|
Prop 54 racial privacy initiative { October 8 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/election/story/7560250p-8501617c.htmlhttp://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/election/story/7560250p-8501617c.html
Prop. 54 soundly beaten
The tide turned when foes of the ballot measure shifted gears from bias to health care.
By Stephen Magagnini -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Wednesday, October 8, 2003
Voters convincingly rejected Proposition 54, which would have restricted state agencies from collecting racial and ethnic data.
The controversial initiative was losing by 61 percent to 39 percent with more than half the precincts reporting Tuesday night.
Opponents said Proposition 54's defeat marked the dawn of a new age of progressive politics.
"This really decisive victory proves that the voters of California recognize that race matters, racial information matters in achieving a society that is based on social equality," said Maya Harris, Northern California director of the No on 54 campaign.
Proposition 54 was the brainchild of capital businessman Ward Connerly, who spearheaded Proposition 209, the 1996 measure that banned the use of racial and ethnic preferences in state public hiring, contracting and university admissions.
Connerly noted Tuesday night that Proposition 54 was the first such measure in the nation, and admitted, "We were flying blind a little bit. We had the language drafted by attorneys, not health professionals."
Despite Connerly's assurances that all data used for medical purposes would be exempt, opponents said the proposition was poorly worded, ambiguous and could jeopardize data needed to prevent and fight diseases that strike some ethnic and racial groups more than others.
Connerly, a University of California regent, said Proposition 54 was the logical next step in California's march toward a race-neutral society. He called racial categories "morally wrong."
The proposition -- dubbed the "Racial Privacy Initiative" by supporters, and the "Information Ban" by opponents -- led early in the polls. But it never received much institutional support, and even Republicans, who strongly backed Proposition 209, were lukewarm. Connerly's forces raised $214,000, a fraction of the $9.3 million raised by opponents.
The No on 54 campaign pulled together a coalition of teachers, labor unions, health care professionals, civil rights advocates and American Indian tribes.
"This is a dress rehearsal for 2004," said Eva Paterson, director of the Equal Justice Society, one of hundreds of organizations opposing Proposition 54.
Maria Blanco, senior counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said MALDEF, the California Teachers Association, Californians for Justice, the Bay Area Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Kaiser Permanente and other organizations targeted the initiative for defeat two years ago, before it had even qualified for the ballot.
In a pre-emptive strike, Blanco said, she and other opponents of Proposition 54 met with high-ranking GOP officeholders to persuade them to stay on the sidelines. "We said, 'We hope you think twice about funding this initiative. The last thing California needs is another racially divisive battle.' "
Then, when focus groups showed that a majority of likely voters didn't respond to the argument that Proposition 54 would cripple California's ability to fight discrimination, the No on 54 campaign shifted gears, proclaiming it "bad medicine."
When Californians were told their health was at stake if data couldn't be collected to identify which ethnic groups suffered most from breast cancer, diabetes or other diseases, the measure nose-dived in the polls.
Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who was trounced by Arnold Schwarzenegger, took solace in Proposition 54's demise, calling it a "dramatic turnaround for this state. Finally California is saying no to wedge politics" that led to the passage of Proposition 209 and Proposition 187, which would have banned public services for illegal immigrants but was gutted by the courts.
Michelle Alexander, a Stanford law professor who advised the No on 54 campaign, said opponents feared that if the measure passed, it would spread nationwide. "Let's see if we can stop it in its tracks here in California before it's out of control," she said.
But Connerly, who is trying to get Proposition 209-style legislation passed in Michigan, said he had no plans to take Proposition 54 to other states. "Maybe in three years we'll work with some of the opponents of good will to reframe the issue," he said. "We will come back another day."
Connerly said he needed to analyze the defeat: "Maybe people have reached the point where they reject the idea of a colorblind ideal."
Alexander, in a speech at Stanford University's "Colorblind Racism?" conference Friday, said, "I hope we never see a world that is willfully blind to the beautiful colors of the human race, or blind to the suffering of anyone ... seeing race is not the problem, refusing to care is the problem."
|
|
