California lawmakers are obsessed. For decades, they’ve been trying to kill off Proposition 209, which prohibits the state from giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, or ethnicity. They want the power to discriminate — and they can’t understand why voters keep refusing to give it to them.

With all California’s problems — from homelessness to wildfires to a deteriorating infrastructure — one might expect state legislators to spend their time more wisely. But in Sacramento, identity politics is king. Racial preferences — often dressed up as slavery reparations — get priority; real problems don’t.

The latest assault on Proposition 209 was authorized on a strict party-line vote in late August. If approved by the voters, it will make the 30-year-old initiative inapplicable to most aspects of public education — the heart of the initiative. Even this partial repeal would be devastating for California.

The saving grace is that the new referendum won’t appear on the ballot until November 2028. Voters have plenty of time to realize what’s actually going on here, and make the right decision.

The proposal will entirely remove Proposition 209 from the kindergarten to 12th grade level. The most obvious effect will be that it will no longer forbid discrimination in admissions to gifted and talented programs — which, pre-209, was all too common in California.

Click here for more Manhattan Institute content.

By contrast, the referendum does not try to remove Proposition 209 from university-level admissions and enrollment.  That’s because, just three years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that kind of race discrimination unconstitutional, so it would be futile to try to legalize it through a state referendum.  On the other hand, the referendum does remove Proposition 209 from every other aspect of higher education — including student financial aid, grading, campus housing, graduation requirements, and institutional-level funding.

Of these, financial aid discrimination may be the one the referendum’s sponsors have most immediately in mind. Of course, universities have long taken the ability to pay into account in providing financial aid, and rightly so. Adding race on top of that serves no purpose except to benefit the sons and daughters of well-off parents who do have the ability to pay but who happen to be the right race. It’s unfair and will only lead to racial resentment.

Moreover, the referendum’s sponsors are not just seeking financial aid packages that are “a bit” better for some groups than for others. They’re aiming higher — entirely free tuition for African Americans. That’s one of the many recommendations made by California’s outlandish “Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans.” The referendum’s sponsors — all of whom are members of the California Legislative Black Caucus — have let it be known that their goal is to help bring about the Task Force’s recommendations. The referendum proposal is a part of the CLBC’s “Road to Repair” priority bill package, which the CLBC itself describes as “grounded in the recommendations put forth by [the Task Force].”

The referendum’s sponsors have good reason to try to obscure its likely effects by calling it a mere clarification. The last time they submitted a referendum to gut Proposition 209, they got their heads handed to them.

That was in 2020, at the height of woke fever. The Legislature authorized a referendum that would have repealed Proposition 209 entirely, but despite endorsements from leading Democrats and all the state’s major papers except the Orange County Register, and despite a campaign budget that was more than 14 times the size of the opposition’s budget, the voters rejected it 57% to 44%. They liked Proposition 209 and wanted to keep it.

That spectacular failure shocked many of California’s out-of-touch lawmakers. But the lesson they learned wasn’t that they should give identity politics a rest. It was that they needed to be stealthier. Their next effort, in the 2023-24 session, was designed to turn Proposition 209 into Swiss cheese by giving the governor the power to make an unlimited number of “exceptions.” But while the measure passed the Assembly handily, it died in the Senate — not because its Senate supporters opposed it in principle, but rather because they feared it might not be tricky enough to fool the public. They needed something stealthier.

It remains to be seen whether the newest effort will be tricky enough. Here’s hoping that voters will see through the misrepresentations.

***

Gail Heriot is a senior scholar at the Manhattan Institute. She co-chaired the original Yes on Proposition 209 campaign.