REINING IN CALIFORNIA’S OUT-OF CONTROL LEGISLATURE:  Last week I linked to Bill McGurn’s Wall Street Journal op-ed on our ugly situation here in California.  If you couldn’t get behind the paywall, I’ve included the text of his piece below.  (By the way, if you haven’t done so already, please sign our cute little petition.  You don’t need to be a Californian.)

Making Discrimination OK Again:

The losers in a 2020 California referendum are back again with a sneakier version.

by William McGurn – Wall Street Journal

January 1, 2024

Do they ever give up? Those looking to divvy up Americans by race, that is.

In California they tried to get race preferences approved in a 2020 referendum, but voters rejected it 57.2% to 42.8%. This was a stunning rebuke, not only because the rejection came from residents of a blue state but because the losing side had outspent opponents something like 14 to 1.

In 2023 the Supreme Court weighed in with a landmark ruling that barred colleges from treating people as members of a racial group instead of as individuals—and cast constitutional doubt on all race-based preferences. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. Couldn’t be clearer, right?

Not in California. Undaunted state Assemblyman Corey Jackson is pushing a bill called ACA7. It takes aim at the state ban on race preferences that voters put in the constitution in 1996 when they passed Proposition 209. Californians reaffirmed Proposition 209 three years ago at the ballot box.

The language the voters agreed to and the activists hate reads as follows: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

Unlike the 2020 effort, the new bill would leave that language intact. Instead, it would add a provision allowing the governor to create “exceptions.” Effectively that would gut the ban.

Apparently, the lesson the advocates of state-sponsored discrimination have taken from their defeat is that if at first you don’t succeed, try something sneakier.

(more…)

PURR:  Power Line is helping me.

GRUMPY ECONOMIST:  I should have posted this a few days ago (before Gay resigned at Harvard), but I forgot:  Fire Gay for the right reasons.

WORD IS GETTING AROUND!:  “Making Discrimination OK Again:  The Losers in a 2020 California Referendum Are Back Again with a Sneakier Version” by the WSJ’s Bill McGurn.

If you haven’t signed the petition, please consider doing so.  You don’t need to be a Californian.

And if you have a X/Twitter account, this one in tagged to Senate leaders and Gavin Newsom.  By liking and/or retweeting, you’re giving them your opinion.

They can’t vote, but they can dream. And you can bet their parents can and will vote.

Don’t divide us.#NoACA7photoparade #KeepDiscriminationIllegal #NoACA7 pic.twitter.com/KUyn3vAp2N

— Gail Heriot (@GailHeriot) December 27, 2023

Cheers!

NO on CALIFORNIA’S ACA7:  Here’s our new web site.  Onward!!!

ROGER CLEGG:  “You Can Help California at Christmastime.”  Or New Year’s.

STILL GRIFTING AFTER ALL THESE YEARS:  “The Southern Poverty Law Center’s New Enemy: Americans Who Accept Biology.“

IOWAHAWK:  Before President Polk went to bed on December 28, 1846, he wrote in his diary, “Nothing much happened today.”  In fact, he’d signed into law the bill that made Iowa our 29th state.  Happy Birthday, Iowa.  I think you’re something.

I NEED MORE HELP TO STOP THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE’S POWER GRAB:  Last week, I asked Instapundit readers for “X/Twitter” help in opposing the California legislature’s new effort to gut Prop 209.  And you came through!  Thank you to all who helped!  You are terrific!

I have another request.  Mercifully, it still won’t cost you a nickel.  (If this turkey of a bill makes it to the ballot, I will start asking for money then, but we stand a decent chance of stopping it in the California Senate on a shoestring budget.)

Our “NO on ACA7” PETITION needs at least 25,000 signatures to get noticed.  And we’re probably going to need a lot more.  Fortunately, we have a while. Today is our first earnest day of collecting them.  You don’t need to be a Californian to sign.  (But if you are a Californian, please be sure to include your zip code.  In the past, some legislators have asked us for the number of signers from their district’s zip codes.)

If you can also share the petition with your friends or via social media that would be terrific.

For those of you you haven’t been following this, Prop 209 amended the state constitution in 1996 with these words:  “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin ….”  California’s deep-blue legislature has been gunning for it since.  They tried to get the voters to repeal it three years ago with Prop 16.  But Californians stunned them by overwhelmingly voting to keep it.  It was a real David and Goliath moment; we won despite being outspent more than 14 to 1.

It’s surprising to me that they are trying again so soon after that defeat.  But I guess I should have seen it coming.  The report of the California Task Force on Reparations, which was released earlier this year, called for Prop 209 to be gutted.  It stands in the way of their proposals.  Right on schedule, the Assembly voted for ACA7.

The new effort is trickier.  Instead of attempting an outright repeal, it creates a procedure under the governor can make “exceptions.”  All Gov. Newsom (and future governors) will need is to be able to point to (or create) “research” showing that preferential treatment would be a good thing.  But in a world in which “scholarly” research tells us that men are women and women are men, that limitation is not worth a red cent. (Bumped.)

POWERLINE:  Cheering for Mass Murder.

MINDING THE CAMPUS:  “The Evolution of Christmas.”

MERRY, MERRY:  “Keeper of Christmas.”

COMING SOON!  THE NATION’S 250th ANNIVERSARY!:  Shouldn’t we be getting ready?  The National Association of Scholars promises to prepares us by writing history blurbs about the lead-up to the Declaration of Independence.

My recollection is that there was plenty of planning and pre-game activities in the years leading up to the Bicentennial in 1976.

GRABIEN’S TEN MOST MORTIFYING MEDIA MOMENTS OF 2023:  Via Powerline.

MORE ON THE ARGENTINE EARTHQUAKE:  On Minding the Campus.

WISDOM FROM THE MOUTHS OF POP CELEBRITIES:  Powerline’s John Hinderaker has declared Taylor Swift his “Woman of the Year.”  I can’t name a single song by Ms. Swift, but I agree with him that the following paragraph from a profile in the Wall Street Journal is a gem:

“I’m a big advocate for not hiding your enthusiasm for things,” she said last year in her New York University commencement address.  “Never be ashamed of trying.  Effortlessness is a myth.  The people who wanted it the least were the ones I wanted to date and be friends with in high school.  The people who want it the most are the people I now hire to work for my company.”

Repeat it to your children:  Effortlessness is a myth.  Make sure they understand it while they are still young.

I NEED YOUR HELP TO DEAL WITH CALIFORNIA’S OUT-OF-CONTROL LEGISLATURE:  Have you ever wanted to give me a Christmas present?  One that won’t cost you a nickel?  Here’s how you can do it:  The California legislature is again trying to repeal Prop 209–the 1996 amendment to the state constitution that prohibits preferential treatment based on race, sex, or ethnicity in public education, public education and public contracting.  They tried this three years ago (Prop 16) and got spanked at the ballot box.  We defeated them overwhelmingly even though they outspent us more than 14 to 1.

This time they are being trickier.  Instead of a straight repeal, they are considering a referendum that would give the governor the power to grant “exceptions” to Prop 209.  The bill–Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 or ACA7–passed the Assembly in the autumn and will be before the Senate when the legislature reconvenes in January.  I am hoping to convince the Senate that this is a bad idea.  I don’t want to have to spend the better part of a year on another campaign.

A quick, cheap way to begin getting the Senate’s attention is through X (Twitter).  I have put together photo parade of about 100 people holding “No on ACA7” signs.  Last night I posted (tweeted) 24 of the photos. All of them were tagged to the Senate, leadership. Consequently, every time someone “likes” one of my posts (tweets), leaders of the Senate will get a little notification.  Later today, tomorrow, and Friday, I will be posting more.

If readers with a Twitter account are so inclined, it would be great if you could go into my X/twitter page and “like” all the 24 photos I sent out last night.  It would equally great if you could re-post/re-tweet a bunch of them.  With any luck, the Senate leaders who are tagged won’t be able to ignore the number of notifications they get.

The Calif constitution’s ban on preferential treatment based on race, sex, or ethnicity was put there in 1996 by Prop 209. Now state legislators want to create an unlimited number of “exceptions.” They will swallow the rule. #NoACA7 #KeepDiscriminationIllegal pic.twitter.com/sZVoh6PXVo

— Gail Heriot (@GailHeriot) December 19, 2023

If you’re wondering if I feel like Sisyphus working to get Prop 209 passed, defending it in courts, fighting Prop 16, and now this, the answer is yes.

Thank you to anyone who is in position to help. (Bumped)

DISPARATE IMPACT LIABILITY’S BEGINNINGS:  On this day in 1970, the parties argued Griggs v. Duke Power Co. before the Supreme Court.  Was there ever a more messed up, incoherent, anti-Congressional intent legal doctrine to come forth from the Supreme Court?  I doubt it.  Notably, the author of the Court’s opinion was the Court’s light-weight Chief, Warren Burger.

RIP SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR:  At the time of her decision in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), she was convinced that there was a “broad societal consensus” in favor of race-preferential admissions and was unwilling to go against that supposed consensus. In reality, insofar as there was a consensus, it went the other way.

RIP SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR:  I do wish you’d understood just how much damage you were doing to higher education and to the aspirations of minority students when you decided Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003.

IF YOU LIVE IN ARIZONA:  I suspect some of your tax money will soon be going to the University of Arizona’s “Emancipatory Education” graduate minor at the College of Education.  It sounds ghastly.  Maybe you should complain.

DO YOU HAVE A STORY TO TELL?:  The Center for Equal Opportunity is listening.  Two weeks ago CEO launched the “After Affirmative Action Network.”  The AAA Network is intended to serve as a clearinghouse to gather and distribute information on how colleges, universities and other schools are changing their admissions policies to comply (or not comply) with the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

Don’t be shy.  If you have information, send it to my friends Devon Westhill and Linda Chavez.  They will make sure it gets into the hands of journalists and litigators.

IF YOU’RE FROM CHICAGO, YOU’LL UNDERSTAND:  I’ve been down on Macy’s since they took over Marshall Field’s more than a decade ago.  I won’t shop there.  You can’t make me.  No one can.  Macy’s killed my favorite store.

I was therefore pleased to learn that “Stephen Miller’s Legal Group Targets Macy’s [Illegal] Diversity Policies.”  Go get ’em, Stephen.

SIGH:  More unsupported claims that racial disparities in maternal mortality are due to discrimination.  We’ll never solve the problem this way.

HOT! HOT! HOT!:  The Supreme Court will soon have the opportunity to resolve a conflict in the Circuits about whether Title IX requires school to assign transgender students to the showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms reserved for the sex they psychologically identify with (rather than their biological sex).  Here is the amicus curiae brief that Joe Bingham, Pete Kirsanow, Dan Morenoff and I just filed.  This is a very winnable case (even in the face of Bostock).  Here’s hoping the Court takes the case.