A proposed legislative amendment in California, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 (ACA-7), is facing significant public and political opposition over concerns it would reintroduce racial preferences into state policy. The bill seeks to modify Proposition 209, a 1996 ballot initiative that prohibits the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting. Critics argue ACA-7 pushes the state in a direction previously rejected by voters.
"California should move forward by treating people as individuals, not by reopening racial preference rules. ACA-7 pushes the state in the wrong direction and deepens division instead of expanding opportunity," stated Tony Guan in a social media post, urging citizens to contact their legislators to vote no on ACA-7.
The 2025-2026 version of ACA-7 aims to amend Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution, specifically limiting the prohibition of preferential treatment in public employment, higher education admissions and enrollment, and public contracting. Earlier iterations of ACA-7 in the 2023-2024 session included broader exceptions for "research-based, or research-informed, and culturally specific programs" designed to address inequalities. Proponents argue that Proposition 209 has created barriers to achieving diversity and equity, particularly in public institutions and state contracts.
However, opponents, including those behind the #NoACA7 and #Protect209 campaigns, contend that the amendment would legalize state-sponsored racial discrimination. They point to the 2020 ballot initiative, Proposition 16 (ACA 5), which sought to repeal Proposition 209 but was decisively rejected by 57% of California voters. This historical context underscores a consistent public sentiment against reintroducing race-conscious policies.
The legislative path for ACA-7 requires a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and the Senate before it can be placed on a statewide ballot for voter approval. The debate surrounding the bill highlights a long-standing tension in California regarding affirmative action and equal opportunity. Critics also note that allowing racial considerations in areas outside of admissions and enrollment, such as scholarships or K-12 education, could lead to legal challenges and potential conflicts with federal anti-discrimination laws.
