The Atlantic

Why California Rejected Racial Preferences, Again

A majority voted against repealing the state’s ban on affirmative action.
Source: Shutterstock / The Atlantic

For at least 50 years, Californians have been fighting about whether their state government should be race neutral, treating all individuals equally under the law regardless of the color of their skin, or race conscious, granting preferential treatment to certain groups while discriminating against others to remedy past discrimination or increase diversity.

These various disputes over racial quotas and affirmative action have tended to anticipate national controversies. And last week, a majority of voters in this Democratic stronghold, where no single ethnic group constitutes a majority, reaffirmed their long-standing preference for neutrality: California voters defeated Proposition 16, an attempt by progressives to remove the provision in the state constitution that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or gender in public employment, education, and contracting. The margin of defeat, 56 to 44 percent, was striking to students of political history, because it suggests that race neutrality is more popular now than when it was initially mandated by a 1996 ballot initiative that passed by a slightly smaller margin.

[Kimberley Reyes: Affirmative action shouldn’t be about diversity]

Disappointed progressives fear that Prop 16’s defeat will stymie their efforts to reduce racial inequality. But California voters looking to

You’re reading a preview, subscribe to read more.

More from The Atlantic

The Atlantic4 min read
Amazon Decides Speed Isn’t Everything
Amazon has spent the past two decades putting one thing above all else: speed. How did the e-commerce giant steal business away from bookstores, hardware stores, clothing boutiques, and so many other kinds of retailers? By selling cheap stuff, but mo
The Atlantic4 min read
American Environmentalism Just Got Shoved Into Legal Purgatory
In a 6–3 ruling today, the Supreme Court essentially threw a stick of dynamite at a giant, 40-year-old legal levee. The decision overruled what is known as the Chevron doctrine, a precedent that governed how American laws were administered. In doing
The Atlantic4 min read
What the Supreme Court Doesn’t Get About Homelessness
The Supreme Court has just ripped away one of the rare shreds of legal protections available to homeless people. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court has decided that the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, did not violate the Eighth Amendment by enforcing camping ba

Related Books & Audiobooks