Last week, I asked Instapundit and GBRA readers for “X/Twitter” help in opposing the California legislature’s new effort to gut Prop 209. And you came through! Thank you to all who helped! You are terrific!
I have another request. Mercifully, it still won’t cost you a nickel. (If this turkey of a bill makes it to the ballot, I will start asking for money then, but we stand a decent chance of stopping it in the California Senate on a shoestring budget.)
Our “NO on ACA7” PETITION needs at least 25,000 signatures to get noticed. And we’re probably going to need a lot more. Fortunately, we have a while. Today is our first earnest day of collecting them. You don’t need to be a Californian to sign. (But if you are a Californian, please be sure to include your zip code. In the past, some legislators have asked us for the number of signers from their district’s zip codes.)
If you can also share the petition with your friends or via social media that would be terrific.
For those of you you haven’t been following this, Prop 209 amended the state constitution in 1996 with these words: “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 ….” California’s deep-blue legislature has been gunning for it since. They tried to get the voters to repeal it three years ago with Prop 16. But Californians stunned them by overwhelmingly voting to keep it. It was a real David and Goliath moment; we won despite being outspent more than 14 to 1.
It’s surprising to me that they are trying again so soon after that defeat. But I guess I should have seen it coming. The report of the California Task Force on Reparations, which was released earlier this year, called for Prop 209 to be gutted. It stands in the way of their proposals. Right on schedule, the Assembly voted for ACA7.
The new effort is trickier. Instead of attempting an outright repeal, it creates a procedure under the governor can make “exceptions.” All Gov. Newsom (and future governors) will need is to be able to point to (or create) “research” showing that preferential treatment would be a good thing. But in a world in which “scholarly” research tells us that men are women and women are men, that limitation is not worth a red cent.
What the radical left is trying to accomplish here is to enshrine in law the principle that, whereas all animals are equal but some animals (privileged classes) are more equal. Favored classes will receive privileges while enemies of the people will be singled out for punishment and harassment. Just who will be an honored victim and who an enemy of the people will vary over time. What is certain is that nobody reading this post will never be among the favored.