit preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting?

The Situation

Currently the federal, state, and local governments run many programs intended to increase opportunities for various groups--including women and racial and ethnic minority groups. State law forbids quotas but does idendify specific goals for the participation of women-owned and minority-owned companies on work involved with state contracts. State departments are expected, but not required, to meet these goals, which include that at least 15% of the value of contract work should be done by minority-owned companies and at least 5% should be done by women-owned companies. Other examples of affirmative action are:
  • public college and university programs such as scholarship, tutoring, and outreach targeted toward minority or women students.
  • goals and timetables to encourage the hiring of members of underrepresented groups for state government jobs and programs.

The Proposal

Proposition 209 will:
  • eliminate state and local government affirmative action programs in the areas of public employment, public education, and public contracting to the extent that these programs involve preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.
  • provide exceptions to the ban on preferential treatment when necessary to keep the state or local government eligible to receive money from the federal government and to meet privacy and other considerations based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
Fiscal effect: this measure could affect state and local programs that currently cost well in excess of $125 million annually. The actual amount of this spending that might be saved as a result of this measure could be considerably less. Programs might be changed to use factors other than those prohibited by the measure. In most cases, funds not spent for existing affirmative action programs in public schools and community colleges would have to be spent on their other programs.

Supporters Say

  • Proposition 209 removes government-imposed quotas, preferences, and set-asides.
  • new protections against sex discrimination would be added over existing ones, which remain in full force and effect.
  • the state would be allowed to help the economically disadvantaged but not on the basis of race or sex.

Opponents Say

  • Proposition 209 eliminates affirmative action equal opportunity programs for qualified women and minorities.
  • discrimination against women would be permitted by allowing certain qualifications based on sex.
  • affirmative action programs do not require anyone to accept substandard contractors or unqualified applicants.
(Analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.)

On Ballot Measures: LWVC Pros & Cons - LWVC Recommendations - Other Links
LWVC Home - Election '96 - Voting Q&As - Our Issues - About Us

Last updated: October 20, 1996
Send comments and suggestions concerning this page to lwvc@thecity.sfsu.edu
Copyright 1996 League of Women Voters of California. All rights reserved.