eco
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 1/27
California Proposition
16
Election date
November 3, 2020
Topic
Af�rmative action
Status
Defeated
Type
Constitutional
amendment
Origin
State
legislature
List of California
measures
Submit
California Proposition 16, Repeal
Proposition 209 Affirmative Action
Amendment
(2020)
California Proposition 16, the Repeal Proposition 209
Af�rmative Action Amendment, was on the ballot in
California as a legislatively referred constitutional
amendment on November 3, 2020. Proposition 16 was
defeated.
A “yes” vote supported this constitutional amendment
to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the
government and public institutions cannot discriminate
against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the
basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in
public employment, public education, and public
contracting.
A “no” vote opposed this constitutional amendment,
thereby keeping Proposition 209 (1996), which stated
that the government and public institutions cannot
discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to
persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or
national origin in public employment, public education,
and public contracting.
Election results
California Proposition 16
Result Votes Percentage
Yes 7,042,077 42.85%
No 9,390,914 57.15%
SUBSCRIBE DONATE
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_California_ballot_measures
https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_measures
https://ballotpedia.org/Affirmative_action_on_the_ballot
https://ballotpedia.org/Defeated
https://ballotpedia.org/Legislatively_referred_constitutional_amendment
https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Legislature
https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_measures
https://ballotpedia.org/
California
https://ballotpedia.org/Legislatively_referred_constitutional_amendment
https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_measures
https://ballotpedia.org/
Support
https://ballotpedia.org/
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 2/27
Precincts reporting: 100%
Election results are unof�cial until certi�ed. These results were last updated on November 17, 2020 at 11:05:36 AM
Eastern Time.
Source
Reactions
The following is a list of reactions to the defeat of Proposition 16:
Vincent Pan, executive director of Chinese for Af�rmative Action, said, “Both in
California and across the country, we’re not witnessing a repudiation of Trumpism that
we’d like to see. There’s a lot of work to do to help enlist more folks who are
championing the promotion of policies that really �x structural racism.”
University of California Regents Chair John Perez said, “The failure of Proposition 16
means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families and
California at large. We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue
addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity.”
Roger Clegg, board member of the Center for Equal Opportunity, stated, “So we have
our most populous, and very blue, state rejecting by a decisive vote — apparently a
greater margin than the 1996 vote — a measure that would reinstate politically correct
discrimination, a.k.a. ‘af�rmative action.’ Not only that, but the extremely diverse people
of California did so in the year of the ‘woke’ and they did so despite the fact that the
proposition’s supporters vastly outspent its opponents and had overwhelming support
from all the usual establishment suspects.”
Yukong Zhao, president of the Asian American Coalition for Education, said, “Going
forward, I’d like to warn liberal politicians in California and nationwide: focus your
efforts on devising effective measures to improve K-12 education for Black and
Hispanic children, instead of introducing racially divisive and discriminatory laws time
and again. You have failed in California in 2014, as well as Washington State and New
York City in 2019.”
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote, “This rejection of identity politics in one
of America’s bluest and most diverse states should echo around America, not least at
the U.S. Supreme Court. … And as welcome as it will be for Californians to keep their
state of�cially colorblind, it may also help with two big cases about the use of race in
college admissions that could end up at the Supreme Court.”
Overview
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
https://ballotpedia.org/How_and_when_are_election_results_finalized%3F_(2020)
https://electionresults.sos.ca.gov/returns/ballot-measures
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 3/27
What was Proposition 16?
See also: Changes to the California Constitution
Proposition 16 was a constitutional amendment that would have repealed Proposition 209,
passed in 1996, from the California Constitution. Proposition 209 stated that discrimination and
preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public
contracting on account of a person’s or group’s race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.
Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of af�rmative action involving race-based or sex-
based preferences in California.
Without Proposition 209, the state government, local governments, public universities, and
other political subdivisions and public entities would—within the limits of federal law—be
allowed to develop and use af�rmative action programs that grant preferences based on race,
sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public employment, public education, and public
contracting.
What do discrimination and preferential treatment mean
within the context of Proposition 209?
In Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose (2000), the California Supreme Court held that, within the
context of Proposition 209:
discrimination means “to make distinctions in treatment; show partiality (in favor of ) or
prejudice (against)” and
preferential means “a giving of priority or advantage to one person … over others.”
There was disagreement about the signi�cance of Proposition 209 including language to
prohibit discrimination. Assembly Judiciary Committee counsel Thomas Clark said, “The
measure’s language prohibiting ‘discrimination’ was largely super�uous, given that state and
federal law, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, already prohibit such
discrimination. What was new about Proposition 209, therefore, was the prohibition on
‘preferential treatment.'” Wenyuan Wu, executive director of the campaign opposed to
Proposition 16, responded, “If the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution could suf�ciently
render anti-discrimination laws at the state level super�uous, then there would have been no
need to establish or keep laws such as Article I Section 7 of the State Constitution which
explicitly reaf�rms the U.S. Constitution’s principle of equal protection of the laws and equal
opportunity, the California State Education Code (EDC), Article 3 Section 220, or Donahoe
Higher Education Act, Article 2 Section 66010.2 (C). Or one could argue these aforementioned
laws could render one another ‘super�uous’?”
From Proposition 209 to Proposition 16
See also: Background of Proposition 16
Proposition 209 received 54.55 percent of the vote at the election on November 5, 1996,
making California the �rst state to adopt a constitutional ban on race-based and sex-based
af�rmative action.
[6]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_209,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(1996)
https://ballotpedia.org/California_1996_ballot_measures
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Constitution
https://ballotpedia.org/Affirmative_action
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Supreme_Court
https://ballotpedia.org/Judiciary_Committee,_California_State_Assembly
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 4/27
Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, led the campaign
behind Proposition 209. “Af�rmative action was meant to be temporary,” wrote Connerly, “It
was meant to be a stronger dose of equal opportunity for individuals, and the prescription was
intended to expire when the body politic had developed suf�cient immunity to the virus of
prejudice and discrimination.” He added, “Three decades later, af�rmative action is permanent
and �rmly entrenched as a matter of public policy. … not because of any moral imperative but
because it has become the battleground for a political and economic war that has racial self-
interest as its centerpiece.” In 1997, Connerly founded the American Civil Rights Institute,
which supported ballot initiatives modeled on Proposition 209 in Washington, Michigan,
Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, and Oklahoma.
In 2020, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) introduced the legislation that would become Proposition
16, stating that “the ongoing [coronavirus] pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police
violence, is forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-reaching
institutional failures that show that your race and gender still matter.” She also said, “This is
probably an opportune time given people’s interest in politics and given the kind of turnout that
is anticipated — and given the fact that this is a different generation, that it may be possible for
us to begin to work to reverse Prop. 209.” Connerly, responding to the proposal to repeal
Proposition 209, said, “I believe we would win by a landslide once we let people know what
af�rmative action is really about.”
What types of af�rmative action would have been allowed?
See also: U.S. Supreme Court on af�rmative action laws, policies, and programs
Proposition 16 would have removed the ban on af�rmative action involving race-based or sex-
based preferences from the California Constitution. Therefore, federal case law would have
de�ned the parameters of af�rmative action. The U.S. Supreme Court held that race-based
af�rmative action in higher education and government contracting must be reviewed under
strict scrutiny. In the U.S., strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that requires a law, policy, or
program to serve a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to address that interest.
Courts had ruled that strict racial quotas and racial point systems in higher education
admissions are unconstitutional but that individualized, holistic reviews that consider race, when
tailored to serve a compelling interest (such as educational diversity), are constitutional.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:
“
Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions.
Legislative Constitutional Amendment. ”
Ballot summary
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
https://ballotpedia.org/Ward_Connerly
https://ballotpedia.org/Shirley_Weber
https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._Supreme_Court
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 5/27
The ballot summary was as follows:
“
Permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin to address diversity by repealing article I, section
31, of the California Constitution, which was added by Proposition 209 in
1996.
Proposition 209 generally prohibits state and local governments from
discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, individuals or
groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the
operation of public employment, education, or contracting.
Does not alter other state and federal laws guaranteeing equal protection and
prohibiting unlawful discrimination. ”
Fiscal impact statement
The �scal impact statement was as follows:
“
No direct �scal effect on state and local entities because the measure does
not require any change to current policies or programs.
Possible �scal effects would depend on future choices by state and local
entities to implement policies or programs that consider race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin in public education, public employment, and public
contracting. These �scal effects are high uncertain. ”
Constitutional changes
See also: Article I, California Constitution
The measure would have repealed Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The
following struck-through text would have been repealed:
Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.
[15]
[16]
[15]
[16]
[6]
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_California_Constitution
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_California_Constitution#Section_31
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Constitution
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 6/27
Readability score
See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas,
Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability
scores are designed to indicate the reading dif�culty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas
account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the
dif�culty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this
measure.
The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 18, and the FRE is -21. The word count for the ballot
title is 15, and the estimated reading time is 4 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is
grade level 22, and the FRE is -9. The word count for the ballot summary is 85, and the
estimated reading time is 22 seconds.
Support
The Opportunity for All Coalition, also known as Yes on Prop 16, led the campaign in support of
Proposition 16. In the California State Legislature, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) was the lead
sponsor of the constitutional amendment. Chairpersons of Yes on 16 include Eva
Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society; Vincent Pan, co-executive director of Chinese
for Af�rmative Action; and Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund.
Supporters
(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 �de quali�cations 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
[17]
[18][19][20][21][22]
[23]
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_measure_readability_scores,_2020
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_measure_readability_scores,_2020#Flesch-Kincaid_Grade_Level
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_measure_readability_scores,_2020#Flesch_Reading_Ease
https://ballotpedia.org/Shirley_Weber
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 7/27
The campaign provided a list of endorsements, which is available
here .
Of�cials
U.S. Senator Dianne
Feinstein
(D)
U.S. Senator Kamala D.
Harris (D)
Vermont U.S. Senator
Bernie Sanders
(Independent)
U.S. Representative
Nanette Barragán (D)
U.S. Representative Karen
Bass (D)
U.S. Representative Ami
Bera (D)
U.S. Representative Julia
Brownley (D)
U.S. Representative TJ Cox
(D)
U.S. Representative Mark
DeSaulnier (D)
U.S. Representative Anna
Eshoo (D)
U.S. Representative Jimmy
Gomez (D)
U.S. Representative Jared
Huffman (D)
U.S. Representative Ro
Khanna (D)
U.S. Representative
Barbara Lee (D)
U.S. Representative Ted
Lieu (D)
U.S. Representative Alan
Lowenthal (D)
U.S. Representative Doris
Matsui (D)
U.S. Representative Jerry
McNerney (D)
U.S. Representative Grace
Napolitano (D)
Speaker of the U.S. House
Nancy Pelosi (D)
U.S. Representative Katie
Porter (D)
U.S. Representative Lucille
Roybal-Allard (D)
U.S. Representative Raul
Ruiz (D)
U.S. Representative Brad
Sherman (D)
U.S. Representative Jackie
Speier (D)
U.S. Representative Eric
Swalwell (D)
U.S. Representative Linda
Sánchez (D)
U.S. Representative Mark
Takano (D)
U.S. Representative Juan
Vargas (D)
U.S. Representative
Maxine Waters (D)
Governor Gavin Newsom
(D)
State Senator Steven
Bradford (D)
State Senator Richard Pan
(D)
State Senator Scott
Wiener (D)
Assemblymember Lorena
Gonzalez Fletcher (D)
Assemblymember Miguel
Santiago (D)
Assemblymember Shirley
Weber (D)
Assemblymember Buffy
Wicks (D)
San Diego Mayor Kevin
Faulconer
(Nonpartisan)
Long Beach Mayor Robert
Garcia (Nonpartisan)
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://ballotpedia.org/Dianne_Feinstein
https://ballotpedia.org/Kamala_Harris
https://ballotpedia.org/Bernie_Sanders
https://ballotpedia.org/Nanette_Barrag%C3%A1n
https://ballotpedia.org/Karen_Bass
https://ballotpedia.org/Ami_Bera
https://ballotpedia.org/Julia_Brownley
https://ballotpedia.org/TJ_Cox
https://ballotpedia.org/Mark_DeSaulnier
https://ballotpedia.org/Anna_Eshoo
https://ballotpedia.org/Jimmy_Gomez
https://ballotpedia.org/Jared_Huffman
https://ballotpedia.org/Ro_Khanna
https://ballotpedia.org/Barbara_Lee_(California)
https://ballotpedia.org/Ted_Lieu
https://ballotpedia.org/Alan_Lowenthal
https://ballotpedia.org/Doris_Matsui
https://ballotpedia.org/Jerry_McNerney
https://ballotpedia.org/Grace_Napolitano
https://ballotpedia.org/Nancy_Pelosi
https://ballotpedia.org/Katie_Porter
https://ballotpedia.org/Lucille_Roybal-Allard
https://ballotpedia.org/Raul_Ruiz
https://ballotpedia.org/Brad_Sherman
https://ballotpedia.org/Jackie_Speier
https://ballotpedia.org/Eric_Swalwell
https://ballotpedia.org/Linda_S%C3%A1nchez
https://ballotpedia.org/Mark_Takano
https://ballotpedia.org/Juan_Vargas
https://ballotpedia.org/Maxine_Waters
https://ballotpedia.org/Gavin_Newsom
https://ballotpedia.org/Steven_Bradford
https://ballotpedia.org/Richard_Pan
https://ballotpedia.org/Scott_Wiener
https://ballotpedia.org/Lorena_Gonzalez_Fletcher
https://ballotpedia.org/Miguel_Santiago_(California)
https://ballotpedia.org/Shirley_Weber
https://ballotpedia.org/Buffy_Wicks
https://ballotpedia.org/Kevin_Faulconer
https://ballotpedia.org/Robert_Garcia_(California)
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://twitter.com/yesprop16/status/1303426327287078913
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://www.sacbee.com/article243767857.html
https://www.sacbee.com/article243767857.html
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://a79.asmdc.org/press-releases/20200310-lawmakers-business-community-announce-california-act-economic-prosperity
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200ACA5
CA is not immune to the systemic racism that pervades our nation — & since 1996, we've had blinders on to this uncomfortable truth.
It's time to repeal #Prop209, permanently dismantle systemic racism, & create real opportunity for all.
Proud to support @AsmShirleyWeber's #ACA5. pic.twitter.com/sk8YdUtyxJ
— Buffy Wicks (@BuffyWicks) June 11, 2020
https://voteyesonprop16.org/why-prop-16/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/why-prop-16/endorsements/
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 8/27
Former Of�cials
Former U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D)
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Former U.S. Representative Mike Honda (D)
Former State Senate President Kevin de León (D)
Political Parties
California Democratic Party
Government Entities
University of California Board of Regents
Los Angeles County Board of Education
San Jose City Council
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
Individuals
Dolores Huerta – Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers
Bernice King – President of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social
Change
Tom Steyer (D) – Founder of NextGen America
Unions
AFSCME California
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California Nurses Association
California Teachers Association
National Nurses United
SEIU California State Council
Corporations
San Jose Mayor Sam
Liccardo (Nonpartisan)
San Francisco Mayor
London Breed
(Nonpartisan)
Los Angeles Mayor Eric
Garcetti (D)
Oakland Mayor Libby
Schaaf
Stockton Mayor Michael
Tubbs (Nonpartisan)
Lieutenant Governor Eleni
Kounalakis (D)
Secretary of State Alex
Padilla (D)
State Superintendent of
Public Instruction Tony
Thurmond (Nonpartisan)
State Controller Betty Yee
(D)
AirBnB
Blue Shield of California
Golden State Warriors
Instacart
Kaiser Permanente
https://ballotpedia.org/Barbara_Boxer
https://ballotpedia.org/Pete_Buttigieg
https://ballotpedia.org/Mike_Honda
https://ballotpedia.org/Kevin_de_Le%C3%B3n
https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_Party_of_California
https://ballotpedia.org/Tom_Steyer
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Teachers_
Association
https://ballotpedia.org/National_Nurses_United
https://ballotpedia.org/SEIU_California_State_Council
https://ballotpedia.org/Sam_Liccardo
https://ballotpedia.org/London_Breed
https://ballotpedia.org/Eric_Garcetti
https://ballotpedia.org/Libby_Schaaf
https://ballotpedia.org/Michael_Tubbs
https://ballotpedia.org/Eleni_Kounalakis
https://ballotpedia.org/Alex_Padilla
https://ballotpedia.org/Tony_Thurmond
https://ballotpedia.org/Betty_Yee
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/why-prop-16/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/why-prop-16/endorsements/
No one expected the kid living in a Barrio Logan basement would ever get to college. They surely didn't think I would become the Leader of the California Senate.
But I did.
Affirmative action gave me a chance to thrive. How many have we left behind since? Vote YES on #ACA5.
— Kevin de Leόn (@kdeleon) June 10, 2020
https://cademorg-media.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/28204844/CDP-PropEnsorsements__Interactive
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-board-regents-endorses-aca-5-repeal-prop-209
https://www.lacoe.edu/Home/News-Announcements/ID/4458/LA-County-Board-of-Education-votes-to-support-bill-to-repeal-ban-on-affirmative-action
https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-to-take-a-stand-on-measure-to-bring-back-affirmative-action/
Today, Monterey County Supervisors officially voted to endorse #Prop16 to restore affirmative action & #Prop18 to allow 17-year olds to vote in the primary if they will be 18 by the General Election! These are 2 just ballot initiatives & we stand in support⚖️! @yesprop16 @prop_18 pic.twitter.com/sLZrnN0hww
— Luis Alejo⚖️ (@SupervisorAlejo) September 1, 2020
https://twitter.com/yesprop16/status/1290828157604360192
I endorse @YesProp16, which will help create a stronger economic future for women & communities of color. This is aligned with my father’s dream & work to eradicate injustice, including economic injustice. To those who disagree, I invite you to study #MLK more comprehensively.👇🏾 pic.twitter.com/szMykkl4y9
— Be A King (@BerniceKing) July 20, 2020
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1425738&view=received&session=2019&psort=TRANS_DATE
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/news/release-yes-on-prop-16-campaign-announces-new-500000-contribution-from-blue-shield-of-california/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/california-playbook/2020/08/26/newsom-backs-gascon-guilfoyle-breaks-the-internet-squaw-valley-to-be-renamed-wildfire-destruction-continues-cannabis-business-tax-relief-490186
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 9/27
Organizations
Arguments
State Sen. Steven Bradford (D-35): “I know about discrimination. I live it every day. We
live it in this building. Quit lying to yourselves and saying race is not a factor… the
bedrock of who we are in this country is based on race.”
U.S. Rep. Karen Bass (D-37): “Proposition 209, deceptively titled the California Civil
Rights Initiative, passed by referendum in 1996 amidst an orchestrated campaign of
dog-whistle politics attacking all attempts to level the playing �eld for women and
people of color. Before Prop 209, those efforts at advancing equity had made real
progress. But the Wall Street-backed authors of the initiative saw a threat to their
economic stranglehold from an increasingly diverse and highly educated population in
California; a population better situated to compete in jobs, education, government
contracts and other areas of the state’s economy. In passing Prop 209, those groups
limited competition in their industries and bene�ted their own businesses by erecting
new institutional barriers burdening the ability of California’s women and people of
color achieve positions of economic and business leadership.”
University of California President Janet Napolitano: “It makes little sense to exclude
any consideration of race in admissions when the aim of the University’s holistic
process is to fully understand and evaluate each applicant through multiple
Lyft
Oakland Athletics
PG&E Corporation
San Francisco 49ers
San Francisco Giants
Uber
United Airlines
Wells Fargo
ACLU of California
ACLU of Northern California
ACLU of Southern California
Alliance of Californians for Community
Empowerment
American Beverage Association
Anti-Defamation League
Asian Paci�c Islander Legislative Caucus
California Asian Chamber of
Commerce
California Black Chamber of Commerce
California Charter Schools Association
California Hispanic Chambers of
Commerce
California NAACP State Conference
California State Association of Counties
California State Student Association
Center for American Progress
Center for American Progress
Chinese for Af�rmative Action
Democracy for America
Environmental Defense Fund
Equality California
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
National Organization for Women
Natural Resources Defense Council
NextGen California
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
https://ballotpedia.org/Democracy_for_America
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1425738&view=received&session=2019&psort=TRANS_DATE
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1425738&view=received&session=2019&psort=TRANS_DATE
https://www.aclusocal.org/2020ballotguide
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1425738&view=received&session=2019&psort=TRANS_DATE
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://apicaucus.legislature.ca.gov/APILCSupportforACA5
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1425738&view=received&session=2019&psort=TRANS_DATE
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://twitter.com/yesprop16/status/1302004185530019840
https://twitter.com/yesprop16/status/1302004185530019840
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://www.democracyforamerica.com/props
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/endorsements/
https://www.sacbee.com/article243767857.html
https://bass.house.gov/sites/bass.house.gov/files/Support%20Letter%20for%20Repeal%20of%20Proposition%20209%2006.22.20
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 10/27
dimensions. Proposition 209 has forced California public institutions to try to address
racial inequality without factoring in race, even where allowed by federal law. The
diversity of our university and higher education institutions across California, should —
and must — represent the rich diversity of our state.”
Varsha Sarveshwar, president of the University of California Student Association:
“Today, colleges can consider whether you’re from the suburbs, a city or a rural area.
They can consider what high school you went to. They can consider your family’s
economic background. They can look at virtually everything about you – but not race. It
makes no sense – and is unfair – that schools can’t consider something that is so core
to our lived experience. Repealing Prop. 209 will not create quotas or caps. These are
illegal under a Supreme Court decision and would remain so.”
Otto Lee, former mayor of Sunnyvale, California, and founder of the Intellectual
Property Law Group LLP: “With President Trump’s latest proclamations of Chinese
virus, or “Kung Flu,” many Asian Americans recently have experienced racial
discrimination and have been told to “Go back to China.” As a Chinese American, I
recognize the urgent need for us to build bridges with all people of color, as
discrimination against one is discrimination against all. We must stand tall together to
call out these unacceptable behaviors and not allow ACA 5 to become a wedge that
divides us.”
Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79): Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79), the principal sponsor of the
constitutional amendment and chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus, stated the
following:
“Californians have built the �fth largest and strongest economy in the world,
but too many hardworking Californians are not sharing in our state’s
prosperity—particularly women, families of color, and low-wage workers.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 will help improve all of our daily lives
by repealing Proposition 209 and eliminating discrimination in state contracts,
hiring and education. [ACA 5] is about equal opportunity for all and investment
in our communities.”
“We have all survived and endured Proposition 209, and it has not been a
luxury. It has been a hard journey. And it has caused a lot of losses.”
“Since Proposition 209’s passage, California has become one of only eight
states that do not allow race or gender to be among the many factors
considered in hiring, allotting state contracts or accepting students into the
state’s public colleges and universities.”
“As we look around the world, we see there is an urgent cry — an urgent cry for
change. After 25 years of quantitative and qualitative data, we see that race-
neutral solutions cannot �x problems steeped in race.”
“The ongoing pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police violence, is
forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-board-regents-endorses-aca-5-repeal-prop-209
https://www.sacbee.com/article243306511.html
Opinion: ACA 5 will bring racial equity and fairness to California
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 11/27
reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still
matter.”
Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society: “People of color are treated
differently. One way that people can act on their desire to eliminate systemic racism is
to vote for Proposition 16. It gives people of color, and women, more power, more
money. If you have more money you have more access, more clout in the political
system.”
Of�cial arguments
The following is the argument in support of Proposition 16 found in the Of�cial Voter
Information Guide:
Opposition
Californians for Equal Rights, also known as No on 16, led the
campaign in opposition to Proposition 16. Ward Connerly, who
was chairperson of the campaign behind California Proposition
209 (1996), was chairperson of Californians for Equal Rights.
Opponents
The campaign provided a full list of coalition members and
endorsements on its website, which is available here .
Of�cials
State Senator Ling Ling Chang (R)
State Senator Melissa Melendez (R)
Former Of�cials
Former U.S. Representative Tom Campbell (R)
Former Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff (R)
Of�cial Voter Information Guide: YES on Prop. 16 means EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair
wages, good jobs, and quality schools. Despite living in the most diverse state in
the nation, white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power
in California. Although women, and especially women of color, are on the front
lines of the COVID-19 response, they are not rewarded for their sacri�ces.
Women should have the same chance of success as men. Today, nearly all public
contracts, and the jobs that go with them, go to large companies run by older
white men. White women make 80¢ on the dollar. The wage disparity is even
worse for women of color and single moms As a result an elite few are able to
[24]
[25]
[26]
https://ballotpedia.org/Ward_Connerly
https://californiansforequalrights.org/our-coalition/
https://ballotpedia.org/Ling_Ling_Chang
https://ballotpedia.org/Melissa_Melendez
https://ballotpedia.org/Tom_Campbell_(California)
https://ballotpedia.org/Bob_Huff
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-10-18/proposition-16-affirmative-action-california-election
https://www.sacbee.com/article243767857.html
https://www.sacbee.com/article243767857.html
https://www.pe.com/2020/07/29/proposition-16-will-bring-back-racial-discrimination-bob-huff-2/
https://myvalleynews.com/campa-najjar-issa-debate-the-issues-in-forum-moderated-by-league-of-women-voters/
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 12/27
Former U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R)
Political Parties
Republican Party of California
Individuals
Ward Connerly – Chairperson of the campaign behind
California Proposition 209 (1996)
Organizations
American Civil Rights Institute
American Freedom Alliance
Association for Education Fairness
Chinese American Civic Action Alliance
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.
Arguments
Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington,
D.C.: “Because it is much cheaper to provide racial preferences to upper middle class
Latino and African American students than it is to do the hard work of recruiting
economically disadvantaged and working-class Latino and African American students,
I fear that many of these progressive reforms could be diluted if 209 is repealed.”
Former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R): “Nevertheless, if more spaces are to be made for
the under-represented, they must come from the over-represented. Asian Americans
are 15.3 percent of Californians, yet 39.72 percent of UC enrollees. Those numbers are
why bringing this issue forward now would inevitably divide Californians racially: Latino
Americans and African Americans on one side, Asian Americans on the other. The
politics are inescapably racial.”
Wenyuan Wu, director of administration for the Asian American Coalition for
Education: “Built on partial evidence and shallow prescriptions for an unrealistic utopia,
ACA-5 is in essence divisive and discriminatory. Its overarching goal to undo
Proposition 209, a bill that won the popular vote in 1996 and has withstood legal
scrutiny over time, is misguided in that ACA-5 proposes instant but wrong solutions to
persistent social ills.”
Wen Fa, an attorney with the Paci�c Legal Foundation: “We’re de�nitely going to take
a hard look at that and see whether it complies with the 14th Amendment, or whether
it violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law. Racial preferences are
wrong, no matter who they bene�t.”
Asm. Steven S. Choi (R-68): “Is it right to give someone a job just because they are
white, or black or green or yellow? Or just because they are male? Repealing
Proposition 209, enacted by voters 24 years ago, is to repeal the prohibition of
https://ballotpedia.org/Darrell_Issa
https://ballotpedia.org/Republican_Party_of_California
https://ballotpedia.org/Ward_Connerly
https://myvalleynews.com/campa-najjar-issa-debate-the-issues-in-forum-moderated-by-league-of-women-voters/
https://www.cagop.org/s/endorsements
Prop. 16 threatens California’s commitment to equality: Ward Connerly
https://californiansforequalrights.org/our-coalition/
https://californiansforequalrights.org/our-coalition/
https://californiansforequalrights.org/our-coalition/
https://californiansforequalrights.org/our-coalition/
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/PDFGen/pdfgen.prg?filingid=2479626&amendid=0
California universities prepare for possible return of affirmative action in admissions
A hasty hearing on a constitutional amendment that would overturn Prop. 209
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/california-proposal-could-bring-back-affirmative-action
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 13/27
judgment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin. We are talking about
legalizing racism and sexism.”
Sen. Ling Ling Chang (R-29): “I have experienced racial discrimination so I know what
that’s like. But the answer to racial discrimination is not more discrimination which is
what this bill proposes. The answer is to strengthen our institutions by improving our
education system so all students have access to a quality education, and give
opportunities to those who are economically disadvantaged. ACA 5 legalizes racial
discrimination and that’s wrong.”
John Fund, national-affairs reporter for the National Review: “Liberals in California’s
one-party state are on an ideological crusade to continue a racial spoils system forever.
They should realize how much of the country disagrees with them and how the politics
of the issue could once again surprise them and blow up in their face.”
Michelle Steel, chairwoman of the Orange County Board of Supervisors: “The
Californians who voted to pass Prop. 209 knew that discrimination, though long
entrenched in our society, is against the fundamental values of American culture. Prop.
209 applied to California the essence of Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of a nation
where individuals would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of
their character.”
Former Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff (R): “California is the most diverse state in
the nation and must step up to the challenges that brings. The real solution for racial
equality is comprehensive public-school reform in our K-12 system, not government
sanctioned discrimination to create more losers than winners as Proposition 16 will
do.”
Ward Connerly, chairperson of the campaign behind Proposition 209: “The
fundamental nature of our nation is that we are a collection of free people who have
rights given to us by our Creator. Liberty and equality are precious rights deemed
essential to our pursuit of that which ful�lls our objective of happiness. More than just
for the pursuit of happiness, however, equality is essential to the maintenance of a civil
society. This is especially so in a state now identi�ed as a “majority minority” state. … I
ask you all to vote No on Proposition 16, which would delete that commitment to
equality from the California Constitution.”
Haibo Huang, co-founder of San Diego Asian Americans for Equality: “Race is a
forbidden classi�cation for good reason, because it demeans the dignity and worth of a
person to be judged by ancestry instead of his or her own merit and essential qualities.
Racial preference is not transformed from patently unconstitutional into a compelling
state interest simply by relabeling it racial diversity. … Judging people by their skin color
is morally repugnant. Equal opportunity is referenced to individual merits, it never
guarantees equal results. To the contrary, enforcing equal outcome regardless of
quali�cation and effort bears the hallmark of communism.”
Former U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R), who served as the co-chairperson of the campaign
behind Proposition 209: “You can support af�rmative action by looking for legitimate
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article243426346.html
https://chang.cssrc.us/content/senator-chang-issues-statement-aca-5-vote
Proposition 16 will bring discrimination in the name of equality: Michelle Steel
https://www.pe.com/2020/07/29/proposition-16-will-bring-back-racial-discrimination-bob-huff-2/
Prop. 16 threatens California’s commitment to equality: Ward Connerly
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2020-06-09/california-keep-prop-209-affirmative-action
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 14/27
outreach on other issues, people who have just come to the United States and would
have been at a disadvantage in their education, people who are economically at a
different level. There’s nothing in our constitution that prohibits outreach, but the fact
is Proposition 209 has worked, the minority graduation rate has risen under this and I
support the continuation of our constitution.”
Betty Chu, a co-chair of Californians for Equal Rights: “In my lifetime, I have seen
Asian Americans prevail against racism to be treated as fully American, as equal
citizens, employees and leaders. This has occurred in large part because racism itself
has become unacceptable in America. What a triumph! … This response minimizes the
concerns of Asian Americans about a measure that will allow the state to put them at a
disadvantage solely on the basis of their race. Those of us who believe that people
should be treated as individuals, not merely as members of groups or tokens, know
Prop. 16 only sows division and is plain wrong. Yet, such racial animus is today implicitly
endorsed by the supporters of Prop. 16: a whole slew of corporate interests, politically
connected high-bid contractors who wish to win government contracts based on race
and a biased media that refuses to cover a potential amendment to the California
Constitution fairly.”
Of�cial arguments
The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 16 found in the Of�cial Voter
Information Guide:
Campaign �nance
The campaign �nance information on this page re�ects the most recently scheduled
reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through October 17, 2020. The deadline
for the next scheduled reports is February 1, 2021.
Of�cial Voter Information Guide: The California Legislature wants you to strike
these precious words from our state Constitution: “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.” Don’t do it! Vote NO.
Those words—adopted by California voters in 1996 as Proposition 209—should
remain �rmly in place. Only by treating everyone equally can a state as brilliantly
diverse as California be fair to everyone. REPEAL WOULD BE A STEP
BACKWARD Discrimination of this kind is poisonous. It will divide us at a time we
desperately need to unite Politicians want to give preferential treatment to their
[27]
Reject state-sanctioned discrimination, reject Proposition 16: Betty Chu
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 15/27
See also: Campaign �nance requirements for California ballot measures
The Opportunity for All Coalition was organized as a political action committee (PAC) to
support Proposition 16. The campaign had raised $20.39 million. M. Quinn Delaney was the
largest donor, contributing $5.5 million.
Californians for Equal Rights and Parents and Students for Racial Equality were organized to
oppose Proposition 16. Together, the committees had raised $1.49 million, including $50,000
from Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Support $19,182,536.84 $1,204,417.91 $20,386,954.75 $17,841,327.69 $19,045,745.60
Oppose $1,494,542.17 $0.00 $1,494,542.17 $1,250,148.79 $1,250,148.79
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of
the initiative.
Committees in support of Proposition 16
Committee
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Yes on 16,
Opportunity
for All
Coalition
$15,186,003.09 $1,150,382.54 $16,336,385.63 $15,326,118.11 $16,476,500.65
Educators for
Equity,
Yes on
15 and 16,
Sponsored by
California
Teachers
Association
$3,500,000.00 $0.00 $3,500,000.00 $2,309,490.50 $2,309,490.50
Alex Padilla
Ballot
Measure
Committee for
Democracy
and Justice –
Yes on
Propositions
16, 17, and 18
$369,533.75 $0.00 $369,533.75 $130,576.68 $130,576.68
[28]
[28]
[28]
https://ballotpedia.org/Campaign_finance_requirements_for_California_ballot_measures
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 16/27
Yes on Prop.
16, California
Businesses
and Working
Families for
Fair
Opportunities
$127,000.00 $54,035.37 $181,035.37 $75,142.40 $129,177.77
Total $19,182,536.84 $1,204,417.91 $20,386,954.75 $17,841,327.69 $19,045,745.60
Donors
The following were the top �ve donors who contributed to the support committee.
Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
M. Quinn Delaney $5,500,000.00 $0.00 $5,500,000.00
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
Inc.
$1,500,000.00 $0.00 $1,500,000.00
Patty Quillin $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00
California Teachers
Association / Issues PAC
$550,000.00 $3,409.00 $553,409.00
American Civil Liberties Union $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Blue Shield of California $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Connie Ballmer $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Steve Ballmer $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in
opposition to the initiative.
Committees in opposition to Proposition 16
Committee
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Californians
for Equal
Rights
$1,470,559.33 $0.00 $1,470,559.33 $1,230,858.54 $1,230,858.54
Parents and
Students for
Racial Equality,
No on Prop 16
$23,982.84 $0.00 $23,982.84 $19,290.25 $19,290.25
Total $1,494,542.17 $0.00 $1,494,542.17 $1,250,148.79 $1,250,148.79
Donors
The following was the top donor who contributed to the opposition committee.
Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
[28]
[28]
[28]
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 17/27
Students for Fair Admissions,
Inc.
$50,000.00 $0.00 $50,000.00
Gail Heriot $49,999.00 $0.00 $49,999.00
Frank Xu $15,040.00 $0.00 $15,040.00
John Grassi $15,000.00 $0.00 $15,000.00
Manuel Klausner $10,030.00 $0.00 $10,030.00
Media editorials
Support
The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: “Nearly a quarter of a century ago, California
voters passed the deceptively named California Civil Rights Initiative. But Proposition
209 was not about advancing civil rights. It was about prohibiting the consideration of
race and gender in public education, employment and contracting. … It was just about
shutting the door on efforts to overcome those institutional barriers to the full
participation of women and minorities. It was wrong in 1996, when it was passed by
55% of California voters, and it is wrong now. It should be repealed.”
Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: “The events of this year have
highlighted the level of racial injustice that exists across the nation, including California.
The disparity between Black and Latino residents and their White counterparts is
readily apparent when it comes to income, health, education and the criminal justice
system. Reducing those disparities will require a major effort on multiple fronts.
Proposition 16 would give the state’s universities and government a valuable tool they
need to �ght existing structural inequalities.”
Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: “The death of George Floyd, yet another unarmed
Black man killed by police, and the COVID-19 pandemic‘s disproportionate toll on Black
and Latino Americans have been a wake-up call for this country. We must act to
dismantle the racism baked into our institutions, and voting yes on Proposition 16 on
Nov. 3 will help. … If we want to live in a country that better re�ects our national
narrative of equal opportunity, we have to build it. That means using the right tools,
such as af�rmative action. Vote yes on
Proposition 16.”
The Desert Sun Editorial Board: “Though Proposition 16 only addresses elimination of
Proposition 209’s constitutional language, which speci�cally addresses state and local
public agency conduct, greater efforts to bring underrepresented people into all ranks
and levels in the already highly diverse civil workplace and government contracting
universe can only help to greater diversify and strengthen the ranks of the private
sector. Giving those previously disadvantaged — due in large part to life circumstances
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-California-should-reconsider-15132748.php
Editorial: Prop. 16 helps create level playing field in California
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-09-11/endorsement-affirmative-action-ban
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 18/27
often strongly determined by their race or gender — “a leg onto the ladder” in the
public education and civil sector world will help them transition to other “ladders,” if
they choose, in the private sector.”
San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: “We can safely remove barriers to inequality
and increase diversity and opportunity.”
San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: “It is hard to think of an initiative that �ts the
moment better than Proposition 16. […] So if California joined the 42 other states
allowing communities of color to have preferences in college admissions, government
hiring and the awarding of contracts — where women- and minority-owned businesses
are generally on shakier ground �nancially and struggle to compete — that would be
constructive and positive. Proposition 16 is needed. Now. But if it passes, The San
Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board hopes that all the lawmakers — and all the voters
— who supported it monitor its impact on Asian American students — and heed the
same arguments for its adoption when considering education reform. We recommend
a yes vote on Proposition 16.”
The Press Democrat Editorial Board: “The Press Democrat opposed Proposition 209,
the 1996 initiative that banned af�rmative action in California, arguing that
‘discrimination is a continuing reality in our society.’ We hope that one day that’s no
longer true. For now, it still is. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on
Proposition 16.”
The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: “This country has been forced to reckon with
the devastating effects of systemic racism in the wake of the senseless killing of
George Floyd by Minneapolis police. The killing of Breonna Taylor by Louisville police
created yet another national moment that forced us to reckon with how this country
mistreats and disregards people of color. Af�rmative action, along with other policies
speci�cally designed to address the legacy of systemic racism, can help to reconcile
our long history of injustice. California, as the nation’s most diverse state, should be
leading the nation in these efforts. Our state policies should re�ect a deep
commitment to addressing systemic racism and ensuring that our institutions re�ect
our communities.”
Opposition
The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board: “Now it’s up to the voters. Last November
voters in Washington state narrowly defeated a similar amendment, though opponents
were vastly outspent by those favoring racial preferences. California is a more liberal
state and its political class and nearly all media will support repeal. But judging
individuals by the color of their skin is antithetical to equal justice under the law. Let’s
https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/editorials/2020/10/10/vote-yes-prop-16-boost-state-help-disadvantaged-desert-sun-editorial-board-endorsement/5943502002/
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-san-mateo-daily-journal-recommendations-for-state-propositions/article_23119c4a-0db8-11eb-bfe6-1b4dc6567b85.html
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/story/2020-10-14/vote-yes-on-proposition-16-affirmative-action-california-endorsement
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/opinion/pd-editorial-prop-16-will-help-level-the-playing-field-in-california/
https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/election-endorsements/article246665822.html
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 19/27
hope Californians hold on to this American principle of equality that goes back to the
Declaration of Independence, the 14th Amendment, and the civil-rights movement.”
The Orange County Register Editorial Board: “With or without Prop. 209, we can
count on public institutions continuing to re�ect the diversity of the state and
continuing to provide opportunities to Californians of all backgrounds. California can
continue to build on its reputation as a wonderfully diverse state without government
judging people based on their race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Ultimately, we
don’t think the case has been made for scrapping Prop. 209 and the fundamental
principle of treating all people on equal terms.”
The Bakers�eld Californian Editorial Board: “There are better ways to achieve desired
educational and economic diversity than af�rmative action. … Innovative minority
recruitment strategies are a more effective way to increase diversity on university
campuses, in public workforces and in public contracting. Vote NO on Prop. 16.”
ACA 5
The following media editorial boards took positions on whether ACA 5 should be placed on the
ballot in 2020:
Los Angeles Times: “We wish race didn’t matter in hiring and college admissions. We
wish that everyone had an equal opportunity to access quality education and achieve
economic prosperity. But they didn’t in 1996 and still don’t in 2020. Race and gender
are still automatic disadvantages that are dif�cult to overcome. Helping to shrink the
opportunity gap with a tiny leg up doesn’t give them an unfair advantage over those
born already ahead, just a slightly better chance than they have now. That’s not
discrimination. That’s justice. And it’s time Californians had another debate about how
to achieve it.”
The Sacramento Bee: “In 1996, Prop. 209 passed with nearly 55 percent support from
California voters. That year, Republicans seized on af�rmative action as a wedge issue
to in�ame racial division and drive voter turnout in an effort to unseat incumbent
President Bill Clinton. Masquerading behind civil rights language, it abolished a key tool
for addressing systemic discrimination people of color and women. Then-Gov. Pete
Wilson endorsed it, as did Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole. The California
State Legislature should strongly support ACA 5 and let the people decide in
November.”
Polls
See also: 2020 ballot measure
polls
[29]
[30]
https://ballotpedia.org/2020_ballot_measure_polls
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-vote-for-discrimination-11593127619
Vote No on Proposition 16 to defend state’s respect for diversity and equality
https://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/our-view-endorsement-prop-16-vote-no-on-restoring-affirmative-action/article_781b4554-f221-11ea-8982-731f84bbd892.html
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 20/27
[hide]California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Af�rmative Action Amendment
(2020)
Poll Support Oppose Undecided Margin of error Sample size
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely
voters)
10/16/2020 – 10/21/2020
38.0% 49.0% 13.0% +/-2.0 5,352
David Binder Research
(likely voters)
10/17/2020 – 10/19/2020
45.0% 45.0% 10.0% +/-4.0 600
PPIC Statewide Survey
(likely voters)
10/9/2020 – 10/18/2020
37.0% 50.% 12.0% +/-4.3 1,185
SurveyUSA (likely voters)
9/26/2020 – 9/28/2020
40.0% 26.0% 34.0% +/-5.4 588
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely
voters)
9/9/2020 – 9/15/2020
33.0% 41.0% 26.0% +/-2.0 5,942
PPIC (likely voters)
9/4/2020 – 9/13/2020
31.0% 47.0% 22.0% +/-4.3 1,168
AVERAGES 37.33% 43% 19.5% +/-3.67 2,472.5
Note: The polls above may not re�ect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a
random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the
table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Background
Measures
California Proposition 209 (1996)
See also: California Proposition 209, Af�rmative Action Initiative (1996)
California Proposition 209 was approved at the presidential election on November 5, 1996,
receiving 54.55 percent of the vote. Proposition 209 added Section 31 to the California
Constitution’s Declaration of Rights, which read, “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.”[31]
javascript:collapseTable(0);
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5nf4r5hz?
https://voteyesonprop16.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/DBR-Prop-16-Memo-v4
https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-october-2020
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d15fdb0d-701d-495c-a67f-e17bfcc3bf92
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4cd2r446
https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-september-2020
mailto:editor@ballotpedia.org
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_209,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(1996)
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_209,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(1996)
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_California_Constitution#Section_31
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_California_Constitution
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 21/27
Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, also known as Yes on Proposition 209, led
the campaign in support of Proposition 209. Ward Connerly, a member of the University of
California Board of Regents, was chairperson of the campaign. Yes on Proposition 209 had
the support of the California Republican Party, Gov. Pete Wilson (R), and U.S. Sen. Bob Dole (R-
Kansas), who was the Republican presidential nominee in the 1996 election.
The Campaign to Defeat 209 had the backing of incumbent President Bill Clinton (D), the
California Democratic Party, and the California Teachers Association.
In 1996, California was a divided government. Pete Wilson, a Republican, was the state’s
governor. Republicans controlled the California State Assembly. Democrats controlled the
California State Senate.
California Proposition 54 (2003)
See also: California Proposition 54, Prohibit State Classi�cation Based on Race in Education,
Employment, and Contracting Initiative (October 2003)
In 2003, voters rejected Proposition 54, which would have prohibited the state from classifying
prospective students, contractors, or employees based on race, ethnicity, color, or national
origin in public education, contracting, or employment.
Ward Connerly, who chaired the campaign behind Proposition 209, was the chief proponent of
Proposition 54. He said, “My motivation is to present the nation, by way of California, with a
different option for the kind of nation that it’s going to become.” Ramona Ripston, executive
director of the ACLU of Southern California, responded to Proposition 54, saying, “We’d all like
to live in a society where race doesn’t matter. But this initiative… will not end racial discrimination
in this state. It will only hide it.”
States
See also: Af�rmative action
on the ballot
Between 1996 and 2020, voters had decided ballot measures to prohibit the use of af�rmative
action involving race-based and sex-based preferences in seven states. Six of the ballot
measures were approved. In Florida, Idaho, and New Hampshire, legislation or executive orders
banned or limited race-based af�rmative action as of 2020.
With Proposition 209, California became the �rst state to enact a formal ban on racial
preferences, according to the Pew Research Center.
In 1997, Ward Connerly, who chaired the campaign behind Proposition 209, founded the
American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI). ACRI supported successful ballot measures in
Washington (1998) and Michigan (2006). In 2008, ACRI launched a campaign called the
Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, which supported ballot initiatives in Colorado and
Nebraska. In Colorado, the ballot measure was rejected.
In Arizona (2010) and Oklahoma (2012), their respective state legislatures placed constitutional
amendments related to af�rmative action on the ballot. Both of the constitutional
amendments were approved.
State Measure Year
Percent
“Yes”
Percent
“No”
Status
[32]
[33]
[32][33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41][42] [43]
[44][45]
[46][47]
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Republican_Party
https://ballotpedia.org/Bill_Clinton
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Democratic_Party
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Teachers_Association
https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_California_state_government
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Governor
https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Assembly
https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Senate
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_54,_Prohibit_State_Classification_Based_on_Race_in_Education,_Employment,_and_Contracting_Initiative_(October_2003)
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_54,_Prohibit_State_Classification_Based_on_Race_in_Education,_Employment,_and_Contracting_Initiative_(October_2003)
https://ballotpedia.org/Ward_Connerly
https://ballotpedia.org/Affirmative_action_on_the_ballot
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_209,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(1996)
https://ballotpedia.org/Ward_Connerly
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_200,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(1998)
https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_2,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(2006)
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Initiative_46,_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2008)
https://ballotpedia.org/Nebraska_Measure_424,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(2008)
https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_107,_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2010)
https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_State_Question_759,_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2012)
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 22/27
State Measure Year
Percent
“Yes”
Percent
“No”
Status
California
Proposition
209
1996 54.55% 45.45% Approved
Washington Initiative 200 1998 58.22% 41.78% Approved
Michigan Proposal 2 2006 57.92% 42.08% Approved
Colorado Initiative 46 2008 49.19% 50.81% Defeated
Nebraska Measure 424 2008 57.56% 42.44% Approved
Arizona
Proposition
107
2010 59.51% 40.49% Approved
Oklahoma Question 759 2012 59.19% 40.81% Approved
Washington Referendum 88 (2019)
See also: Washington Referendum 88, Vote on I-1000 Af�rmative Action Measure (2019)
Voters in Washington rejected a ballot measure, titled Referendum 88, on November 5, 2019.
“Yes” received 49.44 percent of the vote. “No” received 50.56 percent of the vote. Referendum
88 would have amended Initiative 200, approved in 1998, to allow af�rmative action policies
that do not utilize quotas or constitute preferential treatment.
Initiative 200 prohibited the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment
based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or
contracting. Initiative 200 did not de�ne preferential treatment. Referendum 88 would have
de�ned preferential treatment as actions that use race, sex, or other speci�ed identities as the
“sole qualifying factor to select a lesser quali�ed candidate over a more quali�ed candidate for a
public education, public employment, or public contracting opportunity.”
Campaigns surrounding Referendum 88 raised a combined $3.41 million. Committees that
supported a “Yes” vote on Referendum 88 raised $361,815 more than opponents.
U.S. Supreme Court
See also: Af�rmative action and anti-discrimination
lawsuits
Cases related to af�rmative action in higher education
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): The U.S. Supreme Court held
that race was a legitimate factor in college admissions, but that the racial quota system
of the UC Davis School of Medicine, which reserved 16 of 100 places for quali�ed
minorities, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan’s Of�ce of Undergraduate
Admissions (OUA) used a 150-point scale to rank undergraduate applicants, with 100
points needed to guarantee admission. Factors that were assigned points included high
school grades, test scores, curriculum strength, alumni relationships, and others.
Applicants received 20 points for being from an underrepresented racial or ethnic
group (de�ned as African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans). The U.S.
[48]
[48]
[49]
[50][51]
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_209,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(1996)
https://ballotpedia.org/Approved
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_200,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(1998)
https://ballotpedia.org/Approved
https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_2,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(2006)
https://ballotpedia.org/Approved
https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Initiative_46,_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2008)
https://ballotpedia.org/Defeated
https://ballotpedia.org/Nebraska_Measure_424,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(2008)
https://ballotpedia.org/Approved
https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_107,_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2010)
https://ballotpedia.org/Approved
https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_State_Question_759,_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2012)
https://ballotpedia.org/Approved
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Referendum_88,_Vote_on_I-1000_Affirmative_Action_Measure_(2019)
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Referendum_88,_Vote_on_I-1000_Affirmative_Action_Measure_(2019)
https://ballotpedia.org/Washington_Initiative_200,_Affirmative_Action_Initiative_(1998)
https://ballotpedia.org/Affirmative_action_and_anti-discrimination_lawsuits
https://ballotpedia.org/Amendment_XIV,_United_States_Constitution#Section_1
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 23/27
Supreme Court held that the OUA’s assignment of points for underrepresented group
status did not meet the individual consideration requirement established in Regents of
the University of California v. Bakke.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): The University of Michigan Law School, like the OUA,
considered the race of applicants in making admissions decisions. However, the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld the law school’s use of race in admissions. Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor, writing the majority’s opinion, stated that the law school employed a “highly
individualized, holistic review of each applicant’s �le.” Justice O’Connor also stated that
the law school had a compelling state interest in considering race: “In order to cultivate
a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path
to leadership be visibly open to talented and quali�ed individuals of every race and
ethnicity.”
Fisher v. University of Texas (2016): The University of Texas (UT) admitted each in-
state student who graduated in the top 10 percent of their graduating senior class.
Students who did not graduate in the top 10 percent of their class were evaluated for
admissions based on a holistic, full-�le review, according to UT. One factor that was
considered is an applicant’s race. In 2013, the case �rst went before the U.S. Supreme
Court, which remanded the case for further consideration back to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In 2015, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which upheld UT’s use of race in considering applicants for admissions. Justice
Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority’s opinion, stated that the use of race served a
compelling interest (“educational bene�ts that �ow from student body diversity”) and
was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Cases related to af�rmative action in employment and contracting
United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979): Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp, as part of a
collective agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, implemented an
af�rmative action program within their training program; half the positions in the
program were reserved for black workers until the percentage of black workers in the
plant corresponded with the percentage of black workers in the local labor force. The
U.S. Supreme Court upheld the program as within the scope of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Justice William Brennan, writing the court’s opinion, stated, “We
need not today de�ne in detail the line of demarcation between permissible and
impermissible af�rmative action plans. It suf�ces to hold that the challenged Kaiser-
USWA af�rmative action plan falls on the permissible side of the line. The purposes of
the plan mirror those of the statute. Both were designed to break down old patterns of
racial segregation and hierarchy. Both were structured to “open employment
opportunities for Negroes in occupations which have been traditionally closed to
them.”
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986): In the 1980s, the contract between the
school board of Jackson, Michigan, and the teachers’ union aimed to (a) protect
teachers with the most seniority from layoffs and (b) require that the percentage of
laid-off teachers who were minorities be no greater than the percentage of teachers
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
https://ballotpedia.org/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor
https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit
https://ballotpedia.org/Anthony_Kennedy
https://ballotpedia.org/William_Brennan_(U.S._Supreme_Court)
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 24/27
who were minorities under the contract. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the board
could not terminate non-minorities’ employment for the purpose of protecting
minorities’ employment. According to Justice Lewis Powell, there was a difference
between preferential treatment in hiring and preferential treatment in layoffs: “While
hiring goals impose a diffuse burden, often foreclosing only one of several
opportunities, layoffs impose the entire burden of achieving racial equality on particular
individuals, often resulting in serious disruption of their lives. That burden is too
intrusive.”
United States v. Paradise (1987): The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of one-black-
for-one-white promotional quotas for the Alabama Department of Public Safety (DPS).
In the 1970s, the Alabama DPS was required to use promotional quotas until at least 25
percent of the department’s upper ranks were Black persons. According to the U.S.
District Court, which mandated the promotional quotas, their purpose was to address
the “Department’s pervasive, systematic, and obstinate discriminatory exclusion of
blacks.” Justice William Brennan, writing the supreme court’s opinion, stated, “The one-
for-one requirement did not impose an unacceptable burden on innocent third parties.
… Nor has the court imposed an “absolute bar” to white advancement. … Accordingly,
the one-for-one promotion requirement imposed in this case does not
disproportionately harm the interests, or unnecessarily trammel the rights, of innocent
individuals.”
City of Richmond v. Croson (1989): In Richmond, Virginia, construction contractors
were required to subcontract 30 percent of their business to Minority Business
Enterprises. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the subcontractor requirement violated
the Equal Protection Clause and that race-based action by state and local governments
required strict scrutiny. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing the majority’s opinion,
stated that Richmond’s justi�cation (“past societal discrimination”) for the
subcontractor requirement could not “serve as the basis for rigid racial preferences.”
Richmond, according to Justice O’Connor, had not linked the subcontractor
requirement to an identi�ed speci�c discrimination nor tailored the requirement to the
relevant labor pool (quali�ed MBE subcontractors).
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995): Adarand Constructors, Inc. submitted the
lowest bid as a subcontractor for a highway project funded by the United States
Department of Transportation. Gonzales Construction Company, a different
subcontractor, submitted a higher bid but received the contract. Gonzales Construction
was certi�ed as a disadvantaged business by the Small Business Administration, which
meant that the prime contracting company would receive additional compensation for
hiring Gonzales Construction. The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court
of Appeals. Justice O’Connor, writing the majority’s opinion, concluded that strict
scrutiny applied to federal racial classi�cations: “All racial classi�cations, imposed by
whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing
court under strict scrutiny.”
[56][51]
[57][51]
[58][59]
[60][61]
https://ballotpedia.org/Lewis_Powell
https://ballotpedia.org/William_Brennan_(U.S._Supreme_Court)
https://ballotpedia.org/Sandra_Day_O%27Connor
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 25/27
Ricci v. DeStefano (2009): The New Haven Fire Department required civil service
examinations to �ll managerial positions. In 2003, 118 �re�ghters took the
examinations; based on the results, 19 candidates, who were white or Hispanic, could
be considered for the managerial positions. The New Haven Civil Service Board,
considering the disparate impact the results would have on employment, discarded the
exams. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against New Haven. According to Justice
Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the court’s opinion, an employer cannot engage in
intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) to avoid a disparate impact unless
there is a strong basis in evidence that the employer would be subject to disparate
impact liability. New Haven failed to demonstrate a strong basis in evidence, according
to Justice Kennedy, since the exams were job-related and consistent with business
necessity and there was no evidence that an “equally valid, less-discriminatory
alternative” was available.
Path to the ballot
See also: Amending the California Constitution
In California, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to
refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
The constitutional amendment was introduced into the California State Legislature as Assembly
Constitutional Amendment 5 (ACA 5) on January 18, 2019. On June 10, 2020, the California
State Assembly voted 60 to 14 to pass ACA 5. As one seat was vacant in the Assembly, 53 votes
were needed to pass ACA 5. On June 24, 2020, the California State Senate voted 30 to 10 to
pass ACA 5. At least 27 votes were needed in the Senate. With approval in the Assembly and
Senate, ACA 5 was placed on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020.
[62][63]
[6]
https://ballotpedia.org/Disparate_impact
https://ballotpedia.org/Anthony_Kennedy
https://ballotpedia.org/Amending_state_constitutions#California
https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Legislature
https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Legislature
https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Assembly
https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Senate
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 26/27
[show]
2020 ballot
measures
Af�rmative action
on the ballot
2020 legislative
sessions
California ballot
measures
California ballot
measure laws
Af�rmative action
Ballot measure
lawsuits
Ballot measure
readability
Ballot measure
polls
Vote in the California State Assembly
June 10, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all
members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 53
Yes No
Not
voting
Total 60 14 5
Total percent 75.95% 17.72% 6.33%
Democrat 58 0 3
Republican 1 14 2
Independent 1 0 0
Vote in the California State Senate
June 24, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all
members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27
Yes No
Not
voting
Total 30 10 0
Total percent 75.00% 25.00% 0.00%
Democrat 29 0 0
Republican 1 10 0
How to cast a vote
See also: Voting in California
Click “Show” to learn more about voter registration, identi�cation requirements, and poll
times in California.
How to cast a vote in California
See also
2020 measures California News and analysis
javascript:collapseTable(1);
https://ballotpedia.org/2020_ballot_measures
https://ballotpedia.org/Affirmative_action_on_the_ballot
https://ballotpedia.org/Dates_of_2020_state_legislative_sessions
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_California_ballot_measures
https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_ballot_measures_in_California
https://ballotpedia.org/Affirmative_action
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_ballot_measure_lawsuits_in_2020
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_measure_readability_scores,_2020
https://ballotpedia.org/2020_ballot_measure_polls
https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Assembly
https://ballotpedia.org/Approved
https://ballotpedia.org/California_State_Senate
https://ballotpedia.org/Approved
https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_in_California
https://ballotpedia.org/2020_ballot_measures
https://ballotpedia.org/2020_ballot_measures
https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_measures
https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_measures
https://ballotpedia.org/Category:Ballot_measure_analyses_by_year
https://ballotpedia.org/The_Ballotpedia_News_Update
11/18/2020 California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment (2020) – Ballotpedia
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) 27/27
Ballotpedia features 318,845 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of
editors, writers, and researchers. Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an
error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued
expansion.
External links
Information
California Assembly Concurrent Resolution 5 (2020)
Of�cial Voter Information Guide
Support
Opportunity for All Coalition – Yes on Prop 16
Opportunity for All Coalition – Yes on Prop 16 Facebook
Opportunity for All Coalition – Yes on Prop 16 Twitter
Opposition
California for Equal Rights – No on 16
California for Equal Rights – No on 16 Facebook
California for Equal Rights – No on 16 Twitter
Footnotes
Only the �rst few references on this page are shown above. Click to show more.
1. San Francisco Chronicle, “Prop. 16: Why California voters refused to lift af�rmative
action ban,” November 4, 2020
2. Ed Source, “Unclear ballot language, lack of time to connect with voters explain
af�rmative action loss, backers say,” November 5, 2020
3. National Review, “Good News from California Indeed,” November 4, 2020
4. Insider Higher Ed, “Why Did Prop 16 Fail?” November 9, 2020
5. Wall Street Journal, “Racial Thunder Out of California,” November 4, 2020
mailto:editor@ballotpedia.org
https://ballotpedia.org/Help:Report_an_error
mailto:media@ballotpedia.org
https://ballotpedia.org/Support
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200ACA5
https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/
https://voteyesonprop16.org/about/
https://www.facebook.com/yesonprop16/
https://californiansforequalrights.org/
https://www.facebook.com/CaliforniansForEqualRights
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Prop-16-Why-California-voters-refused-to-lift-15702261.php
https://www.insidehighered.com/admissions/article/2020/11/09/experts-discuss-failure-californias-proposition-16
https://www.wsj.com/articles/racial-thunder-out-of-california-11604533888
Writing Assignment 3: DUE NOVEMBER 20 by 2 PM PST on Canvas.
Purpose: In this assignment, you will critically analyze California’s Proposition 16, a ballot
initiative to permit affirmative action (the consideration of race and gender) in public
employment and education. You should answer these questions using the economic concepts
learned in class.
Steps:
1. Read over the ballot initiative provided on Ballotpedia. Provide two arguments
supporting the proposition and two arguments against the proposition. (We will not give
points if you copy/paste from the article or include direct quotes; read over the arguments
provided and rephrase them in your own words.)
2. Assume that without Proposition 16 there is no way for college admissions officers to
determine the race of applicants (assume they cannot figure out race by name, country of
origin etc.). Suppose that college admissions officers have taste-based discrimination
against Asian students. How would you have expected Proposition 16 to affect the
admission of Asian students at UCSD, if it had passed? Answer the same question under
the assumption that instead college admissions officers statistically discriminate in favor
of Asian students (that is, they assume that the expected GPA for Asian students is higher
than for students of other races). Explain your answers.
3. Suppose that UCSD mechanizes the admissions process by designing an algorithm that
predicts which students will have high GPAs using four observable characteristics: SAT
score, high school GPA, parents’ highest educational attainment, and native English
speaker status. Suppose that each of these factors has a positive impact on expected GPA
(i.e. native English speakers have higher average GPAs than non-native speakers,
students with parents who have PhDs have higher average GPAs than students with
parents who didn’t graduate high school, etc.) Under this system colleges will only admit
students who are predicted to have a GPA above a certain threshold. Would you expect
the racial composition of UCSD to be like that of California?1 Why or why not? Do
algorithms always remove racial bias in decision-making processes? Refer to another
article you read for class in making your argument.2
4. Revise your draft.
• Check: does each paragraph express one clear idea? Do you tell the reader what
that idea is in a topic sentence?
1 “No race or ethnic group constitutes a majority of California’s population: 39% of state residents are Latino, 37%
are white, 15% are Asian American, 6% are African American, 3% are multiracial, and fewer than 1% are American
Indian or Pacific Islander, according to the 2018 American Community Survey.” Quoted from
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-
population/#:~:text=No%20race%20or%20ethnic%20group,the%202018%20American%20Community%20Survey.
2 This can include breakout room readings, papers discussed in lecture, or papers on the syllabus. You must cite this
paper in a Works Cited using the format of your choice.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/paragraphs.htm#topic_sentences
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/#:~:text=No%20race%20or%20ethnic%20group,the%202018%20American%20Community%20Survey
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/#:~:text=No%20race%20or%20ethnic%20group,the%202018%20American%20Community%20Survey
• Print your draft and read it out loud to help you identify spots where the language
or ideas could be clearer.
• Ask a friend or relative who is NOT in this class to proofread your essay. If you
have someone read over your essay, please mention who did so at the end of your
essay, e.g. “My friend Carla read my essay.”
• If you read outside of the referenced article to assist you with this assignment,
please cite it using the format of your choice.
Format: You need to write using the APA general guidelines for racial and ethnic identity
(posted as APA_Racial and Ethnic Identity in the assignment instructions on Canvas). We
encourage you to read the guidelines, but most pertinently to this assignment, do not use
“whites” and “blacks”, but rather White people (or workers, Americans, etc.) or Black people.
You have 600 words to say everything you want to say. Write freely and then revise to express
your ideas clearly and concisely. Note that Turnitin can give us a slightly different page count
than Word or files, so you should aim for a 650 word count maximum to be safe (we will
take off points if Turnitin has you listed as more than 700 words regardless of what your Word
doc count says! Sorry, there is no way for you to check this or for us to do it beforehand.). There
is no need to include your name, PID, headers, titles – stick to the economics.
You must submit a or file. We are unable to read any other file extension and you will
receive no points for the assignment.
You do not need to write an introduction or conclusion. Be sure that each paragraph states its
focus in a topic sentence.
You can write in the 1st person, using “I” statements (e.g. “I was surprised by what the test
asked”).
To make it easier for us to read, use Times New Roman 12 point font with double-spaced lines.
Grading: The graders will follow the below rubric. There is no partial credit within any of the
subsections.
Step 1: pro/con arguments 2 pts: first argument in favor of prop 16
2 pts: second argument in favor of prop 16
2 pts: first argument against prop 16
2 pts: second argument against prop 16
Step 2: prop 16 and Asian student
admission
2 pts: if taste-based, what happens
2 pts: taste-based explanation
2 pts: if statistical, what happens
2 pts: statistical explanation
Step 3: algorithms 2 pts: will UCSD race = CA race?
2 pts: why or why not?
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/paragraphs.htm#topic_sentences
2 pts: do algorithms always solve our
problems?
2 pts: cite algorithm paper
Step 4: legibility 2 pts: formatted correctly
2 pts: within 500-700 words (including
headers, footnotes, works cited)
4 pts: turned in before 2PM deadline (if
turned in past 5PM, additional points can
be taken off)
Regrading Policy: The graders will leave detailed comments on your essay explaining where
and why you lost points. You can visit any of the teaching assistants’ office hours to go over
those comments in more detail if you would like further clarification. Teaching assistants are not
available to provide feedback via email.
If you believe you lost points in error, you can submit a regrade request to Alyssa’s email
(aab005@ucsd.edu) until one week after grades are released. In this request you need to state
which step you think you deserve more points on and why. By submitting a request, you agree to
wager half of the lost points, such that if she denies your request she will take those points off
your essay.
For example, suppose you receive 4/8 points on Step 1 because you only made one argument for
and one argument against Prop 16. If you submit a regrade request for those 4 lost points, and
she rereads your essay and cannot find two more arguments, she will deduct 2 points so you
receive 2/8 points on Step 2.
Given this penalty, you should only submit requests for grades that you are confident were
made in error. We will not tell you via email whether you should submit a request.
mailto:aab005@ucsd.edu
10/28/2020
Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 1/15
Racial and Ethnic Identity
When you are writing, you need to follow general
principles (/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-
language/general-principles) to ensure that your
language is free of bias. Here we provide guidelines
for talking about racial and ethnic identity with
inclusivity and respect.
Terms used to refer to racial and ethnic groups
continue to change over time. One reason for this is
simply personal preference; preferred designations
are as varied as the people they name. Another
reason is that designations can become dated over
time and may hold negative connotations. When
describing racial and ethnic groups, be appropriately
specific and sensitive to issues of labeling as
described in general principles for reducing bias
(/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/general-
principles) .
Racial and ethnic
identity is covered
in Section 5.7 of the
APA Publication
Manual, Seventh
Edition
(/products/publication-
manual-7th-edition)
This guidance has been
expanded from the 6th
edition.
Home Style and Grammar Guidelines Bias-Free Language
Racial and Ethnic Identity
STYLE AND GRAMMAR GUIDELINES PRODUCTS
INSTRUCTIONAL AIDS BLOG
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/general-principles
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/general-principles
https://apastyle.apa.org/products/publication-manual-7th-edition
https://apastyle.apa.org/
https://apastyle.apa.org/
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language
https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids
https://apastyle.apa.org/blog
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 2/15
Race refers to physical differences that groups and
cultures consider socially significant. For example, people
might identify their race as Aboriginal, African American or
Black, Asian, European American or White, Native
American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Māori, or
some other race. Ethnicity refers to shared cultural
characteristics such as language, ancestry, practices, and
beliefs. For example, people might identify as Latino or
another ethnicity. Be clear about whether you are referring
to a racial group or to an ethnic group. Race is a social
construct that is not universal, so one must be careful not
to impose racial labels on ethnic groups. Whenever
possible, use the racial and/or ethnic terms that your
participants themselves use. Be sure that the racial and
ethnic categories you use are as clear and specific as
possible. For example, instead of categorizing participants
as Asian American or Hispanic American, you could use
more specific labels that identify their nation or region of
origin, such as Japanese American or Cuban American.
Use commonly accepted designations (e.g., census
categories) while being sensitive to participants’ preferred
designation.
Spelling and Capitalization of Racial and Ethnic
Terms
Racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns
and are capitalized. Therefore, use “Black” and “White”
instead of “black” and “white” (do not use colors to refer to
other human groups; doing so is considered pejorative).
Likewise, capitalize terms such as “Native American,”
“Hispanic,” and so on. Capitalize “Indigenous” and
“Aboriginal” whenever they are used. Capitalize
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 3/15
“Indigenous People” or “Aboriginal People” when referring
to a specific group (e.g., the Indigenous Peoples of
Canada), but use lowercase for “people” when describing
persons who are Indigenous or Aboriginal (e.g., “the
authors were all Indigenous people but belonged to
different nations”).
Do not use hyphens in multiword names, even if the
names act as unit modifiers (e.g., write “Asian American
participants,” not “Asian-American participants”). If people
belong to multiple racial or ethnic groups, the names of
the specific groups are capitalized, but the terms
“multiracial,” “biracial,” “multi-ethnic,” and so on are
lowercase.
Terms for Specific Groups
Designations for specific ethnic and racial groups are
described next. These groups frequently are included in
studies published in APA journals; the examples provided
are far from exhaustive but illustrate some of the
complexities of labeling.
People of African Origin
When writing about people of African ancestry, several
factors inform the appropriate terms to use. People of
African descent have widely varied cultural backgrounds,
family histories, and family experiences. Some will be from
Caribbean islands, Latin America, various regions in the
United States, countries in Africa, or elsewhere. Some
American people of African ancestry prefer “Black,” and
others prefer “African American”; both terms are
acceptable. However, “African American” should not be
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 4/15
used as an umbrella term for people of African ancestry
worldwide because it obscures other ethnicities or
national origins, such as Nigerian, Kenyan, Jamaican, or
Bahamian; in these cases use “Black.” The terms “Negro”
and “Afro-American” are outdated; therefore, their use is
generally inappropriate.
People of Asian Origin
When writing about people of Asian ancestry from Asia,
the term “Asian” is appropriate; for people of Asian
descent from the United States or Canada, the appropriate
term is “Asian American” or “Asian Canadian,”
respectively. It is problematic to group “Asian” and “Asian
American” as if they are synonymous. This usage
reinforces the idea that Asian Americans are perpetual
foreigners. “Asian” refers to Asians in Asia, not in the
United States, and should not be used to refer to Asian
Americans. The older term “Oriental” is primarily used to
refer to cultural objects such as carpets and is pejorative
when used to refer to people. To provide more specificity,
“Asian origin” may be divided regionally, for example, into
South Asia (including most of India and countries such as
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal), Southeast
Asia (including the eastern parts of India and countries
such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, and the
Philippines), and East Asia (including countries such as
China, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea and North Korea, and
Taiwan). The corresponding terms (e.g., East Asian) can be
used; however, refer to the specific nation or region of
origin when possible.
People of European Origin
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 5/15
In North America, the collective terms “Native
American” and “Native North American” are acceptable
(and may be preferred to “American Indian”). “Indian”
usually refers to people from India. Specify the nation or
people if possible (e.g., Cherokee, Navajo, Sioux).
Hawaiian Natives may identify as “Native American,”
“Hawaiian Native,” “Indigenous Peoples of the
Hawaiian Islands,” and/or “Pacific Islander.”
In Canada, refer to the Indigenous Peoples collectively
as “Indigenous Peoples” or “Aboriginal Peoples”
(International Journal of Indigenous Health, n.d.);
When writing about people of European ancestry, the
terms “White” and “European American” are acceptable.
Adjust the latter term as needed for location, for example,
“European,” “European American,” and “European
Australian” for people of European descent living in
Europe, the United States, and Australia, respectively. The
use of the term “Caucasian” as an alternative to “White” or
“European” is discouraged because it originated as a way
of classifying White people as a race to be favorably
compared with other races. As with all discussions of race
and ethnicity, it is preferable to be more specific about
regional (e.g., Southern European, Scandinavian) or
national (e.g., Italian, Irish, Swedish, French, Polish) origin
when possible.
Indigenous Peoples Around the World
When writing about Indigenous Peoples, use the names
that they call themselves. In general, refer to an
Indigenous group as a “people” or “nation” rather than as
a “tribe.”
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 6/15
specify the nation or people if possible (e.g., People of
the First Nations of Canada, People of the First Nations,
or First Nations People; Métis; Inuit).
In Alaska, the Indigenous People may identify as
“Alaska Natives.” The Indigenous Peoples in Alaska,
Canada, Siberia, and Greenland may identify as a
specific nation (e.g., Inuit, Iñupiat). Avoid the term
“Eskimo” because it may be considered pejorative.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, refer to the
Indigenous Peoples collectively as “Indigenous
Peoples” and by name if possible (e.g., Quechua,
Aymara, Taíno, Nahuatl).
In Australia, the Indigenous Peoples may identify as
“Aboriginal People” or “Aboriginal Australians” and
“Torres Strait Islander People” or “Torres Strait Island
Australians.” Refer to specific groups when people use
these terms to refer to themselves (e.g., Anangu
Pitjantjatjara, Arrernte).
In New Zealand, the Indigenous People may identify as
“Māori” or the “Māori people” (the proper spelling
includes the diacritical macron over the “a”).
For information on citing the Traditional Knowledge or Oral
Traditions of Indigenous Peoples as well as the
capitalization of terms related to Indigenous Peoples, see
Section 8.9 of the Publication Manual.
People of Middle Eastern Origin
When writing about people of Middle Eastern and North
African (MENA) descent, state the nation of origin (e.g.,
Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel) when possible. In some
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 7/15
cases, people of MENA descent who claim Arab ancestry
and reside in the United States may be referred to as
“Arab Americans.” In all cases, it is best to allow individuals
to self-identify.
People of Hispanic or Latinx Ethnicity
When writing about people who identify as Hispanic,
Latino (or Latinx, etc.), Chicano, or another related
designation, authors should consult with their participants
to determine the appropriate choice. Note that “Hispanic”
is not necessarily an all-encompassing term, and the labels
“Hispanic” and “Latino” have different connotations. The
term “Latino” (and its related forms) might be preferred by
those originating from Latin America, including Brazil.
Some use the word “Hispanic” to refer to those who speak
Spanish; however, not every group in Latin America
speaks Spanish (e.g., in Brazil, the official language is
Portuguese). The word “Latino” is gendered (i.e., “Latino”
is masculine and “Latina” is feminine); the use of the word
“Latin@” to mean both Latino and Latina is now widely
accepted. “Latinx” can also be used as a gender-neutral or
nonbinary term inclusive of all genders. There are
compelling reasons to use any of the terms “Latino,”
“Latina,” “Latino/a,” “Latin@,” and/or “Latinx” (see de Onís,
2017), and various groups advocate for the use of different
forms. Use the term(s) your participants or population uses;
if you are not working directly with this population but it is
a focus of your research, it may be helpful to explain why
you chose the term you used or to choose a more
inclusive term like “Latinx.” In general, naming a nation or
region of origin is preferred (e.g., Bolivian, Salvadoran, or
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 8/15
Costa Rican is more specific than Latino, Latinx, Latin
American, or Hispanic).
Parallel Comparisons Among Groups
Nonparallel designations (e.g., “African Americans and
Whites,” “Asian Americans and Black Americans”) should
be avoided because one group is described by color,
whereas the other group is not. Instead, use “Blacks and
Whites” or “African Americans and European Americans”
for the former example and “Asian Americans and African
Americans” for the latter example. Do not use the phrase
“White Americans and racial minorities”; the rich diversity
within racial minorities is minimized when it is compared
with the term “White Americans.”
Avoiding Essentialism
Language that essentializes or reifies race is strongly
discouraged and is generally considered inappropriate.
For example, phrases such as “the Black race” and “the
White race” are essentialist in nature, portray human
groups monolithically, and often perpetuate stereotypes.
Writing About “Minorities”
To refer to non-White racial and ethnic groups collectively,
use terms such as “people of color” or “underrepresented
groups” rather than “minorities.” The use of “minority” may
be viewed pejoratively because it is usually equated with
being less than, oppressed, or deficient in comparison with
the majority (i.e., White people). Rather, a minority group is
a population subgroup with ethnic, racial, social, religious,
or other characteristics different from those of the majority
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 9/15
of the population, though the relevance of this term is
changing as the demographics of the population change
(APA, 2015). If a distinction is needed between the
dominant racial group and nondominant racial groups, use
a modifier (e.g., “ethnic,” “racial”) when using the word
“minority” (e.g., ethnic minority, racial minority, racial-ethnic
minority). When possible, use the specific name of the
group or groups to which you are referring.
Do not assume that members of minority groups are
underprivileged; underprivileged means having less
money, education, resources, and so forth than the other
people in a society and may refer to individuals or
subgroups in any racial or ethnic group. Terms such as
“economically marginalized” and “economically exploited”
may also be used rather than “underprivileged.” Whenever
possible, use more specific terms (e.g., schools with
majority Black populations that are underfunded) or refer
to discrimination or systematic oppression as a whole.
Examples of Bias-Free Language
The following are examples of bias-free language for racial
and ethnic identity. Both problematic and preferred
examples are presented with explanatory comments.
1. Description of African American or Black people
Problematic:
We interviewed 25 Afro-American people living in rural
Louisiana.
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 10/15
Preferred:
We interviewed 25 Black people living in rural Louisiana.
We interviewed 25 African Americans living in rural
Louisiana.
Comment: “Afro-American” and “Negro” have become
dated; therefore, usage of these terms generally is
inappropriate. Specify region or nation of origin when
possible to avoid the impression that all people of African
descent have the same cultural background, family history,
or family experiences. Note that “Black” is appropriate
rather than “African American” to describe people of
African descent from various national origins (e.g., Haitian,
Nigerian).
2. Description of Asian or Asian American people
Problematic:
Participants were 300 Orientals.
Preferred:
There were 300 Asian participants; among these, 100
were from South Asia (India, Nepal, Bangladesh), 100 were
from Southeast Asia (Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam), and
100 were from East Asia (China, South Korea, Japan).
Comment: “Orientals” is considered pejorative; use
“Asian” for people from Asia, “Asian American” for people
of Asian descent in North America, or be more specific by
providing nation and region of origin (Japanese, Chinese,
Vietnamese, etc.).
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 11/15
3. Description of European American or White people
Problematic:
All participants were Caucasian.
Preferred:
All participants were European American.
All participants were White.
Comment: The term “Caucasian” is considered offensive
to some cultures; use “White” or “European American”
instead for people of European descent living in North
America, or be more specific by providing the nation of
origin.
4. Description of Indigenous People
Problematic:
The 50 Indians represented…
Preferred:
The 50 Native Americans (25 Choctaw, 15 Hopi, and 10
Seminole) represented…
The 50 Indigenous People (23 First Nations, 17 Inuit, 10
Métis) represented…
Comment: When appropriate, authors should identify
groups indigenous to North America by specific group or
nation; when the broader designation is appropriate, note
that “Native American” may be preferred to “American
Indian.” “Indian” refers to people from India. In general,
refer to a group as a “people” or “nation” rather than as a
“tribe.”
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 12/15
Problematic:
We studied Eskimos.
Preferred:
We studied Inuit from Canada and Aleuts.
The 50 Indigenous People (23 First Nations and 27 Inuit)
represented…
Comment: Native peoples of northern Canada, Alaska,
eastern Siberia, and Greenland may prefer “Inuk” (“Inuit”
for plural) to “Eskimo.” Alaska Natives include many
groups in addition to Eskimos. “Indigenous Peoples” may
be used when the broader designation is appropriate.
5. Description of Latinx or Hispanic people
Problematic:
Participants were 200 Hispanics/Latinos.
Preferred:
Participants were from Central America (150 from
Guatemala, 50 from Honduras, and 50 from Belize).
Comment: “Hispanic” and “Latinx” (or Latino, etc.) have
different meanings; ask participants to self-identify with a
term and use a precise nationality if possible.
6. Racial-ethnic comparisons
Problematic:
Participants’ race was categorized as either White or non-
White.
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 13/15
Preferred:
Participants’ race was categorized as European American,
African American, Asian American, or Latin American.
Comment: Use parallel terms, especially in table labels.
“Non-White” implies a standard of comparison and is
imprecise.
7. Discussion of racial and ethnic minorities
Problematic:
minorities
minority students
Preferred:
racial minorities, ethnic minorities, racial-ethnic minorities
racial minority students, ethnic minority students, racial-
ethnic minority students
people of color
underrepresented people, underrepresented groups
Comment: “Minority” is usually equated with being less
than, oppressed, and deficient in comparison with the
majority. When it is necessary to compare a dominant
racial group with a nondominant racial group, use a
modifier like “racial,” “ethnic,” or “racial-ethnic.” Otherwise,
other terms may be preferred, such as “people of color” to
refer to non-White racial and ethnic groups or
“underrepresented people.”
8. Use of qualifying adjectives with racial and ethnic identity
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 14/15
Problematic:
the articulate Mexican American professor
Preferred:
the Mexican American professor
Comment: Qualifying adjectives may imply that the
“articulate” Mexican American professor is an exception to
the norm (for Mexican American professors). Depending
on the context of the sentence, ethnic identity may not be
relevant and therefore should not be mentioned.
References
American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for
psychological practice with transgender and gender
nonconforming people. American Psychologist,
70(9), 832–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906
(https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906)
de Onís, C. M. (2017). What’s in an “x”? An exchange about
the politics of “Latinx.” Chiricú Journal: Latina/o
Literatures, Arts, and Cultures, 1(2), 78–91.
https://doi.org/10.2979/chiricu.1.2.07
(https://doi.org/10.2979/chiricu.1.2.07)
javascript: openSocialShare(‘https://twitter.com/share?url=https%3a%2f%2fapastyle.apa.org%2fstyle-grammar-guidelines%2fbias-free-language%2fracial-ethnic-minorities&via=APA_Style&text=Racial+and+Ethnic+Identity’)
javascript: openSocialShare(‘https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https%3a%2f%2fapastyle.apa.org%2fstyle-grammar-guidelines%2fbias-free-language%2fracial-ethnic-minorities&title=Racial+and+Ethnic+Identity&summary=Race+refers+to+physical+differences+that+groups+and+cultures+consider+socially+significant+(e.g.%2c+Aboriginal%2c+African+American+or+Black%2c+Asian%2c+European+American+or+White).+Ethnicity+refers+to+shared+cultural+characteristics+such+as+language%2c+ancestry%2c+practices%2c+and+beliefs.+’)
javascript:openEmail();
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039906
https://doi.org/10.2979/chiricu.1.2.07
10/28/2020 Racial and Ethnic Identity
https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/racial-ethnic-minorities 15/15
Home About APA Style Contact Privacy Statement Terms of Use Accessibility Help Site Map
© 2020 American Psychological Association
750 First St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242
Telephone: (800) 374-2721; (202) 336-5500
TDD/TTY: (202) 336-6123
CONNECT WITH APA STYLE:
https://apastyle.apa.org/
https://apastyle.apa.org/about-apa-style
https://apastyle.apa.org/contact
https://apastyle.apa.org/privacy
https://apastyle.apa.org/terms
https://apastyle.apa.org/accessibility
https://apastyle.apa.org/apa-style-help
https://apastyle.apa.org/sitemap
https://www.apa.org/about/contact/copyright/index
https://www.facebook.com/APAStyle/
https://www.instagram.com/officialapastyle/