Leftists in California are back to take a third bite of the rotten fruit that is racial preference. The establishment, having been soundly defeated by an affirmative-action referendum in 2020 is now trying to reintroduce a pernicious form of racism.

The progressives in the former Golden State are now trying to allow the governor to find exceptions which will end the ban on affirmative actions.

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 (ACA7), also known as ACA7 was introduced by Assemblyman Corey Jackson. His office stated in a press statement that:

ACA-7 allows California to directly combat disparities in health and education by allowing the Governor of California to issue waivers for public entities who wish to use funds from state to fund culturally-specific programs that are based on research and evidence, or that have been informed by it, to improve life expectancy and educational outcomes and to lift certain ethnic groups out of poverty.

Residents of the state who have not fled yet are afraid that the vote has been manipulated in a dishonest manner.

Californians have now spoken out twice on the issue of racial preference. In 1996, Californians passed Proposition 209 which prohibited racial preference in public education, employment and contracting. The measure passed with a 55% to 44% vote, which was a clear rejection of race.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1978 that the educational preferences of racial minorities were constitutional in certain cases.

In 2020, the Left tried to repeal Prop 209 with Proposition 16, in a referendum. The “no vote” would keep the Prop 209 in effect, and support the idea that the “government and public institution cannot discriminate or give preferential treatment to individuals on the basis race, sex color, ethnicity or national origin.”

The “no”s won with an even greater margin of 57.23% compared to 42.77%. This is a 15 point difference in a state where the voters voted for Joe Biden 63.5% and edging out former president Donald Trump by more than 34 points. The “yes” campaign that lost had spent more than the “no” campaign by about 14 to 1. The “yes” campaign relied on all media and entertainment outlets in the state to support them.

Californians voted overwhelmingly against the measure. Chinese-Americans were the first to vote against the measure. However, Mexican-American districts voted no as well. 16.

This is why the leftist members of the assembly are so devious this year. The press release that appears to be straight out of an advanced race theory seminar at Berkley, or UCLA, criticizes what the voters in California have decided.

It states that

Since 1996, Proposition 209 has been a barrier to implementing programs that could assist communities that have been intentionally neglected and left behind over 400 years. This unfair law has severely limited the ability of the state to address disparities that exist in education, housing and wealth, employment and healthcare. These are all deeply embedded in laws and policies that perpetuate racial inequality.

ACA7 states that it aims to “lift specific groups out of poverty based on race color ethnicity national origin or marginalized genders sexes or sexual orientations.”

This is a sly attempt to bring back the abhorrent practice of using race as a factor in making life-changing choices.

Bill McGurn, a friend of mine, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “apparently, the lesson advocates of state sponsored discrimination have learned from their defeat is to try something sneakier if you don’t succeed at first.”

The broad coalition against Prop 16 is also smelling a rat. Gail Heriot is a professor of law at the University of San Diego. She told me, “The exception will eat the rule.” Heriot, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR), is leading the opposition to ACA7.

Heriot, Ward Connerly – a former University of California regent – and other members of a broad coalition who defeated Prop 16 are gathering forces to oppose ACA7. They fear, however, that Californians may be misled by the sneaky approach into believing that exceptions would be rare.

They have also created a petition against ACA7. The goal is to demonstrate to senators that ACA7 won’t be more popular than Proposition 16. You can access the petition at change.org.

California’s anti-democratic efforts to subvert the public will by using exceptions and waking concepts should not be confusing.