October 2003 Recall Election:
“No” On Propositions 53 and 54

While media attention has focused largely on the gubernatorial recall election, voters in the recall election also will be asked to consider two important ballot propositions that were originally slated for the March 2004 election. Voters will decide whether a portion of General Fund revenues will be dedicated to infrastructure and whether state and local governments can continue to classify people by race, ethnicity, color, or national origin.

So far, all legal challenges to delay the recall election until next March have been denied by the courts. A recent lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to delay the recall election until March, 2004, when six counties will have replaced punch card voting machines with more modern technology, was rejected by a federal judge. Notwithstanding an appeal by the ACLU and other legal challenges, it appears that the recall election will take place on October 7.

FCL’s Executive Committee analyzes each ballot measure and makes recommendations only if unity is achieved. Below are FCL’s recommendations for the October 2003 special election. FCL does not endorse or oppose candidates for public office.

Proposition 53: Funds Dedicated for State and Local Infrastructure.

Establishes the California Twenty-First Century Infrastructure Investment Fund and transfers increasing amounts of the state’s General Fund revenue to the Infrastructure Fund beginning with the 2006/2007 fiscal year. Transfers would equal 1 percent of General Fund Revenue the first year, and would grow by 0.3 percent per year to a maximum of 3 percent in 2013/2014 and subsequent years. The Legislature would annually allocate half of the funds for local infrastructure and half for state-owned infrastructure. None of the funds allocated to local government could be spent on K-12 education or community college infrastructure. The measure also provides trigger mechanisms that would reduce or eliminate transfers to the Infrastructure Fund when General Fund revenues are less than anticipated or decline. According to the California Budget Project, these trigger mechanisms may be inadequate to protect the General Fund: “Proposition 53 could require significant appropriations even in years when the state faces a serious budget crisis.” For example, had Proposition 53 been law in fiscal year 1991/1992, a $285 million transfer from the General Fund to the Infrastructure Fund would have been required even though the state faced a $14.3 billion budget deficit (see chart) that resulted in large spending cuts to important state programs. Two-thirds of state spending is already non-discretionary. By creating an additional spending mandate, Proposition 53 would reduce the Legislature’s limited flexibility to deal with budget shortfalls.

Despite the need to upgrade and maintain California’s infrastructure, FCL believes that spending decisions should be made through the legislative process where competing programs are weighed and prioritized. Infrastructure spending is important, but without providing additional funding, funds could be diverted from other important programs to infrastructure spending without the benefit of legislative scrutiny. FCL OPPOSES.

Proposition 54: Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin. Dubbed “The Racial Privacy Initiative” by the measure’s sponsor, Proposition 54 would prohibit state and local agencies from classifying individuals by race, ethnicity, color, or national origin. Proponents contend that racial classifications are increasingly ambiguous and promote the use of racial stereotypes.

FCL has serious reservations about the adequacy of the measure’s exemption for medical research. Many diseases affect different communities disproportionately, and Proposition 54 will make them unnecessarily difficult to detect, prevent and treat. If passed, the measure would impede efforts by law enforcement agencies to deter hate crimes and to eliminate racial profiling. Plaintiffs in lawsuits claiming racial discrimination would lack the data to substantiate their claims. (See additional articles on Proposition 54 in this issue.)

Efforts to bridge the achievement gap among California students would also be set back. State Superintendent of Schools, Jack O’Connell, reminded a joint hearing of the Assembly and Senate Judiciary Committees that the Legislature was able to target $250 million for programs such as English Language Intensive Literacy and $1 billion to high priority schools as a result of data that identified students with low academic scores.

While the measure contains an exemption for classifying race-related data when required by federal law, state agencies may find themselves in the peculiar position of collecting race-related data for the federal government, but unable to use that same data for state purposes.

FCL believes that no person should be denied opportunity on the basis of class or group characteristics, including race, ethnicity, color, or national origin, and that society must make positive efforts on behalf of those who have not had equal access to any aspect of community life because of discrimination. Turning back the clock and closing our eyes to race will not make racial discrimination go away and will undermine efforts to address inequality. FCL OPPOSES.

- Jim Lindburg

*Assumes Proposition 53 was enacted in 1982-83.
Source: California Budget Project and Legislative Analyst’s Office

Proposition 54 is Bad Medicine for California

By Yvonne Lee

University of California Regent Ward Connerly, the author of Proposition 209, which abolished affirmative action in public employment, public education and public contracting in California, is again touting the realization of a colorblind society in which race is no longer a factor with Proposition 54, the Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin Initiative.

Proponents argue that race is becoming less of an issue as the number of multiracial children increases, and that racial classification perpetuates negative racial stereotypes. I hope to make clear to you that while the promise of a colorblind society is a desirable end, we have not yet achieved that goal. Pretending that race is not a factor will not eliminate racism and could seriously endanger public health.

Proposition 54 states that California shall not classify any individual by race, ethnicity, color or national origin. This ban extends to any other state operations as well. The fact that California has a racially diverse population presents crucial policy implications concerning health care, education and discrimination. For instance, diseases affect people differently depending on their ethnicity. Ensuring that particular ethnic groups are aware of their potential health risks is a crucial part of the prevention and treatment of disease in California.

While the initiative states that medical research is exempt from Proposition 54, a large coalition of health care advocates and professionals rightly fear that the exemption is too narrow. California currently collects medical statistics from various public databases that are not included in the medical research exemption. As a result, health professionals have concluded that Caucasian women have the highest rates of breast cancer, Vietnamese women have the highest cervical cancer rates, African Americans die from heart disease at a higher rate than others, Latinos are more likely to die from diabetes-related complications and Asian Pacific Americans have the highest rates of liver cancer, among other findings.

Health officials need to monitor and evaluate prevention and treatment programs for specific groups. They need reliable information in order to revise their methods when current methods fail. Medical professionals use this data to fight chronic diseases, the spread of communicable diseases, and other illnesses that potentially affect all Californians.

If Proposition 54 passes, doctors will no longer be able to keep tabs on diseases and their victims. State and local governments would be prohibited from collecting and using data from birth and death certificates, hospital and laboratory reports, and disease-tracking tools such as the cancer registry. For these reasons, the California Medical Association, the California Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the California Healthcare Association and the California Association of Public Health Hospitals all oppose Proposition 54.

How are various ethnicities faring in California’s public schools? If this proposition passes, we will no longer be able to tell. If the education system does not know where it is failing, no remedy can follow. We are still a long way from successfully bridging the education gaps among our children.

According to the California Attorney General, Proposition 54 will hinder state and local efforts to address hate crimes and to reduce racial profiling. Research shows that the majority of hate crimes are committed on the basis of skin color. Especially after September 11, people of South Asian and Middle Eastern descent have been specifically targeted. It is important for law enforcement to track the race of perpetrators and victims in order to assess tensions arising between specific groups of people. It is crucial for law enforcement to know when and where these patterns emerge. Law enforcement requires racial data to reduce racial profiling, and we deserve to know if people of color are receiving disproportionate criminal sentences.

California is a richly colored tapestry woven together by many different cultures. This is one of the things that makes California, and by extension, the United States, so beautiful. Unless we walk around with green paint on our skin, our race is not something that can be hidden, nor should it be. Proposition 54 pretends that race no longer matters in California, but race does matter. The realization of a colorblind society is still a long way off. Simply ignoring race will not make the dream come true. In fact, it will make the dream of a just and caring society less possible.

- Yvonne Lee is a Policy Consultant for the Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum in San Francisco.

Correction

The article “Budget Impasse Continues As Bills Move to Second House” in the July issue of the FCL Newsletter stated erroneously that “The governor’s May Revision restores some funding ... and reduces the tax cuts originally proposed in his January budget proposal.” The article should have stated that the “May Revision restores some funding ... and reduces the tax increases originally proposed.” We regret the error.

Defining Race

Racial classifications are increasingly ambiguous and are connected to a long history of racial discrimination. So do they help or hinder California’s struggle for racial equality?

Californians often define themselves along racial lines. Despite this, the general populace has largely overlooked the complexity surrounding racial identity. Many people fail to realize that race is more often defined by society than by genetic makeup. One example is reliance on “the one-drop rule.” Originally an informal guideline, it defined as black, persons with any African ancestry, whether two percent, 50 percent or 100 percent of their genetic material was Negroid. Thus it helped solidify white domination by barring all Negroid blood from the ruling elite and enlarged the slave population by declaring that the offspring of slave holders with a single black ancestor were slaves. By the early twentieth century, the “one drop rule” had become formal law throughout the Jim Crow South. The current method of collecting racial data perpetuates this approach in order to address inequality. Both the federal and state government grant minority status to all persons in this country who are not exclusively Caucasian.

Racial classifications are becoming increasingly ambiguous as traditional racial groups intermarry. What genetic makeup constitutes a minority? What is the point of collecting racial data if a person’s racial identity is based not exclusively on ancestry, but on a socially assigned identity? And, ultimately, should society define racial identity?

California residents are now confronting the confusion behind racial identification. Proposition 54 seeks to ban California’s state and local agencies from collecting data on the racial makeup of students, employees, and contractors. Proponents argue that because racial identification is socially subjective, all data collected is hopelessly flawed. They also contend that the system of racial classification - that has historically relegated some persons to slavery and detained others in internment camps during World War II - perpetuates racial stereotyping and bigotry and must be eliminated if California ever hopes to end racial prejudice.

Not everyone views racial classification in such a negative light. Many are very proud of their heritage and culture and enjoy the sense of belonging that classification gives them. Moreover, many use their minority status to seek out others with common experiences and combine their political and monetary muscle to address past and present injustices. Disregarding race could strip away minority groups’ power to fight inequality. Today, racial classification provides the federal and state governments with information so that they may benefit minorities by fighting discrimination. Racial data in California is an important measure in the struggle for racial equality. Without data, California cannot know the social status of various minority groups.

Although the argument for banning the collection of racial data has many merits, California needs racial data to ensure that all its citizens are treated equally. The elimination of this data would allow racial discrimination to go unchecked. Soon Californians will ask whether race matters. FCL hopes you will vote no on Proposition 54 while keeping in mind the important questions it raises.

- Amanda Rogerson, FCL intern

For Further Reading on October 2003 Ballot Measures
Proposition 53: Funds Dedicated for State and Local Infrastructure

California Budget Project
921 11th Street, Suite 502
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: (916) 444-0500
Fax: (916) 444-0172
http://cbp.org/props.htm

Legislative Analyst’s Office
925 L Street, Suite 1000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: (916) 445-4656
http://lao.ca.gov/Proposition 54: Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color, or National Origin

Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum
450 Sutter Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel: (415) 954-9988
Fax: (415) 954-9999
http://www.apiahf.org/

California Budget Project
(see above)

California HealthCare Foundation
476 Ninth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel: (510) 238-1040
Fax: (510) 238-1388
http://www.chcf.org/

Coalition for an Informed California
1663 Mission Street, Suite 640
San Francisco, CA 94103
Tel: (415) 621-1490
http://www.informedcalifornia.org/

Legislative Analyst’s Office
(see above)

Development & Outreach Update

THANK YOU to all our supporters, including those who helped with the summer fund appeal (mailing and calling) and responded; also to everyone who helped make the Strawberry Social at Friends House so successful . . . FCL’s participation in Pacific Yearly Meeting was rewarding. We held two good interest groups, one focusing on citizen advocacy and the death penalty, the other on ways of effectively sharing our message and connecting with others . . . We greatly appreciate our faithful and generous FCL friends, including those in the greater bay area who are working on the Palo Alto Fall Bazaar, the multi-Meeting sale in Berkeley in October and a calendar fundraiser . . . The Fall Fund Appeal is going out soon, and we hope to hear back from many of you . . . It was good to meet Friends at the Strawberry Creek Meeting early in September and we’ll have a similar opportunity soon at the Sacramento Meeting. We also look forward to outreach at the College Park Quarterly Meeting in October . . . We want to show the FCL video to groups in the larger community, so let us know if you have a contact or suggestion that may be helpful in our outreach efforts . . . Also, please speak up if you may be interested in working with our Development & Outreach Committee on communication, organizing or fundraising projects. We respect preferences and time limits, and you don’t have to come to meetings to be welcome!

- Ira Saletan

Upcoming Events

Sept. 27 - Fall Bazaar, Palo Alto

The beloved, fabled elder of our northern California fundraisers continues to live and thrive annually, thanks to FCL supporters from the Palo Alto Friends Meeting and elsewhere! You can find plants, preserves, crafts, books, special auction items, wonderful fellowship, informative FCL propaganda, and more. Donations welcome. 957 Colorado Ave.
(650) 368-7235 or 324-2049.

Oct. 11 - Quaker FunRaiser, Berkeley

Come experience the pleasures of this FCL benefit-a joint project of supporters from the Berkeley Friends Meeting, Berkeley Friends Church and Strawberry Creek Friends Meeting. Check out the books, baked goods, plants, used goods, children’s activities, entertainment, spirited company and discussion, FCL video and information, and more. Donations welcome. 1600 Sacramento St. (510) 486-1391, 547-2099, 530-7382.

Dec. 5-7: Statewide Gathering, La Jolla

The annual FCL statewide meeting will be held at the La Jolla Friends Meeting. Focus is on how the organization is doing and where it is going. FCL representatives from throughout the state are encouraged to attend and others are welcome. A program with a community audience on citizen advocacy may also be held in San Diego. (858) 679-9943 or (619) 465-9176.

In FCL Newsletter History

FCL 20 Years Ago

August-September 1982, Vol. 31, No. 8

PEACE RESOLUTIONS ?In light of the increased military conflict throughout our world, the dangerous proliferation of nuclear arms and our radically-expanding federal military budget, peacemaking has become a matter of life or death ? for all of us, for every human.?

Assemblymember John Vasconcellos (D., San Jose) Upon their return from the July recess, five legislators joined Assemblymember John Vasconcellos in a press conference on a ?peace package? of six resolutions addressing the nuclear freeze, the bloated military budget, the establishment of a National Peace Academy and other peace efforts. ACR 149 (Vasconcellos) would put the California Legislature on record in support of the concept of a bilateral nuclear freeze. ? AJR 124 cites the impact of a few of the federal reductions in human services on Californians. ? In fiscal year 1982, funds for social programs were cut by $30 billion while defense expenditures were increased by nearly the same amount. ? ACR 147 (Vasconcellos) urges the Regents of the University of California to establish a research institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. ? AJR 65 (Vasconcellos) would urge Congress to establish a National Academy of Peace and Conflict Resolution. ? AJR 125 (Vasconcellos) would ask Congress to endorse Children?s Peace Day. This program is aimed at encouraging children to relate their thoughts about peace to elected officials. ?

FCL 15 Years Ago

April 1987, Vol. 36, No. 4

U.C. and THE TEST BAN Has the University of California been chiefly responsible for a continuously escalating nuclear arms race? The extent of the University?s nuclear weapons laboratories? involvement in forestalling a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty came to light during a hearing sponsored by the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. ? University Explains, Defends Role Dr. William Frazer, the University?s Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs [said] ?We?re not in this for the money.? Rather, the UC Regents believe the labs perform a valuable public service by ?assisting in our national security effort.? ? Lab?s Efforts to Influence Test Ban Policy Revealed In the afternoon, the second panel began testimony on the question of the labs? conformity with national policy objectives. It has been official U.S. policy since the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTB) was signed in 1963 to work toward a CTB, yet the labs have advised against it. ? Dr. Hugh DeWitt, a Livermore Lab physicist with expertise in bomb design, testified that the labs have acted in direct opposition to national policy and the national interest. At one point he said that they ?have emerged as powerful ongoing permanent institutions that lobby very effectively in Congress and the Pentagon for ever more weapons development. ? [I]t is clear that the laboratories are centers of strong opposition to any form of nuclear test ban agreement.?