Campaigns

We Fought For Justice: And We Won: Proposition 54 in California

In the October election, "Voters convincingly rejected Proposition 54, which would have restricted state agencies from collecting racial and ethnic data. Opponents said Proposition 54's defeat marked the dawn of a new age of progressive politics.

"This really decisive victory proves that the voters of California recognize that race matters, racial information matters in achieving a society that is based on social equality," said Maya Harris, Northern California director of the No on 54 campaign.

Proposition 54 was the brainchild of capital businessman Ward Connerly, who spearheaded Proposition 209, the 1996 measure that banned the use of racial and ethnic preferences in state public hiring, contracting and university admissions.

Connerly, a University of California regent, said Proposition 54 was the logical next step in California's march toward a race-neutral society. He called racial categories "morally wrong."
The proposition -- dubbed the "Racial Privacy Initiative" by supporters, and the "Information Ban" by opponents -- led early in the polls. But it never received much institutional support, and even Republicans, who strongly backed Proposition 209, were lukewarm. Connerly's forces raised $214,000, a fraction of the $9.3 million raised by opponents.

The No on 54 campaign pulled together a coalition of teachers, labor unions, health care professionals, civil rights advocates and American Indian tribes.

Maria Blanco, senior counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said MALDEF, the California Teachers Association, Californians for Justice, the Bay Area Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Kaiser Permanente and other organizations targeted the initiative for defeat two years ago, before it had even qualified for the ballot.

Then, when focus groups showed that a majority of likely voters didn't respond to the argument that Proposition 54 would cripple California's ability to fight discrimination, the No on 54 campaign shifted gears, proclaiming it "bad medicine."

Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who was trounced by Arnold Schwarzenegger, took solace in Proposition 54's demise, calling it a "dramatic turnaround for this state. Finally California is saying no to wedge politics" that led to the passage of Proposition 209 and Proposition 187, which would have banned public services for illegal immigrants but was gutted by the courts." (Stephen Magagnini, The Sacramento Bee.)

The Campaign
Some 50% of all voters supported Prop. 54 in August. The strongest support was within the Republican Party among men.

Most minority voters opposed Proposition 54 than supported it, In an August Field Poll, while the reverse was true among white voters . Forty-seven percent of white respondents said they would vote yes; 33 percent said no. By comparison, the numbers for Latinos were 38 percent and 50 percent; for other races, 35 percent and 41 percent.

Among age groups, Proposition 54 was most popular with senior citizens, 51 percent of whom favor it. While the Republican Party and Connerly's "American Civil Rights Foundation" have spent years managing a message to shape public opinion against Affirmative Action, advocates have done little to create a positive message, except internal to their own organizations.

In communicating with our allies, we could stress that this initiative was a part of the radical right wing effort to roll back civil rights in this country. We stressed Connerly's connections to conservative foundations such as the Bradley, Scaife foundations and Grover Norquist.

Advocates of a No vote too often assumed that opponents of Affirmative Action are bigots, do not care about equal opportunity, or favor a sinister and divisive agenda. While this may be true of the most active opponents, this viewpoint does not adequately frame a message that will effectively communicate with the middle ground voter, who we must reach. At the same time, we should continue to combat misconceptions, especially among journalists, politicians and opinion leaders.

While there has been an effective assault on affirmative action ( Prop. 209), alleged special entitlements, and multiculturalism, there has not been an effective assault on the idea of Equal Opportunity.

Post election thoughts :Sacramento
Political ads played a major role in the campaign. The No campaign used $9.1 million in ads. Large contributors included Cruz Bustamante and CTA.

For the ground campaign, we tried walking neighborhoods, and received little support.

We tried telephone banking and found that most of our calls were to people who had been called 4-6 times. The effectiveness of this has to be analyzed.

Sacramento has among the highest labor density in the state, more than San Francisco or Los Angeles. Organized labor played a difficult and contradictory role in the Sacramento campaign. For most of the campaign, The Sacramento Central Labor Council pressured us to work on No on recall (which failed). They did carry literature which listed a No vote on 54, but little information. The council provided a campaign office and a telephone bank, and then pressured us to use it their way. Mailers from various unions to their members usually included a Vote No on 54 statement. We felt that labor focused all of its effort on the recall effort (which they lost). If they had helped us more with the No on 54, their contributions would have produced an increased vote. For example, in the last days of the campaign Jesse Jackson came to the campuses. In a rally billed as No on Prop. 54, he spent most of his time on No on Recall. The No on Prop.54 campaign had the momentum and it created an opportunity for outreach to students.

The California Faculty Association (SEIU) on the campuses provided staff and materials. They were a significant contributor to the campaigns. They also gave $50,000 to the statewide effort.

DSA's small contingent were effective leaders in the local campaign. Each of the activists were active in the Latino or Anti Racism Commission.

The Royal Chicano Air Force produced lawn signs at cost. This provided high visibility.

The most effective campaigns were on the campuses. WE were successful, with allies at CSU-Sacramento and to some extent at American River college. We never got a campaign at Sac. City College and Consumnes River College.

Election Report 2003.
No on Prop. 54. By selected county.

Statewide 64 %
Sacramento: 58.3 183, 067
Yolo 63.6 31,798
Santa Cruz 68.7

For comparison, For Schwarzenegger
Sacramento 52.2 166,473
Yolo 42.4 20,955
Santa Cruz 45.9

Peter Camejo of the Green Party alleged in post election interviews that 50% of union members voted for Schwarzenegger, and that this shows that union leadership is somehow corrupt. Quite the contrary !

Many unions, both public and private sector, are at least 50% Republican (for example CTA and CSEA). But, fortunately, for the left, the union leadership is liberal Democratic. And they work and educate and cajole to produce a Democratic vote.

That is called leadership. Union Leadership educates. It cannot tell its membership how to vote. It is elected to lead, not to dictate. We need their support and participation.

Now, when race is on the ballot, such as in the Prop. 54 case leadership is even more precarious. Let us assume that union members voted 50% for Schwartzenegger. 50% are more conservative than their leaders. And then labor concentrated on the recall and on Davis, and only mentioned Prop. 54. Labor is one of several important bases. (Some 17% of the vote). The Greens are another. (Some 3% of the vote).

If you look at several results, the recall, Bustamante, Schwarzenegger, etc. they are instructive. Over all in the state we seem to have a liberal-left political base of about 32-36% of the vote. Of these, some 3 % vote Green. We also have a moderate vote of about 30%. This vote shifts back and forth. It was with Davis in 2002, and against him in 2003.

In 1998, this moderate group voted 67% for Prop. 227, as compared to 33% against. In prop. 54, this overall vote was 64 % no, and 36% yes. You can see the swings of this vote. This vote must be a target in campaigns. In the just completed No on 54 campaign, the strategy was for community groups to target their constituencies, and for the media campaign to go after the swing, moderate voter. It worked- this time.



			Items in bold are current. Regime Change Now! DSA Honorary Chair Dolores Huerta joins the Fast for Education on its 25th. Day in Sacramento Renew the California Dream We Fought For Justice: And We Won: Proposition 54 in California Next Steps for Our Movements American Racism: An Organizer's Perspective 2003 Beyond Diversity: The Struggle for Justice and Solidarity Anti-Racism Commission Statement on 9/11 Statement on the Murders at Grand Forks


		We Fought For Justice: And We Won: Proposition 54 in California In the October election, "Voters convincingly rejected Proposition 54, which would have restricted state agencies from collecting racial and ethnic data. Opponents said Proposition 54's defeat marked the dawn of a new age of progressive politics. "This really decisive victory proves that the voters of California recognize that race matters, racial information matters in achieving a society that is based on social equality," said Maya Harris, Northern California director of the No on 54 campaign. Proposition 54 was the brainchild of capital businessman Ward Connerly, who spearheaded Proposition 209, the 1996 measure that banned the use of racial and ethnic preferences in state public hiring, contracting and university admissions. Connerly, a University of California regent, said Proposition 54 was the logical next step in California's march toward a race-neutral society. He called racial categories "morally wrong." The proposition -- dubbed the "Racial Privacy Initiative" by supporters, and the "Information Ban" by opponents -- led early in the polls. But it never received much institutional support, and even Republicans, who strongly backed Proposition 209, were lukewarm. Connerly's forces raised $214,000, a fraction of the $9.3 million raised by opponents. The No on 54 campaign pulled together a coalition of teachers, labor unions, health care professionals, civil rights advocates and American Indian tribes. Maria Blanco, senior counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said MALDEF, the California Teachers Association, Californians for Justice, the Bay Area Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Kaiser Permanente and other organizations targeted the initiative for defeat two years ago, before it had even qualified for the ballot. Then, when focus groups showed that a majority of likely voters didn't respond to the argument that Proposition 54 would cripple California's ability to fight discrimination, the No on 54 campaign shifted gears, proclaiming it "bad medicine." Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who was trounced by Arnold Schwarzenegger, took solace in Proposition 54's demise, calling it a "dramatic turnaround for this state. Finally California is saying no to wedge politics" that led to the passage of Proposition 209 and Proposition 187, which would have banned public services for illegal immigrants but was gutted by the courts." (Stephen Magagnini, The Sacramento Bee.) The Campaign Some 50% of all voters supported Prop. 54 in August. The strongest support was within the Republican Party among men. Most minority voters opposed Proposition 54 than supported it, In an August Field Poll, while the reverse was true among white voters . Forty-seven percent of white respondents said they would vote yes; 33 percent said no. By comparison, the numbers for Latinos were 38 percent and 50 percent; for other races, 35 percent and 41 percent. Among age groups, Proposition 54 was most popular with senior citizens, 51 percent of whom favor it. While the Republican Party and Connerly's "American Civil Rights Foundation" have spent years managing a message to shape public opinion against Affirmative Action, advocates have done little to create a positive message, except internal to their own organizations. In communicating with our allies, we could stress that this initiative was a part of the radical right wing effort to roll back civil rights in this country. We stressed Connerly's connections to conservative foundations such as the Bradley, Scaife foundations and Grover Norquist. Advocates of a No vote too often assumed that opponents of Affirmative Action are bigots, do not care about equal opportunity, or favor a sinister and divisive agenda. While this may be true of the most active opponents, this viewpoint does not adequately frame a message that will effectively communicate with the middle ground voter, who we must reach. At the same time, we should continue to combat misconceptions, especially among journalists, politicians and opinion leaders. While there has been an effective assault on affirmative action ( Prop. 209), alleged special entitlements, and multiculturalism, there has not been an effective assault on the idea of Equal Opportunity. Post election thoughts :Sacramento Political ads played a major role in the campaign. The No campaign used $9.1 million in ads. Large contributors included Cruz Bustamante and CTA. For the ground campaign, we tried walking neighborhoods, and received little support. We tried telephone banking and found that most of our calls were to people who had been called 4-6 times. The effectiveness of this has to be analyzed. Sacramento has among the highest labor density in the state, more than San Francisco or Los Angeles. Organized labor played a difficult and contradictory role in the Sacramento campaign. For most of the campaign, The Sacramento Central Labor Council pressured us to work on No on recall (which failed). They did carry literature which listed a No vote on 54, but little information. The council provided a campaign office and a telephone bank, and then pressured us to use it their way. Mailers from various unions to their members usually included a Vote No on 54 statement. We felt that labor focused all of its effort on the recall effort (which they lost). If they had helped us more with the No on 54, their contributions would have produced an increased vote. For example, in the last days of the campaign Jesse Jackson came to the campuses. In a rally billed as No on Prop. 54, he spent most of his time on No on Recall. The No on Prop.54 campaign had the momentum and it created an opportunity for outreach to students. The California Faculty Association (SEIU) on the campuses provided staff and materials. They were a significant contributor to the campaigns. They also gave $50,000 to the statewide effort. DSA's small contingent were effective leaders in the local campaign. Each of the activists were active in the Latino or Anti Racism Commission. The Royal Chicano Air Force produced lawn signs at cost. This provided high visibility. The most effective campaigns were on the campuses. WE were successful, with allies at CSU-Sacramento and to some extent at American River college. We never got a campaign at Sac. City College and Consumnes River College. Election Report 2003. No on Prop. 54. By selected county. Statewide 64 % Sacramento: 58.3 183, 067 Yolo 63.6 31,798 Santa Cruz 68.7 For comparison, For Schwarzenegger Sacramento 52.2 166,473 Yolo 42.4 20,955 Santa Cruz 45.9 Peter Camejo of the Green Party alleged in post election interviews that 50% of union members voted for Schwarzenegger, and that this shows that union leadership is somehow corrupt. Quite the contrary ! Many unions, both public and private sector, are at least 50% Republican (for example CTA and CSEA). But, fortunately, for the left, the union leadership is liberal Democratic. And they work and educate and cajole to produce a Democratic vote. That is called leadership. Union Leadership educates. It cannot tell its membership how to vote. It is elected to lead, not to dictate. We need their support and participation. Now, when race is on the ballot, such as in the Prop. 54 case leadership is even more precarious. Let us assume that union members voted 50% for Schwartzenegger. 50% are more conservative than their leaders. And then labor concentrated on the recall and on Davis, and only mentioned Prop. 54. Labor is one of several important bases. (Some 17% of the vote). The Greens are another. (Some 3% of the vote). If you look at several results, the recall, Bustamante, Schwarzenegger, etc. they are instructive. Over all in the state we seem to have a liberal-left political base of about 32-36% of the vote. Of these, some 3 % vote Green. We also have a moderate vote of about 30%. This vote shifts back and forth. It was with Davis in 2002, and against him in 2003. In 1998, this moderate group voted 67% for Prop. 227, as compared to 33% against. In prop. 54, this overall vote was 64 % no, and 36% yes. You can see the swings of this vote. This vote must be a target in campaigns. In the just completed No on 54 campaign, the strategy was for community groups to target their constituencies, and for the media campaign to go after the swing, moderate voter. It worked- this time. DSA: www.dsausa.org/antiracism Go to top of page...