- California lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 7, allowing preferential college admissions for descendants of slaves.
- Proposition 209, a 1996 amendment, bans the use of race in public programs, sparking legal challenges.
- Senate Bill 627 prohibits ICE officers from wearing masks, raising constitutional concerns and safety issues.
- Both bills await signature from Gov. Gavin Newsom, potentially leading to conflicts with federal law.
California lawmakers have approved two controversial measures: Assembly Bill 7 (AB 7) and Senate Bill 627 (SB 627). These bills touch on deeply sensitive issues of race, reparations and federal-state relations, raising significant legal and political concerns.
The college admissions law: Reparations or constitutional violation?
Assembly Bill 7 allows the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU) and private colleges to grant admissions preference to applicants who can prove direct lineage to someone subjected to American chattel slavery before 1900. The bill aims to address the legacy of slavery and systemic racism within higher education.
- Proponents’ argument: Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), the bill's author, argues that the measure is race-neutral, focusing on lineage rather than race. He emphasizes that the admissions preference aims to correct historical wrongs and promote diversity in education.
- Critics’ response: Critics contend that AB 7 contradicts Proposition 209, a 1996 voter-approved constitutional amendment that bans the use of race, sex, ethnicity or national origin in college admissions. They argue that lineage is a proxy for race, given the historical context of slavery in the United States.
Legislative Analysts caution that this bill may incur significant costs and legal challenges. Moreover, the bill’s constitutionality is under scrutiny, with opponents citing potential violations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause and Proposition 209.
Restricting ICE officers: A dangerous proposition
Senate Bill 627 prohibits ICE officers from wearing masks, a blatant attempt to run ICE out of California and protect the state's dependent migrant population. This legislation has drawn sharp criticism from conservatives and civil libertarians.
- Supporters’ stance: Supporters argue that the bill is necessary to hold ICE accountable and to prevent the misuse of facial recognition technology. Proponents, such as Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), contend that this measure promotes transparency and increases public safety.
- Opponents’ concerns: Opponents raise concerns about the bill’s violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal law trumps state law. They argue that the bill could expose ICE officers to retaliation, threatening their safety and impeding federal immigration enforcement efforts.
Critics also point out that the bill’s exemptions for California Highway Patrol officers create a double standard, potentially exacerbating tensions between state and federal authorities.
The legacy of slavery and reparations in California
California's history of slavery and discrimination complicates the issue. Although it entered the Union as a "free state," loopholes in the legal system allowed slavery and discrimination to persist. California’s fugitive slave law of 1852 facilitated the capture and return of escaped enslaved people, further entrenching racist practices.
The legacy of slavery continues to manifest in present-day disparities, particularly in education and homeownership. The reparations movement in California seeks to redress these historical wrongs through measures like AB 7 and other companion bills aimed at addressing systemic inequalities.
A pivotal decision for Governor Newsom
Gov. Gavin Newsom faces a critical decision as both measures await his signature. Signed into law, AB 7 could put Governor Gavin Newsom faces a critical decision as both measures await his signature. If he signs AB 7, it could put California on a collision course with federal authorities and judicial scrutiny, potentially leading to legal challenges and conflicts with the federal government. Meanwhile, SB 627 risks elevating tensions between state and federal law enforcement. Both bills hold significant implications for how California addresses historical injustices and upholds constitutional principles. Newsom’s decision will not only shape the state’s future policies but also have profound political consequences.
Public support for Newsom might grow if he takes a vocal stand against the bills, particularly AB 2098, rather than letting them expire. However, considering the upcoming midterm election, his choice remains uncertain. If he signs AB 2098, it could be politically devastating for California Democrats, as voters closely watch its fate and are likely to hold their representatives accountable at the polls. This decision will play a crucial role in shaping the political landscape of California this fall.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.