AAPF Logo

Affirmative Action Across the 50 States

Close

Blog

Previous Next

California

California Civil Rights Initiative— Proposition 209 (1996)

What

Proposition 209 was introduced to the general election ballot as a proposed initiated constitutional amendment. The amendment is designed to prohibit the state and local governments and other public institutions from giving preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.

Text of Bill

"PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION OR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BY STATE AND OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

- “Prohibits the state, local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, and schools, and other government instrumentalities from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, public education, or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

- “Does not prohibit reasonably necessary, bona fide qualifications based on sex and actions necessary for receipt of federal funds.

- “Mandates enforcement to extent permitted by federal law.

- “Requires uniform remedies for violations.

- “Provides for severability of provisions if invalid.”


Learn more about what this means.

Sponsors

California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign (led by University of California Regent Ward Connerly), Pacific Legal Foundation; Center for Equal Opportunity

Outcome

Passed

Yes: 54.55%
No: 45.45%

Result

Proposition 209 has effectively reduced the number of minorities attending the University of California’s most competitive campuses.

Although Native Americans, blacks, and Latinos make up about half of California’s high school graduates, the UC’s data shows that 2012 freshmen class of California residents is roughly 1 percent Native American, 3.5 percent black, 15 percent Latino, 30 percent white and 48 percent Asian.

Missouri

Missouri Civil Rights Initiative - Missouri Ballot Measure 009 (2008)

What


The Missouri Civil Rights Initiative was supposed to be introduced to the 2008 general election ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment. However, the initiative failed to attract enough signatures before the deadline and subsequently did not appear on the ballot.

The amendment was designed to prohibit the state and local governments and other public institutions from giving preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.


Text of Bill


“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit any form of discrimination as an act of the state by declaring:

“’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’.”


Supporters


American Civil Rights Institute (Ward Connerly); Missouri Civil Rights Initiative (Tim Asher; John Uhlmann)


Outcome

Failed

Community, labor, faith, and a host of progressive organizations successfully campaigned to educate voters about the Initiative. As a result, initiative supporters were unable to garner enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot.

Result

Affirmative action programs at the state and local level remain safe.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban Amendment – State Question 759 (2012)

What

The Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban Amendment was on the November 2012 ballot as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment after the Oklahoma House of Representatives approved it by a vote of 59-14. As of January 2013, State Question 759 is the most recent state level attack on affirmation action programs.

The amendment prohibits state and local governments and other public institutions from giving preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.


Text of Bill


"This measure adds a new section to the State Constitution. It adds Section 36 to Article II.

"The measure deals with three areas of government action. These areas are employment, education and contracting.

"In these areas, the measure does not allow affirmative action programs. Affirmative action programs give preferred treatment based on race, color or gender. They also give preferred treatment based on ethnicity or national origin. Discrimination on these bases is also not permitted.

"The measure permits affirmative action in three instances. 1. When gender is a bonafide qualification, it is allowed. 2. Existing court orders and consent decrees that require preferred treatment will continue and can be followed. 3. Affirmative action is allowed when needed to keep or obtain federal funds.

"The measure applies to the State and its agencies. It applies to counties, cities and towns. It applies to school districts. It applies to other State subdivisions.

"The measure applies only to actions taken after its approval by the people.

"SHALL THE PROPOSAL BE APPROVED?

"FOR THE PROPOSAL Yes: __________

"AGAINST THE PROPOSAL No: __________"

Sponsors

American Civil Rights Institute (Ward Connerly); Sen. Rob Johnson (R); Sen. Ralph Shortey (R); Rep. T.W. Shannon (R); Rep. Leslie Osborn (R); Rep. Sally Kern (R).


Outcome


Approved

Yes: 59.2%
No: 40.8%


Result


AAPF is still in the process of monitoring the immediate effects of State Question 759. Check back in mid-2013 for updates.

Utah

Utah Civil Rights Amendment (2012)


What

The Utah Civil Rights Amendment (2012) was a proposed amendment to the Utah Constitution which would have prohibited state and local governments and other public institutions from giving preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race or gender in education, employment, and public contracting.

Text of Bill

"This resolution proposes to amend the Utah Constitution to:

- “prohibit the State, public institutions of higher education, and political subdivisions from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin with respect to public employment, public education, or public contracting; and

- “provide exceptions;

- “authorize the Legislature to provide a remedy for a violation and provide limits for a remedy; and

- “provide that the prohibition is self-executing.”


Sponsors

American Civil Rights Institute ( founded by Ward ConnerlyWard Connerly)

Outcome

Failed

Efforts to include the proposed amendment on the 2010 ballot failed when supporters failed to get the requisite 2/3 of Utah legislators to support the bill proposing the ballot initiative.

Result

Affirmative action programs at the state and local level remain safe.

Colorado

Colorado Civil Rights Initiative – Amendment 46 (2008)


What

Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, Amendment 46 was introduced to the November 2008 ballot as an proposed initiated constitutional amendment. Voters defeated the ballot measure.

The amendment was designed to prohibit the state and local governments and other public institutions from giving preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.


Text of Bill


“An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a prohibition against discrimination by the state, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting 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; allowing exceptions to the prohibition when bona fide qualifications based on sex are reasonably necessary or when action is necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for federal funds; preserving the validity of court orders or consent decrees in effect at the time the measure becomes effective; defining ‘state’ to include the state of Colorado, agencies or departments of the state, public institutions of higher education, political subdivisions, or governmental instrumentalities of or within the state; and making portions of the measure found invalid severable from the remainder of the measure.”


Sponsors


American Civil Rights Institute (Ward Connerly)


Outcome


Failed

Yes: 50.81%
No: 49.19%


Result


Affirmative action programs at the state and local level remain safe.


Colorado Equal Opportunity Initiative – Initiative 61 (2008)

What


The Colorado Equal Opportunity Initiative was a proposed citizen-initiated constitutional amendment that used language identical to the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative but preserved the state’s authority to take actions regarding public employment, public education, and public contracting as long as the state did not violate the United States constitution.

The initiative ballot title was challenged and on March 5, 2008 and the Colorado Title Setting Review board rejected the proposed ballot title in a 3-0 decision, saying that the title violated the single-subject rule and was likely to confuse voters, particularly regarding how it compares to Initiative 31, the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative. The Title Board’s decision was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which overruled the Title Board and reinstated the title on May 16, 2008. However, the supporters of Initiative 61 had already drafted Initiative 82 as an alternative for inclusion on the ballot.


Text of Bill


"An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a prohibition against discrimination by the state, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting 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, and public contracting; preserving the state’s authority to take actions regarding public employment, public education, and public contracting that are consistent with the United States constitution as interpreted by the United States supreme court; and defining "state" to include, without limitation, the state of Colorado, any agency or department of the state, any public institution of higher education, any political subdivision, or any governmental instrumentality of or within the state."


Sponsors

Coloradans for Equal Opportunity (Melissa Hart)


Outcome

Failed

Efforts subsumed by Initiative 82 (see below).

Colorado Discrimination/Preferential Treatment Initiative – Initiative 82 (2008)


What


The Colorado Equal Opportunity Initiative was a proposed citizen-initiated constitutional amendment that incorporated the same text as the proposed Colorado Amendment 46, but preserved the state’s authority to take actions regarding public employment, public education, and public contracting as long as the state did not violate the United States constitution.

Text of Bill

"An amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a prohibition against discrimination by the state, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting 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, and public contracting; preserving the state’s authority to take actions regarding public employment, public education, and public contracting that are consistent with the United States constitution as interpreted by the United States supreme court; and defining "state" to include, without limitation, the state of Colorado, any agency or department of the state, any public institution of higher education, any political subdivision, or any governmental instrumentality of or within the state."

Supporters

Coloradans for Equal Opportunity (Melissa Hart)


Outcome

Failed

The initiative failed to make the ballot when the Secretary of State determined that 42% of the signatures submitted were unvalid. Supporters submitted 117,871 signatures and the measure needed 76,047 valid signatures to ensure its place on the 2008 ballot.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire House Bill 623 (2012)

What

House Bill 623 was enacted by the state legislature to prohibit the state’s agencies, public universities, community colleges, and post-secondary education commission from giving preferences to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or religious beliefs in recruiting, hiring, promotion, and admission.


Text of Bill



“AN ACT prohibiting preferences in recruiting, hiring, promotion, or admission by state agencies, the university system, the community college system, and the postsecondary education commission.


“Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
227:1 Department of Administrative Services; Classified Employees; Preferential Treatment or Discrimination Based on Race, Sex, National Origin, Religion, or Sexual Orientation Prohibited. Amend RSA 21-I:52, I to read as follows:


“I. No person shall be appointed or promoted to, or demoted or dismissed from, any position in the classified service, or in any way favored or discriminated against with respect to employment in the classified service because of the person’s political opinions, religion, religious beliefs or affiliations, age, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, or race. [In addition, no person shall have any such employment action taken on account of such person’s sexual orientation.] Additionally, except as provided in paragraph I-a, there shall be no preferential treatment or discrimination in recruiting, hiring, or promotion based on race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or religious beliefs. Nothing in this section shall require the appointment or prevent the dismissal of any person who advocates the overthrow of the government by unconstitutional and violent means. No person shall use, or promise to use directly or indirectly, any official authority or influence, whether possessed or anticipated, to secure or attempt to secure for any person an appointment or advantage in appointment to a position in the classified service, or an increase in pay or other advantage in employment in any such position, for the purpose of influencing the vote or political action of any person, or for any consideration. No employee in the state classified service shall hold any remunerative elective public office, or have other employment, either of which creates an actual, direct and substantial conflict of interest with the employee’s employment, which conflict cannot be alleviated by said employee abstaining from actions directly affecting such classified employment. Determination of such conflict shall be made by the personnel appeals board after the parties are afforded rights to a hearing pursuant to RSA 21-I:58. The burden of proof in establishing such a conflict shall be upon the party alleging it. No action affecting said employee shall be taken by the appointing authority because of such public office or other employment until after a full hearing before and approval of such action by the personnel appeals board. If an actual, direct and substantial conflict of interest, which cannot be alleviated by abstention by the employee, is found by the personnel appeals board, the board must approve any action proposed by the appointing authority; and the employee shall be given a reasonable amount of time to leave the employee’s public office or other employment or otherwise end the conflict before the appointing authority initiates that action.


“I-a. Notwithstanding the prohibition on preferential treatment or discrimination in paragraph I:

"(a) Nothing in this section shall 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.

"(b) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.

"227:2 New Section; State College and University System; Prohibition on Preferential Treatment and Discrimination. Amend RSA 187-A by inserting after section 16 the following new section:

"187-A:16-a Prohibition on Preferential Treatment and Discrimination.


“I. Within the state college and university system, there shall be no preferential treatment or discrimination in recruiting, hiring, promotion, or admission based on race, sex, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.


“II. Notwithstanding paragraph I:


“(a) Nothing in this section shall 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.

"(b) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
227:3 New Section; Community College System; Prohibition on Preferential Treatment and Discrimination. Amend RSA 188-F by inserting after section 3 the following new section:
188-F:3-a Prohibition on Preferential Treatment and Discrimination.

"I. Within the state’s community college system, there shall be no preferential treatment or discrimination in recruiting, hiring, promotion, or admission based on race, sex, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.


“II. Notwithstanding paragraph I:

"(a) Nothing in this section shall 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.

"(b) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.

"227:4 Postsecondary Education Commission; Staff; Prohibition on Preferential Treatment and Discrimination. Amend RSA 188-D:4 to read as follows:

"188-D:4 Staff.


“I. The commission is hereby authorized to employ such staff as may be necessary to carry out its work within the limits of its appropriation.


“II. There shall be no preferential treatment or discrimination in recruiting, hiring, or promotion based on race, sex, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.


“III. Notwithstanding paragraph II:

"(a) Nothing in this section shall 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.

"(b) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section."

Sponsors

Rep. Timothy Comerford, Rep. Paul Ingbretson, Rep. Gary Hopper, Rep. Lucien Vita

Outcome


Passed

Yea: 219
Nay: 79

Result


AAPF is still in the process of monitoring the immediate effects of House Bill 623. Check back in mid-2013 for updates.

Florida

Florida Civil Rights Initiative (2000)

What


The Florida Civil Rights Initiative was a proposal to amend the Florida constitution to bar the state, “any city, county, district, public college or university, or other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within” Florida from giving “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.”

The initiative received enough valid signatures to qualify to appear on the ballot but it failed to gain traction when civil rights activists marched against Gov. Jeb Bush’s anti-affirmative action plan called “One Florida.” Republicans’ concern that a 2000 ballot measure might hurt George W. Bush’s chance to become president of the United States may have also contributed to the initiative’s failure to make it to the polls.

Text of Bill


"Amends Declaration of Rights, Article I of Florida Constitution, to bar government from treating people differently based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, employment, or contracting, whether the program is called ‘preferential treatment’, ‘affirmative action’, or anything else. Does not bar programs that treat people equally without regard to race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Exempts bona fide qualifications based on sex and actions needed for federal funds eligibility."

Sponsors


American Civil Rights Institute (Ward Connerly)


Outcome


Failed


Result


Affirmative action programs at the state and local level remain safe.

Arizona

Arizona Civil Rights Amendment – Proposition 107 (2010)

What

Proposition 107 was introduced to the 2010 ballot as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment after failing to qualify for the 2008 ballot due to insufficient voter support. The amendment is designed to prohibit the state and local governments and other public institutions from giving preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.

Text of Bill


"PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY THE LEGISLATURE RELATING TO "PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OR DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITION [HCR 2019]
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

"PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE II, BY ADDING SECTION 36, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OR DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITION.
DESCRIPTIVE TITLE

"PROHIBITS THE STATE FROM GRANTING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO OR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST ANY PERSON OR GROUP ON THE BASIS OF RACE, SEX, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN; EXEMPTS REASONABLY NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS BASED ON SEX, EXISTING COURT ORDERS AND ACTIONS THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

"A ‘yes’ vote shall have the effect of prohibiting the State from giving preferential treatment to or discriminating against any person or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. The prohibition applies to preferences or discrimination in public employment, education or contracting. It exempts reasonably necessary qualifications based on sex, existing court orders and actions that would result in the loss of federal funds. The State includes state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.

"A ‘no’ vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding preferential treatment to or discrimination against any person or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education or contracting."


Supporters & Sponsors

Ward Connerly; Sen. Russell Pearce, Rep.; Steve Montenegro; Sen. Ron Gould; Rep. Nancy McLain; American Civil Rights Coalition

Outcome

Passed

Yes: 59.5%
No: 40.5%


Result


The Associate Dean at the College of Education at the University of Arizona explained that Proposition 107 would have “the most profound impact” on graduate and professional education and in fields that display clear disparities in race and/or gender.

Nebraska

Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative – Initiative 424 (2008)

What


Civil Rights Initiative 424 was introduced to the 2008 ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment. The amendment is designed to prohibit the state and local governments and other public institutions and political subdivisions from giving preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.


Text of Bill


“Shall the Nebraska Constitution be amended to prohibit the State, any public institution of higher education, political subdivision or government institution from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, individuals or groups based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in operating public employment, education or contracting? Existing court orders are not invalidated, bona fide qualifications based on sex reasonably necessary to normal operation of public employment, education or contracting, and actions necessary to obtain federal funds through federal programs are permitted. A cause of action for violation is created. The amendment applies to actions after its adoption.


“A vote “FOR” will amend the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the State, any public institution of higher education, political subdivision or government institution from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, individuals or groups based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in operating public employment, education, or contracting. Existing court orders would not be invalidated under the amendment. Bona fide qualifications based on sex reasonably necessary to normal operation of public employment, education or contracting,and actions necessary to obtain federal funds through federal programs would be permitted. A cause of action for violation would be created. The amendment would apply to actions after its adoption.


“A vote “AGAINST” will not cause the Nebraska Constitution to be amended in such a manner.”


Supporters


Nebraska Civil Rights Institute (Ward Connerly); Nebraska Republican Party; John McCain

Outcome


Passed


Yes: 49.7%
No: 36.7%


Result

The Initiative amends Nebraska’s Constitution, prohibiting the state from discriminating on the basis of race. AAPF and other pro-affirmative action supporters construe the Initiative as banning affirmative action. Though anti-Initiative groups attempted to challenge its legality in court, these efforts failed.

Michigan

Michigan Civil Rights Initiative – Proposal 2 (2006)

What


Proposal 2 was introduced to the 2006 ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment. The amendment is designed to prohibit the state and local governments and other public institutions from giving preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.


Text of Bill


“A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE,GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES.

"The proposed constitutional amendment would:

"• Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender,color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local government, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.

"• Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.)

"Should this proposal be adopted? Yes or No"


Supporters


Ward Connerly; Jennifer Gratz; Barbara Grutter; MI Attorney General Michael Cox; MI Attorney General Bill Schuette; Rep. Leon Drolet

Outcome


Passed

Yes: 57.9%
No: 42.1%

Result


On July 1, 2011 the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned Proposal 2 by a 2-1 vote. The federal court ruled that the voter-approved amendment was unconstitutional because “Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities.”

On July 29, 2011 Attorney General Bill Schuette requested that the full 6th Circuit panel rehear the case. On September 9, 2011 the full U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to reconsider the July ruling by a panel of the court that overturned Proposal 2. Sitting en banc, the Sixth Circuit determined the Initiative was unconstitutional. As of January 2013, the Sixth Circuit’s decision is on appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

Washington

Washington Affirmative Action Ban—Washington Initiative 200 (1998)

What

Washington Initiative 200 (I-200) was introduced to the election ballot as an “initiative to the Legislature.” I-200 sought to prohibit Washington State government entities from “discriminating” or granting preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

Text of Bill

"Shall government be prohibited from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting?"

Sponsors

I-200 was first introduced to the Legislature by Rep. Tim Eyman. After the Legislature failed to vote on the matter the measure was submitted to Washington voters.


Outcome

Passed

Yes: 58.22%
No: 41.78%


Result

Effectively ended all state-level efforts to institute affirmative action programs through state sponsored-employment initiatives, and state university and college admissions. These public entities are still permitted to take minimal action “to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal programs, if eligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.”

Under Executive Order 12-02 (2012), Washington State has undertaken an effort to analyze and report the composition of “the state workforce” as well as engage in “targeted outreach and recruitment.” While AAPF applauds Washington’s attempt to vigilantly monitor the racial and gender composition of the state’s workforce, these efforts fall far short of the targeted well-tailored affirmative action programs that are needed to end racial and gender disparities throughout its workforce.

Oregon

Oregon Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination – Oregon Ballot Measure 7 (1994)

What

The Oregon Ballot Measure 7 was introduced to the ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment. It would have amended the Oregon Constitution to prohibit any public entity in the state from denying “equal protection” on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age, or national origin.

Text of Bill

"Equality of Privileges and Immunities of Citizens," to explicitly state "The equal protection of the laws shall not be denied or abridged by any public entity in this state on account of race, color, religion, gender, age, or national origin."

Opponents

Opponents argued that groups not specifically mentioned in the amendment language would not be given equal protection of the laws, making it seem as if groups like the disabled, LGBT people, veterans, and single people would be excluded from protection under the Oregon Constitution.

Outcome

Defeated

No: 56.67%
Yes: 43.33%

Result

Affirmative action programs at the state and local level remain safe.

Back to Top

Vanity by Pixel Union