As Fifth Anniversary of Prop. 209 Passage Nears, Connerly and PLF Still in Court Fighting to End Illegal Preference Programs.

Business & News Editors/Government & Legal Writers

SACRAMENTO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 24, 2001

The Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation today represented Ward Connerly as a citizen plaintiff before the 3rd District Court of Appeal in a long-running case stemming from state government's failure to comply with California's Proposition 209 -- the state constitutional amendment that prohibits discrimination against or granting preferences to any individual on the basis of race or sex.

"Nearly five years ago, with the passage of Proposition 209, Californians flatly rejected group representation and demanded individual recognition based on personal merit," said PLF attorney Anthony Caso, who argued the case before the court this afternoon.

"Today, we called on the justices to embrace equality of opportunity under the law and to reject programs that provide guaranteed outcomes based on race and sex preferences. For far too long, these programs have been the status quo in state government," said Caso.

The oral arguments were heard by the court in Connerly v. State Personnel Board. The litigation challenges laws still on the books that require community colleges and state agencies to develop goals and timetables to hire individuals on the basis of race and sex. Also in question are laws that require contractors with the State Lottery to award a share of their work to businesses owned by specified minorities and women and a requirement that the State Treasurer publish goals for the award of bond sale contract business to minority- and women-owned firms.

In the litigation, the laws are being defended by California Community Colleges, Lottery Commission, State Treasurer, Attorney General and a coalition of activist groups that support minority preferences.

PLF is representing Ward Connerly as a citizen-plaintiff in the litigation. Originally, the case was brought by then-Governor Pete Wilson.

"This case will bring us significantly closer to ensuring full implementation of Proposition 209," said Connerly.

"The voters have waited too long to see their will carried out in some of our state's largest agencies. I would urge this court to heed the California Supreme Court's majority opinion written last fall in Hi-Voltage v. San Jose by Justice Janice Brown." Justice Brown said: "The electorate desired to restore the force of constitutional law to the principle articulated by President Carter on Law Day 1979: @Basing present discrimination on past discrimination is obviously not right.'"

"These lingering programs treat people differently on the basis of race and gender and we must prevail in order to protect individual rights over group entitlements," added Connerly.

Last year, PLF won a major victory in a PLF enforcement action against the City of San Jose (Hi Voltage Wire Works v. City of San Jose) that went all the way to the California Supreme Court. The case challenged preference programs in violation of Proposition 209 and was defended by, among others, California's Attorney General.

In the Hi Voltage case, PLF argued (and the court agreed) that San Jose's ordinance contained quotas disguised as "outreach." In the Connerly case, PLF argues that the statutes in question contain quotas disguised as "goals and timetables."