• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

By Robert Salonga

DAILY BRUIN SENIOR STAFF

rsalonga@media.ucla.edu

The next step in Regent Ward Connerly’s fight to end racial classification in the state will now have to wait until 2004, and proponents are banking on California’s voters not showing up to the polls.

Verifying the required 670,816 petition signatures for the Racial Privacy Initiative took longer than the state’s June 27 deadline – an outcome the Connerly-backed American Civil Rights Coalition claims to have strategized earlier in their campaign.

The initiative would bar the state from collecting and maintaining almost any type of race-based data, with exceptions including medical research and prisons.

ACRC Executive Director Kevin Nguyen has said all along that they preferred the 2004 ballot to avoid this November’s gubernatorial election and to have more time to further publicize the initiative and raise additional funds.

In April the ACRC said it would submit just enough signatures to trigger a full count verification by the California Secretary of State office. The idea worked as planned, and the delay in counting will likely place the RPI on the March 2004 ballot alongside the presidential primary election.

“There’s nothing lost by postponing it,” Connerly said. “We know we have enough to qualify. That’s the important thing.”

The typically low voter turnout that accompanies a presidential primary would also be advantageous to the campaign, Nguyen said.

“The small universe of voters that will turn out helps us focus our message in a more efficient way,” he said.

But he dismissed the idea that low turnout would not constitute a mandate by California voters.

“You can’t rob a ballot proposition of legitimacy because of voter turnout,” Nguyen said. “That’s not reasonable under our system of democracy.”

Even if the RPI ended up on the November ballot, Connerly predicted that it would be approved by 60 percent of the vote.

The 1996 ballot initiative Proposition 209 that banned the use of race and gender preferences in hiring and admissions by state agencies – which Connerly also spearheaded – passed with 54 percent of the vote.

But the issue is not nearly as two-sided as it was six years ago. Connerly successfully polarized the state as being either for or against affirmative action, making the vote clear-cut. It’s trickier now with the RPI because its effects are not as foreseeable.

The ACRC hopes to use its newfound 18-month extension to make its stances clear to voters. Many are concerned about the negative impacts the RPI could have on sociological and public policy research, which often relies on state-collected data.

“Social sciences data collection would be hampered,” said Regent Velma Montoya. “I don’t want professors to be thwarted.”

Others worry about decreased state accountability if the RPI ever meets voter approval.

‘‘It’s very important for the people in the state of California to know if their government is discriminating against them,’’ said Michael Harris, assistant director for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco.

‘‘There’s just no good reason to become ignorant about things like that that are profoundly important,” he continued.

Connerly scoffed at any notions about hampering research institutes dependent on state data.

“It may impair social science researchers who want the government to gather data for them,” he said. “That doesn’t mean you can’t collect it on your own.”

The ACRC also plans on spending the extra time rebuilding its campaign war chest, since it has spent more than $2 million this year alone.

With reports from the Associated Press.

Comments

Post a comment