California Legislature Votes To Remove Non-Discrimination Clause From State Constitution

Written by K. Walker on June 26, 2020

Will California legalize racial discrimination in these racially sensitive times? It appears that it’s well on its way.

During this highly-charged moment where race is playing a significant part of public discourse, some very strange things are happening–America seems to be reverting to its pre-Civil Rights history, but it’s all in the name of anti-racism.

We’ve seen voluntary segregation, white protesters berating black cops, and ahistorical nutters tearing down statues of abolitionists and Union heroes like President Abraham Lincoln and General Ulysses S. Grant. 

Now, we’re seeing the California State legislature remove a provision in their state constitution that prevents discrimination in order to pave the way to restoring Affirmative Action.

Trending: Three MAGA Nuns Steal The Show At Ohio Trump Rally

There is a movement afoot to repeal Proposition 209 which ended Affirmative Action in California in 1996. The text in question reads, “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.” The repeal Prop 209 motion will be on the November 2020 ballot.

ACA 5 would repeal Section 31, Article 1 of the state constitution.

The entire text of Section 31, Article 1 reads as follows:

(a) 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.

(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section’s effective date.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.

(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.

(f) 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, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.

(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party’s race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.

(h) 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.

Source: Justia

ACA 5 also includes widely disputed and blatantly ideological statements such as:

WHEREAS, As a result of the passage of Proposition 209, women and people of color continue to face discrimination and disparity in opportunities to participate in numerous forms of association and work that are crucial to the development of talents and capabilities that enable people to contribute meaningfully to, and benefit from, the collective possibilities of national life; and

WHEREAS, Women, particularly women of color, continue to face unequal pay for equal work. White women are paid 80 cents to every dollar paid to white men doing the same work. Black women are paid 60 cents for every dollar paid to white men doing the same work and would theoretically have to work an extra seven months every year to overcome that differential. This persistent gender wage gap continues to harm women, their families, and communities; …

According to Ballotpedia, a “yes” vote would permit the state to 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.

Proponents of the move say that this will provide “equity” by reasserting Affirmative Action to ensure that minority quotas are reinstated in college admissions and hiring practices. Opponents say that this would simply cause discrimination against other groups, such as Asians who are discriminated against in college and university admissions. But, as in Orwell’s Animal Farm, that’s just fine because some races are just “more equal than others.”

What these geniuses haven’t figured out is that this isn’t just about race, but also includes, “sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin” that can be used as metrics for discrimination.

Just wait until they realize that.

The “progressives” also don’t seem to realize that this kind of legislation turns the clock backward, not forward. It’s in direct contradiction to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Civil rights legislation was championed by President John F. Kennedy after the violence inflicted on peaceful protesters in Alabama in 1963. Kennedy said that the United States “will not be fully free until all of its citizens are free.” Kenndy didn’t get to see the fruit of his proposed legislation because he was assassinated, but his cause was quickly picked up by his successor. The Civil Rights Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. That paved the way for additional Civil Rights legislation to end discrimination based on race such as the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

But the Civil Rights Act wasn’t an easy thing to get passed because of opposition from…Democrats.

The bill then moved to the U.S. Senate, where southern and border state Democrats staged a 75-day filibuster—among the longest in U.S. history. On one occasion, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a former Ku Klux Klan member, spoke for over 14 consecutive hours.

But with the help of behind-the-scenes horse-trading, the bill’s supporters eventually obtained the two-thirds votes necessary to end debate. One of those votes came from California Senator Clair Engle, who, though too sick to speak, signaled “aye” by pointing to his own eye.

Source: History.com (Emphasis added)

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called the Civil Rights Act nothing less than a “second emancipation.” 

And now Cali is looking to repeal words to the same effect in their state constitution to quell the rage of the wokescolds that are pushing to judge people based on the color of their skin rather than on the content of their character.

Good job, Cali. Good job.

ClashDaily's Associate Editor since August 2016. Self-described political junkie, anti-Third Wave Feminist, and a nightmare to the 'intersectional' crowd. Mrs. Walker has taken a stand against 'white privilege' education in public schools. She's also an amateur Playwright, former Drama teacher, and staunch defender of the Oxford comma. Follow her humble musings on Twitter: @TheMrsKnowItAll