California Civil Rights Initiative

Not since the 1960s has the issue of race threatened to reshape both the politics of California and the nation. At the center of the dispute is the proposed California Civil Rights Initiative, which would eliminate race- and gender-based preferences in state employment, contracting and school admissions.

A federal judge decided Monday that he will not step aside to allow a state court to interpret Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action law approved by voters in November. Chief U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson denied a motion by Gov. Pete Wilson to allow a state court to review the law before Henderson decides whether it is constitutional.

The Thousand Oaks branch of the American Assn. of University Women will host a forum Wednesday to discuss Proposition 209, the so-called California Civil Rights Initiative. "The California Civil Rights Initiative has been called 'open season on women,' " said Barbara Wilson, president of the association. "The whole country is watching California on this issue, and our branch feels it is important for voters to understand the issues of this initiative."

With a judge having suspending enforcement of Proposition 209, the University of California will use race, gender and ethnicity to evaluate the 70,000 high school and community college students who have applied for admission, UC President Richard C. Atkinson has confirmed.

Re "Prop. 209 Foes Vow Suit Over Its Ballot Title and Summary," July 24: Ironically, the lawsuit challenging the official ballot title of the California Civil Rights Initiative is itself a political attempt to mislead the voters. The lawsuit brought by the campaign against the initiative accuses the attorney general of failing to spell out that the measure is intended to eliminate affirmative action programs. By its own terms, the California Civil Rights Initiative provides that "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."

Adela de la Torre's impassioned defense of affirmative action (Commentary, April 10) suffers from the same fatal error pervasive in nearly every commentary I have read opposing the California Civil Rights Initiative. De la Torre's statement that affirmative action does not harm qualified white males belies common sense. Under affirmative action, factors other than merit (such as race) are considered in the hiring or admissions process. When these additional factors are considered, the most qualified person does not always get the job or admission.

Re "Will Americans Really Turn 'Colorblind'?" editorial, June 14: The editors of The Times favored us with the advice that we cease our efforts to place the California Civil Rights Initiative before the voters. They argue that the issue is moot, because the U.S. Supreme Court has settled the matter in the Adarand case. For several reasons, we will with regret decline to take this advice. First, and contrary to what The Times wrote, the Adarand decision makes no change at all regarding state policy.

I'm tired of hearing people justify their lack of citizenship by saying their vote doesn't count, so why vote anyway? If the events in our fair state and in Congress aren't aN indication of what happens if you don't vote, then I don' know what it's going to take. Here's a quick political science lesson from a novice: The legislative body creates the laws by which the citizenry must abide.

Re "Diversity Is More Than Skin Deep," by Gail Heriot, Column Right, July 14: Professor Heriot's lament for allegedly lost "diversity" overlooks the last 500 years of New World history. That is quite a feat. Individuals were not enslaved, discriminated against, or otherwise maltreated with full political and legal sanctions, because they were trilingual poor white males. Discrimination occurred, and still occurs, on the basis of skin color and gender. Heriot is a professor of law. Please ask her to write a column explaining why a Constitution that was interpreted to permit both slavery (1789-1865)

Supporters of Proposition 209, the November ballot initiative that targets affirmative action programs in government, filed two lawsuits Monday over language in the state's official voter pamphlet. One suit filed in Sacramento County Superior Court against state Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill charges that her official analysis of the measure is misleading. The complaint says the language used by Hill "perpetuates the myth that Proposition 209 will ban all affirmative action programs."

Escalating the battle over affirmative action, the Clinton administration announced Friday that it will join the legal attack on the California voter initiative that bars preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity or gender in all state programs. "Given his strong opposition" to Proposition 209, Clinton decided "as the nation's chief constitutional officer . . . to act to defend the Constitution," said White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry.

A federal judge blocked the University of California on Friday from implementing Proposition 209, the November ballot measure that ended affirmative action in public education, employment and contracting. Chief U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson added the university to a temporary restraining order that he granted last week preventing Gov. Pete Wilson and Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren from enforcing the law, which was approved by 54% of the voters.

El Segundo could become one of the first cities to pass an ordinance backing Proposition 209, the anti-affirmative action measure approved by 54% of California voters in November. The City Council on Tuesday asked City Atty. Mark Hensley to draft an ordinance by late January that would uphold the proposition within El Segundo. The council will study the issue and decide whether to vote on such an ordinance.

A federal judge blocked enforcement of Proposition 209 on Wednesday, saying there is a "strong probability" that opponents will show that the anti-affirmative action measure is unconstitutional. The temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Thelton E. Henderson bars Gov. Pete Wilson and Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren from enforcing the proposition until at least Dec. 16, when a hearing on a preliminary injunction is scheduled.

Both were polarizing initiatives that split the California electorate along racial and ethnic lines, were championed by Gov. Pete Wilson and sparked raging national debates that continue to reverberate. And both have been temporarily blocked by federal court orders. The ruling Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Thelton E.

The state's top employment officer has crossed swords with Gov. Pete Wilson by saying that he will continue to use hiring goals for women and minorities despite recent voter approval of Proposition 209. C. Lance Barnett, the executive director of the State Personnel Board, said in a published report that he believes the goals do not violate Proposition 209's plan to end preferences in government hiring and contracting for women and minorities.

In "Affirmative Action Fades as GOP Issue in California" (June 13) the California Civil Rights Initiative was referred to as "an anti-affirmative action measure." This is seriously misleading. CCRI will not prohibit affirmative action in the original sense of those words. Indeed, the words "affirmative action" do not appear in its text. CCRI prohibits discrimination and its corollary, preferences--period. Specifically, the measures states, "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."

A federal judge who was asked to block enforcement of Proposition 209 assured lawyers Monday that he will base his decision on constitutional issues, not on the merits of affirmative action. U.S. District Judge Thelton E. Henderson, a former civil rights lawyer, promised a ruling "very soon" after closely questioning lawyers at a hearing that lasted more than three hours.

Gov. Pete Wilson wants the Proposition 209 case decided in state court rather than by a federal judge. In papers filed Monday, lawyers for Wilson asked Chief U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson to put a lawsuit by civil rights groups on hold, at least until California courts interpret Proposition 209's meaning and scope. Proposition 209, a state constitutional amendment passed Nov. 5, outlaws state affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment based on race or sex.