Sacramento, California – California's State Assembly has narrowly passed Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 (ACA-7) with exactly 54 votes, the minimum two-thirds threshold required, advancing the measure to the State Senate. The controversial amendment seeks to modify Proposition 209, a 1996 voter-approved initiative that prohibits the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.
Opponents of ACA-7 argue the measure is a significant step towards reintroducing race-based government preferences in California. A recent social media post by Tony Guan stated, > "Constitutional protections are only real if we defend them. No on ACA-7 warns this measure is another push to repeal Prop 209 and reopen race-based government preferences. Keep discrimination illegal in California—vote NO on ACA-7 and protect Prop 209." The post urged citizens to contact their senators to oppose the bill, tagging several state senators.
Authored by Assemblymember Corey Jackson, ACA-7 aims to narrow the scope of Proposition 209 by removing "public education" from its constitutional prohibition, with the exception of "higher education admission and enrollment." Supporters contend that this clarification will allow for targeted, research-based interventions to address racial disparities in K-12 education and other state-funded initiatives. They argue that broad interpretations of Proposition 209 have hindered efforts to address systemic inequalities.
Critics, however, view ACA-7 as an attempt to circumvent the will of California voters, who previously rejected Proposition 16 in 2020, which would have fully repealed Proposition 209. Assemblymember David Tangipa, speaking against the measure, warned that it would "allow racial discrimination in the state of California" and effectively "repeal Prop. 209 that bans that practice." The Pacific Legal Foundation also stated that while ACA-7 preserves the prohibition in higher education enrollment, it permits discrimination in K-12 and other university aspects, failing to uphold equal protection.
The debate also touches upon the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled against race-based admissions programs. While California's public university system already complied with this due to Proposition 209, opponents of ACA-7 suggest the amendment could lead to legal uncertainties and public division by inviting the state to "sort students and families by race again," as stated by California Family Council Vice President Greg Burt. The measure's future now rests with the State Senate, where it will undergo further review and debate.
