It’s been 24 years since California voters passed Proposition 209, banning affirmative action in college admissions, and public hiring and contracting.
Proposition 16 would repeal that law and once again allow the consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public education and employment.
"There is an unequal playing field for woman and people of color in California in education, employment and in the awarding of contracts," said Eva Paterson, "Yes on Prop 16" Co-Chair. The prominent civil rights attorney is President/Co-Founder of the Equal Justice Society and has been a Bay Area advocate for more than four decades.
"California is one of only nine states that does not allow affirmative action," Paterson explained. "Many people were misled and confused in 1996, when Proposition 209 was on the ballot. I’ve had people tell me 'Oh, I thought I was voting for civil rights.'"
Many people have not yet heard of Prop 16, according to polls.
However, once they understand what’s being asked in the ballot measure, Paterson said voters tend to favor repealing the ban on affirmative action.
There are always two sides to every story.
"Some people, they want to vote for Prop 16 because they want to help the disadvantaged. But if that’s what you want to do, the right thing to do is vote no," said Gail Heriot, Co-Chair of the "No on Prop 16" side. Heriot is a law professor at UC San Diego, a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights and was Co-Chair of the Prop 209 campaign back in 1996.
"Mrs. Paterson said a moment ago that she talked to people who said they thought they were voting for civil rights when they voted for Prop 209, and yes they were," Heriot told KCBS Radio's "The State Of California." "That’s what civil right are all about. Not discriminating on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. It’s as simple as that."
"Right now, partly as a result of Prop 209, that’s exactly what the University of California does," Heriot said of the system’s admissions. "It gives that leg up to somebody who’s low income and it doesn’t matter whether they are Black, White, Latino, Asian. It’s all a question of 'Is this person genuinely disadvantaged?'"