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

Monday, 8/25/97 Court denies appeal of Prop. 209 AFFIRMATIVE Supreme Court gets extension to consider review of case before initiative takes effect

By Tyler Maxwell Daily Bruin Senior Staff Proposition 209, the voter-approved initiative banning race and gender preferences, will go into effect within two weeks if the U.S. Supreme Court does not agree to review the case. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused Thursday to reconsider a 3-0 ruling by a panel of the court that found Prop. 209 to be a constitutional declaration of neutrality and equality ­ not the state-sanctioned discrimination portrayed by civil rights groups. Under the appeals court¹s rules, the decision would normally become final in seven days. However, the court has ordered a brief extension on the seven days. No explanation was given for the extension. After that, Prop. 209 would take effect unless the court issued a stay that would prevent implementation. However, a stay from the same panel that upheld the measure is unlikely. The next step for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the main legal opponent of Prop. 209, is to seek a stay from the 9th District Court, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, for the duration of the appeal, which could last at least until next summer if the court accepts the case. ³This is the first time in the nation¹s history that state and local government have had their hands tied when it comes to remedying past discrimination against minorities and women,¹¹ said ACLU lawyer Mark Rosenbaum. Gov. Pete Wilson praised the decision, saying in a statement that it ³has now ruled very clearly and very forcefully that 209, as the people of California well understood when they voted for it, means an end to racial, ethnic and gender discrimination.² Rosenbaum predicted that the Supreme Court would review the case. Others were not so optimistic. ³I don¹t expect the Supreme Court to review the case in light of its past decisions regarding these issues,² said Raymund Paredes, UCLA¹s vice chancellor for academic development. ³Prop. 209 is now the law in California and we now have to proceed accordingly.² Time will tell who is right about whether the Supreme Court decides to review the case. ³The Supreme Court has complete discretion about whether to review a case when asked,² said Jonathan Varat, professor of law at UCLA law school. ³The court is asked to review about 6,000 cases a year reviewed in lower courts, and they actually review about 100.² This is a very high profile case, and that increases its chances of being accepted by the Supreme Court. ³There is a fifty-fifty chance that it will be reviewed by the Supreme Court,² said Varat. Despite the loss of affirmative action, the UC campuses are committed to maintaining diversity. ³I think this presents us with a great challenge,² said Paredes. ³We are going to have to maintain diversity without affirmative action.² Robert Naples is a member of the UCLA task force on Prop. 209, formed during Chancellor Charles Young¹s tenure. Should 209 become law in the near future, UCLA¹s current plan is to follow the procedures outlined in a directive issued by Chancellor Young last May. Prop. 209, approved by 54 percent of the voters, would prohibit preferences based on race or sex in state and local government employment, education and contracting. Enforcement of the initiative was barred three weeks after the election by Chief U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson of San Francisco, who said opponents were likely to prove it unconstitutional. Some Republicans in Congress have threatened him with impeachment because of the ruling. But a three-judge panel of the appeals court overruled Henderson on April 8, saying not only that opponents were not entitled to an injunction against the measure but also that it was clearly constitutional. Prop. 209 ³addresses in neutral fashion race-related and gender-related matters² in the spirit of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law, said Judge Diarmuid O¹Scannlain about the 3-0 decision. He said affirmative action programs based on preferences are constitutionally suspect, hurt some while helping others, and can be abolished by a state. With Daily Bruin wire reports. Previous Daily Bruin Story Passage of Prop. 209 renews debate Enforcement of Proposition 209 blocked by federal judge