>Proposition 209 was a 1996 California ballot proposition which amended the state constitution to prohibit public institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity. That same year Michigan passed a similar proposition.
What’s wrong with that? Nothing, but shortly thereafter, On 27 November 1996, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson blocked enforcement of the proposition. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently overturned that ruling. Proposition 209 has been the subject of many lawsuits in state courts since its passage.
Since the passage of Proposition 209, higher graduation rates have been posted at University of California schools,which led opponents of affirmative action to suggest a causal link between Proposition 209 and a better-prepared student body. The African American graduation rate at the University of California, Berkeley increased by 6.5 percent,and rose even more dramatically, from 26 percent to 52 percent, at the University of California, San Diego.
While African American graduation rates at UC Berkeley increased by 6.5 percent,the enrollment rates dropped significantly. Criticism was made of the fact that of the 4,422 students in UCLA’s freshman class of 2006, only 100 (2.26%) were African American. In fact, opponents of Proposition 209 note that there are greater disparities in elite education in the post-Proposition 209 era due to decreased African American and Latino enrollment. Proponents, on the other hand, note that Asian American enrollment rates dramatically increased at a majority of UC campuses. Still, this observation fails to take into consideration that though Asian Americans are a racial minority in the United States, they are generally an overrepresented group in college admissions and significantly less likely to be from a family living in poverty.
Who was this Judge Thelton Henderson and why did he rule against the will of the people? He was a Jimmy Carter appointee, and that should tell you enough. Furthermore, he was both a board member of the ACLU and Equal Rights Advocates. Enough said.
Consider the State of Washington where voters overwhelmingly approved a state-wide referendum, which validated the state’s statute banning assisted suicide. Five years later, in Compassion in Dying Versus Washington, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cited public opinion polls as a basis for overturning the will of the people. In a closing statement, the judge blasted religious people, saying “they are not free…to enforce their views, their religious convictions, or their philosophies on all the other members of a democratic society. In his book, The Enemy Within, Michael Savage observed: “Why am I not surprised to learn Reinhardt’s wife, Ramona Ripston, is the executive director of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU?”
Here’s another example of the ACLU trying to dominate the thinking and actions of the majority of the people. Do you recall–in the fall of 2003 California had a governor named Gray Davis? As governor, he was a failure. The state’s finances were a mess and he showed absoluteley no positive leadership. But he wasn’t going to go down without a fight. He tried to block the democratic process of a recall by the people. In the eleventh hour of the recall campaign, he granted driver’s licenses to illegal aliens primarily from Mexico in order to get votes.
He knew immigration is the provence of the federal government, not the state of California. To wit: Davis’ own office has said that numerous times. For example, the radicals in California once fought a ballot initiative, Prop. 187, which would have denied funding for illegal aliens for education and medication. California voters overwhelmingly approved the measure at the ballot box.
The radicals “shopped” the outcome to a federal judge, arguing immigration is a federal affair and must be decided by a federal court. U.S. District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer overturned the votes of 6 million Californians, forcing them to pay valuable tax dollars to support medication and education for illegal immigrants.
Here’s where Savage believes our federal government is failing us. He thought George Bush had the power to overturn Davis’s decision either either under immigration laws or under Homeland Security. It’s complicated, but I think the Federal Government could have sued the state for redress of this problem of state’s rights verses federal rights and that would have overturned the governor’s order.