<h1>ASSEMBLY THIRD READING</h1><h1>ATR Bill Id:ACA 7</h1> Author:(Jackson)As Amended Ver:June 14, 20232/3 vote<h2>SUMMARY</h2>Amends the California Constitution to allow the State to fund programs for the purpose of increasing the life expectancy of, improving educational outcomes for, or lifting out of poverty specific groups.<h3>Major Provisions</h3><ol><li>Authorizes, subject to approval by the Governor, the State to use state moneys to fund research-based, or research-informed, and culturally specific programs in any industry, including, but not limited to, public employment, public education, and public contracting, if those programs are established or otherwise implemented by the State for purposes of increasing the life expectancy of, improving educational outcomes for, or lifting out of poverty specific groups based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or marginalized genders, sexes, or sexual orientations. </li><li>Defines &quot;state moneys&quot; to mean all money, bonds, and securities possessed by the State itself.</li><li>Requires the Governor to review and approve or reject an application submitted to the Governor for purposes of 1), above, within 60 days of receiving the application. Requires the Governor, if the application is denied, to notify the applicant and publish on their internet website a message explaining the basis for the denial. </li><li>Defines &quot;culturally specific program&quot; to mean a program or practice that infuses the history, language, ancestry, traditions, and rituals of a specific race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sex, or sexual orientation into its design and implementation.</li><li>Defines &quot;research-based program&quot; to mean a program or practice that has been tested in a manner that meets all of the following conditions:</li><li>The test is conducted with a single randomized evaluation, a single statistically controlled evaluation, or both;</li><li>The test is inclusive and representative of the diverse populations in the state, based on the most recent census data; or,</li><li>The test demonstrates sustained desirable outcomes or the weight of the evidence from a systemic review of the test supports sustained outcomes.</li><li>Defines &quot;research-informed program&quot; to mean a program or practice that exercises the explicit and judicious use of the best available evidence from multiple sources that use disaggregated data to increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome.</li><li>Defines &quot;disaggregated data&quot; to mean data that has been broken down into detailed subcategories within ethnic groups, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity, with the intent of identifying the unique differences within groups and addressing more concentrated disparities facing specific subgroups.</li></ol><h2>COMMENTS</h2><h6>Background: Proposition 209. In 1996, Proposition 209 (Prop 209) was placed on the ballot and approved by voters, by a nearly 55-45 margin, to amend the state constitution to provide, &quot;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 in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.&quot;</h6>According to a 2002 publication from the Senate Office of Research (SOR) entitled Legal History of Proposition 209:&quot;A common misconception of the initiative was that it outlawed affirmative action. Affirmative action, which is not mentioned in the initiative's wording, has different meanings for different people. To some, it is synonymous with preferences based on race or gender that are clearly illegal under Proposition 209. For others, the term speaks to positive actions taken to overcome the effects of past and current discrimination. The California codes contain a number of references to affirmative action concepts, programs and officers. Such references do not violate Proposition 209 unless the statute discriminates or grants preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.&quot;The SOR publication discusses the many legal cases that have ensued as a result of the passage of Prop 209 in an effort to define the scope of Prop 209. It concludes that while specific provisions of laws ordering affirmative action were invalidated in subsequent court cases, &quot;the courts were careful to note that proactive steps to encourage diversity are permissible so long as they are consistent with Proposition 209.&quot;ACA 5 and Proposition 16. While there were numerous legislative attempts in the intervening years since Prop 209 was adopted to repeal provisions relating to public education, ACA 5 (Weber), Resolution Chapter 23, Statutes of 2020, was the first to be placed on the ballot since Prop 209 was approved by voters in 1996, and sought to repeal Prop 209 in its entirety. Specifically, ACA 5 would have permitted government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to address diversity by repealing Article I, Section 31, of the California Constitution, which was added by Proposition 209 in 1996.While Prop 209 generally prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, education, or contracting, it does not alter other state and federal laws guaranteeing equal protection and prohibiting unlawful discrimination. According to the LAO:&quot;The federal, state, and local governments run many programs intended to increase opportunities for various groups -- including women and racial and ethnic minority groups. These programs are commonly called &quot;affirmative action&quot; programs. For example, state law identifies specific goals for the participation of women-owned and minority-owned companies on work involved with state contracts. State departments are expected, but not required, to meet these goals, which include that at least 15 percent of the value of contract work should be done by minority-owned companies and at least 5 percent should be done by women-owned companies. The law requires departments, however, to reject bids from companies that have not made sufficient &quot;good faith efforts&quot; to meet these goals.&quot;As a result of ACA 5 being adopted by the Legislature, and Chaptered by the Secretary of State, Proposition 16 was placed on the ballot, but was ultimately rejected with 57% of California's electorate voting to keep Prop 209's provisions in place.Research has demonstrated that educational attainment, income, wealth, and economic mobility exhibit significantly persistent racial disparities in the United States. Access to selective universities is a key determinant of economic success and intergenerational mobility. An August 2020 University of California (UC) Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy publication entitled, Affirmative Action, Mismatch, and Economic Mobility After California's Proposition 209 by Zachary Bleemer, analyzed Prop 209's impact on student outcomes and found that the average underrepresented minority (URM) applicants' undergraduate and graduate degree attainment declined overall and in STEM fields, especially among lower-testing applicants. As a result, the average URM UC applicant's wages declined by 5% percent annually between ages 24 and 34, almost wholly driven by declines among Latino applicants. The study further finds that, by the mid-2010s, Prop 209 had caused at least a 3% cumulative decline in the number of early-career URM Californians earning over $100,000. Prop 209 also deterred thousands of qualified URM students from applying to any UC campus. The study concluded that enrolling at less-selective UC campuses did not improve URM students' performance or persistence in STEM course sequences. Furthermore, a report conducted by the Equal Justice Society found that Prop 209 caused the state and local governments to end their race-conscious contracting programs, costing minority and women business enterprises over $1 billion annually.Data confirms that communities of color in California still suffer significantly higher rates of poverty relative to their White counterparts: specifically, 22.9% of Latino Californians suffer from poverty, along with 18.2% of Black Californians, compared to 12.8% of White Californians. Racial disparities in health outcomes persist for communities of color, most specifically the Black community, ranking last in California in life expectancy at birth at 75.1, much lower than the state average of 81. This constitutional amendment might allow California to implement more programs that have been demonstrated to increase the life expectancy of, improve educational outcomes for, or lift out of poverty, specific marginalized populations which would benefit all Californians. <h3>According to the Author</h3>&quot;Proposition 209 severely limits the state's ability to address systemic inequalities with proven best practices, further exacerbating disparities in public employment, public education, and public contracting. [This measure] will empower California's Governor to approve applications from state and local entities to use state funds for the implementation of research-based, or research-informed, and culturally specific programs to increase the life expectancy of, improve educational outcomes for, or lift out of poverty specific ethnic groups or marginalized genders. In California's efforts to address the long-standing inequalities facing its most vulnerable populations, the Golden State cannot afford to have a hand tied behind its back.&quot;<h3>Arguments in Support</h3>The California Teachers Association (CTA) writes in support, &quot;CTA is committed to racial and social justice for all, and to moving California closer toward collective liberation. Further, CTA believes that social justice includes, but is not limited to, political, educational, social, and economic equality and equity for all persons. ACA 7 will give us the tools to close opportunity gaps. It will lead to economic opportunity and growth, create a more equitable society, and increase access to health and educational services for all members of the state. Focus on culture helps address the unique needs of a community and can have long-term, positive impacts on their health, well-being, and economic security. There are clear connections between education outcomes and life expectancy which can impact marginalized populations differently; this bill will facilitate targeting resources to ensure equity.&quot; <h3>Arguments in Opposition</h3>Californians for Equal Rights Foundation writes in opposition that &quot;advocating for race/sex-based preferences distorts the principle of equal opportunity into an illiberal, social-engineering tool of equal outcome. Instead of focusing on tribal divisions and political favoritism, we should help all disadvantaged individuals regardless of race or gender. We should also make sure that every individual has equal access to public resources, and that our government provide institutional support that encourages American virtues of hard-work, initiative, self-discipline and individual merit.<h2>FISCAL COMMENTS</h2>According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on September 1, 2023: <ol><li>Cost pressures of an unknown amount, potentially in the millions of dollars statewide annually (General Fund, special funds, bond funds) to fund eligible programs. Actual costs will depend on the number of successful applications. Under existing constitutional provisions, this measure applies broadly to programs established or implemented by the state, most local governments, school districts, community college districts, and public universities, including the University of California.</li><li>Ongoing administrative costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to the Governor's office to review and approve or reject submitted applications within 60 days of receipt. Additional one-time costs of an unknown amount to develop and implement an application process and establish criteria for approval.</li><li>One-time General Fund costs to the Secretary of State (SOS) in the range of $738,000 to $984,000 for printing and mailing costs to place the measure on the ballot in a statewide election. Actual costs may be higher or lower, depending on the length of required elements and the overall size of the ballot.</li><li>SOS estimates printing and mailing costs associated with placing a measure on the statewide ballot to be approximately $123,000 per page, based on the average for the last three elections, and notes the overall costs depend on the length of the ballot. The fiscal estimates noted above reflect the addition of 6 to 8 pages in the Voter Information Guide. Actual costs would depend upon the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst's Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal. </li></ol><h2>VOTES</h2>ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 6-2-0YES: Jackson, Arambula, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, GarciaNO: Sanchez, AlanisASM JUDICIARY: 8-3-0YES: Maienschein, Connolly, Haney, Kalra, Pacheco, Papan, Reyes, Robert RivasNO: Essayli, Dixon, SanchezASM APPROPRIATIONS: 12-4-0YES: Holden, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Hart, Lowenthal, Papan, Pellerin, Soria, Weber, WilsonNO: Megan Dahle, Dixon, Mathis, Sanchez<h2>UPDATED</h2>VERSION: June 14, 2023CONSULTANT: Jessica Langtry / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089	 FN: 0001587

Date of Hearing: September 1, 2023<h1>ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS</h1>Chris Holden, Chair<h1>ABPCA Bill Id:ACA 7</h1> Author:(Jackson) – As Amended Ver:June 14, 2023<table><tr><td>Policy Committee:</td><td>Human Services </td><td>Vote:</td><td>6 - 2</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Judiciary </td><td></td><td>8 - 3</td></tr><tr><td></td><td> </td><td></td><td> </td></tr></table>Urgency: 	State Mandated Local Program: No	Reimbursable: NoSUMMARY:This measure, subject to voter approval at a statewide election, amends Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution to authorize the state to fund research-based, or research-informed, and culturally specific programs to improve outcomes for persons based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or marginalized genders, sexes, or sexual orientations. Specifically, this measure: <ol><li>Authorizes, subject to approval by the Governor, the State, as defined, to use state moneys to fund research-based, or research-informed, and culturally specific programs in any industry, including, but not limited to, public employment, public education, and public contracting, if those programs are established or otherwise implemented by the State for purposes of increasing the life expectancy of, improving educational outcomes for, or lifting out of poverty specific groups based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or marginalized genders, sexes, or sexual orientations. </li><li>Requires the Governor to review and approve or reject an application submitted to the Governor for purposes of 1, above, within 60 days of receiving the application. Requires the Governor, if the application is denied, to notify the applicant and publish on their internet website a message explaining the basis for the denial. </li><li>Defines “state moneys” to mean all money, bonds, and securities possessed by the State itself.</li><li>Defines “culturally specific program” to mean a program or practice that infuses the history, language, ancestry, traditions, and rituals of a specific race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sex, or sexual orientation into its design and implementation.</li><li>Defines “research-based program” to mean a program or practice that has been tested in a manner that meets all of the following conditions:</li><li>The test is conducted with a single randomized evaluation, a single statistically controlled evaluation, or both.</li><li>The test is inclusive and representative of the diverse populations in the state, based on the most recent census data.</li><li>The test demonstrates sustained desirable outcomes or the weight of the evidence from a systemic review of the test supports sustained outcomes.</li><li>Defines “research-informed program” to mean a program or practice that exercises the explicit and judicious use of the best available evidence from multiple sources that use disaggregated data to increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome.</li><li>Defines “disaggregated data” to mean data that has been broken down into detailed subcategories within ethnic groups, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity, with the intent of identifying the unique differences within groups and addressing more concentrated disparities facing specific subgroups</li></ol>FISCAL EFFECT:<ol><li>Cost pressures of an unknown amount, potentially in the millions of dollars statewide annually (General Fund, special funds, bond funds) to fund eligible programs. Actual costs will depend on the number of successful applications. Under existing constitutional provisions, this measure applies broadly to programs established or implemented by the state, most local governments, school districts, community college districts, and public universities, including the University of California.</li><li>Ongoing administrative costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to the Governor’s office to review and approve or reject submitted applications within 60 days of receipt. Additional one-time costs of an unknown amount to develop and implement an application process and establish criteria for approval.</li><li>One-time General Fund costs to the Secretary of State (SOS) in the range of $738,000 to $984,000 for printing and mailing costs to place the measure on the ballot in a statewide election. Actual costs may be higher or lower, depending on the length of required elements and the overall size of the ballot.</li></ol>SOS estimates printing and mailing costs associated with placing a measure on the statewide ballot to be approximately $123,000 per page, based on the average for the last three elections, and notes the overall costs depend on the length of the ballot. The fiscal estimates noted above reflect the addition of 6 to 8 pages in the Voter Information Guide. Actual costs would depend upon the length of the title and summary, analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, proponent and opponent arguments, and text of the proposal. COMMENTS:<ol><li>Background and Purpose. In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209 amending the California Constitution to prohibit the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting. </li></ol>Proposition 209 essentially prohibited the state from developing programs aimed at helping one specific race or gender at the behest of others. Numerous studies suggest this prohibition has been particularly impactful on educational programs seeking to close the achievement gap and on state contracting opportunities. According to the author:Proposition 209 severely limits the state’s ability to address systemic inequalities with proven best practices, further exacerbating disparities in public employment, public education, and public contracting. [This measure] will empower California’s Governor to approve applications from state and local entities to use state funds for the implementation of research-based, or research-informed, and culturally specific programs or interventions to increase the life expectancy of, improve educational outcomes for, or lift out of poverty specific ethnic groups or marginalized genders. In California’s efforts to address the long-standing inequalities facing its most vulnerable populations, the Golden State cannot afford to have a hand tied behind its back.Since Proposition 209 was enacted, there have been numerous legislative attempts to repeal the proposition, or provisions thereof, especially relating to public education. The most recent attempt was ACA 5 (Weber), Resolution Chapter 23, Statutes of 2020, which sought to repeal Proposition 209 in its entirety. ACA 5 was placed on the ballot as Proposition 16 in November of 2020, but failed with 43% voting in favor of the measure and 57% voting to reject the measure. Seeking to mitigate the impacts of Proposition 209 while not outright repealing the measure, this measure permits the state, with the Governor’s approval, to fund programs that specifically improve outcomes for persons based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or marginalized genders, sexes, or sexual orientations, even if such a program only targets one marginalized group and not others.<ol><li>Implementation Issues. As noted in both the Assembly Human Services Committee and Assembly Judiciary Committee analyses, this measure gives a singular person (the Governor), who may not have the expertise required, the authority to approve or deny already-appropriated state funds for specific programs. Typically, government grant funding decisions are made by administrative agencies, typically overseen by gubernatorial appointees with subject-matter expertise in the area in which the funding is being directed. Should this measure move forward, the author may wish to consider including appropriate government entities with the expertise needed to make these decisions. </li><li>Supreme Court Ruling. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled against affirmative action in higher education admissions in the combined cases of Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard (Docket No. 20-1199.) and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (Docket No. 21-707.). As a result, this ACA is more likely to have a difficult time withstanding scrutiny if challenged in federal court.</li><li>Two-thirds Legislative Approval and Statewide Ballot Approval Requirements. This measure requires the approval of two-thirds of the membership of each house in the Legislature and approval by a majority of voters at a statewide ballot election to ratify the changes to the constitution.</li></ol>Analysis Prepared by:	Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

(2024-06-19: Referred to Coms. on  JUD. and  E. & C.A.)

Government preferences: programs: exceptions.

Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 202324 Regular Session commencing on the fifth day of December 2022, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows:(a)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), 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 in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.(2)(A)Notwithstanding paragraph (1) but subject to approval by the Governor pursuant to the procedures in subparagraph (B), the State may use state moneys to fund research-based, or research-informed, and culturally specific interventions or
						 programs in any industry, including, but not limited to, public employment, public education, and public contracting, if those interventions or programs are established or otherwise implemented by the State for purposes of increasing the life expectancy of, improving educational outcomes for, or lifting out of poverty specific groups based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or marginalized genders, sexes, or sexual orientations.(B)The Governor shall review and approve or reject an application submitted to the Governor for purposes of subparagraph (A) within 60 days of receiving the application. If the Governor denies the application, the Governor shall notify the applicant and publish on their internet website a message explaining
						 the basis for the denial.(b)This section shall apply only to action taken after the sections effective date.(c)This section shall not be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.(d)This section shall not be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.(e)This section shall not be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of
						 federal funds to the State.(f)For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:(1)Culturally specific intervention or program means a program or practice that infuses the history, language, ancestry, traditions, and rituals of a specific race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sex, or sexual orientation into its design and implementation.(2)Disaggregated data means data that has been broken down into detailed subcategories within ethnic groups, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity, with the intent of identifying the unique differences within groups and addressing more concentrated
						 disparities facing specific subgroups.(3)Research-based intervention or program means a program or practice that has been tested in a manner that meets all of the following conditions:(A)The test is conducted with a single randomized evaluation, a single statistically controlled evaluation, or both.(B)The test is inclusive and representative of the diverse populations in the state, based on the most recent census data.(C)The test demonstrates sustained desirable outcomes or the weight of the evidence from a systemic review of the test supports sustained outcomes.(4)Research-informed intervention or program means a program or practice that exercises the explicit and judicious use of the best available evidence from multiple sources that use disaggregated data to increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome.(5)State shall include, but is not limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.(6)State moneys means all money, bonds, and securities possessed by the
						 State itself.(g)The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured partys race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.(h)This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 202324 Regular Session commencing on the fifth day of December 2022, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows:(a)(1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), 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 in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.(2)Subject (A)Notwithstanding paragraph (1) but subject to approval by the Governor,
					 Governor pursuant to the procedures in subparagraph (B), the State may utilize
					 use state moneys to fund research-based, or research-informed, and culturally specific interventions or programs in any industry, including, but not limited to, public employment, public education, and public contracting, if those interventions or programs are established or otherwise implemented by the State for purposes of increasing the life expectancy of, improving educational outcomes for, or lifting out of poverty specific ethnic groups based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or marginalized genders.
					 genders, sexes, or sexual orientations.(B)The Governor shall review and approve or reject an application submitted to the Governor for purposes of subparagraph (A) within 60 days of receiving the application. If the Governor denies the application, the Governor shall notify the applicant and publish on their internet website a message explaining the basis for the denial.(b)This section shall apply only to action taken after the sections effective date.(c)This section shall not be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.(d)This section shall not be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.(e)This section shall not be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.(f)For the purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:(1)Culturally specific intervention or program means a program or practice that infuses the history, language, ancestry, traditions, and rituals of a specific race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sex, or sexual
					 orientation into its design and implementation.(2)Disaggregated data means data that has been broken down into detailed subcategories within ethnic groups, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity, with the intent of identifying the unique differences within groups and addressing more concentrated disparities facing specific subgroups.(3)Research-based intervention or program means a program or practice that has been tested in a manner that meets all of the following conditions:(A)The test is conducted with a single randomized evaluation, a single statistically controlled evaluation, or both.(B)The test is inclusive and representative of the diverse populations in the state, based on the most recent census data.(C)The test demonstrates sustained desirable outcomes or the weight of the evidence from a systemic review of the test supports sustained outcomes.(4)Research-informed intervention or program means a program or practice that exercises the explicit and judicious use of the best available evidence from multiple sources that use disaggregated data to increase the likelihood of a favorable outcome.<xhtml:p>(1)</xhtml:p>(5)State shall include, but is not limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university
					 system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.<xhtml:p>(2)</xhtml:p>(6)State moneys means all money, bonds, and securities possessed by the State itself.(g)The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured partys race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.(h)This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 202324 Regular Session commencing on the fifth day of December 2022, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California, that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows:(a)The (1)Except as provided in paragraph (2), 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 in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.(2)Subject to approval by the Governor, the State may utilize state moneys to fund research-based, or research-informed, and culturally
					 specific interventions or programs if those interventions or programs are established or otherwise implemented by the State for purposes of increasing the life expectancy of, improving educational outcomes for, or lifting out of poverty specific ethnic groups or marginalized genders.(b)This section shall apply only to action taken after the sections effective date.(c)Nothing in this This section shall not be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public
					 education, or public contracting.(d)Nothing in this This section shall not be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.(e)Nothing in this This section shall not be interpreted as prohibiting action which must
					 be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.(f)For the purposes of this section, State
					 the following definitions apply: (1)State shall include, but is not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.(2)State moneys
					 means all money, bonds, and securities possessed by the State itself.(g)The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured partys race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.(h)This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

Referred to Coms. on  JUD. and  E. & C.A.

In Senate.  Read first time.  To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

Read third time. Adopted. (Ayes 62. Noes 18.)

Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

From committee:  Be adopted. (Ayes 12. Noes  4.) (September  1).

From committee: Amend, and be adopted as amended, and re-refer to Com. on  APPR. (Ayes  8. Noes  3.) (June  13).

From committee chair, with author's amendments:  Amend, and re-refer to Com. on  HUM. S. Read second time and amended.

From printer.  May be heard in committee  March  19.

Be adopted as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Be adopted and re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]

ACA 7: Government preferences: programs: exceptions.

Current Status:

Assembly Floor

Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services

News Coverage: