Californians for Equal Rights, the NO on 16 campaign, declared victory following the record turnout of voters solidly rejecting Proposition 16 on Election Day. This statewide ballot measure would have\u00a0amended the State Constitution by deleting the provision\u2014adopted by voters in 1996 as Proposition 209\u2014that\u00a0prohibits racial discrimination and racial preferences in California state and local government\u00a0contracting, employment and education.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe defeat of Proposition\u00a016 occurred despite the perfect storm afforded supporters for its passage,\u201d said Arnold Steinberg, strategist for No on 16, who served in the same capacity for Prop 209.\u00a0\u201cProp 16 was rushed on the ballot by the arrogant supermajority in the state legislature to make it difficult to organize or fund an opposition campaign. The California attorney general even created a disingenuous and biased ballot label favoring Prop 16 by masking its purpose and effect. Instead of a clear, accurate delineation of the restoration of racial discrimination and racial preferences, the ultimate label morphed into a favorable description of a \u2018diversity\u2019 measure.\u201d<\/p>\n
Even so, Californians defeated Prop 16 by a 56-to-44 percent landslide. This occurred despite the state\u2019s well-known liberal, progressive, left-of-center electorate, which was evident yesterday by Joe Biden defeating Donald Trump in the state by 2-to-1 (65.2% to 32.9%).<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the ballot label clearly stated that Prop 16 was repealing the state\u2019s constitutional prohibition of racial preferences, the measure would have been defeated, also by 2-to-1,\u201d observed Steinberg. \u201cStill,\u00a0enough voters saw through the contrived and deceptive ballot wording to ensure its defeat. This telegraphs a powerful message to the country, as what happens in California does not stay in California.\u201d<\/p>\n
Steinberg noted that Prop 16\u2019s defeat took place despite all of its advantages: the backing of the political establishment, favorable timing, biased ballot wording, big money, a record turnout in a conducive electoral climate, widespread media support, and a costly television campaign versus no television ads for opponents.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis was a David v. Goliath battle,\u201d Steinberg continued. \u201cProponents, funded by elitist billionaires and their proxies, vastly outspent (by nearly 13-to-1) our campaign, which was funded almost entirely by small donors.\u00a0Quite simply, voters rejected what Prop 16 was selling.\u201d<\/p>\n
The NO on Prop 16 campaign was a broad-based coalition, supported by Democrats, Republicans, independents and people of varied racial and ethnic background, and across the generational span. But at the center or the campaign were Americans of Chinese descent.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a political awakening, for Asian Americans in general, and especially for Americans of Chinese descent.\u201d Steinberg continued. \u201cThey have declared they will not be bullied and discriminated against as second-class citizens because of their race.”<\/p>\n
Cynicism<\/strong>. California\u2019s political establishment, race-conscious and race-obsessive, chose to ignore the progress made since Prop 209 and to cynically\u00a0exploit the recent unrest that began following the death of George Floyd.<\/p>\n Timing<\/strong>. The supermajority in the state legislature, at the last minute, put on the ballot what became Prop 16. This put the possible opposition (what would become our campaign) at a severe disadvantage, because there was limited time to organize against the measure.<\/p>\n