Ahnuld Burns The State Constitution

The Terminator just joined the liberals and RINOs in Sacramento in defying the will of the people of the State of California by burning another portion of the state constitution. That portion is legally known as Article I, Section 31, and is commonly known as the California Civil Rights Initiative. It clearly states that "The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

Apparently, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is still better at reading German (or Austrian, if you happen to be Barack Obama) than he is at reading plain English. Passed in 1996 by a clear majority of fifty-four percent, the measure was upheld by the California Supreme Court and upon federal appeal, unanimously upheld by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Details, details. And petty constitutional details do not get in the way of social engineering liberal Democrats and RINOs.

The state legislature recently passed legislation which directs state agencies to award government contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, subcontracting fifteen percent of the work to minority-owned businesses and five percent to female-owned businesses. This assures that even the lowest qualified bidder will be disqualified until fifteen percent of contracts are awarded to minority businesses and five percent to businesses owned by women, regardless of the clear wording of the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). The inmates have taken over the asylum.

On July 26, Governor Schwarzenegger signed the bill without comment (and without understanding, I would guess). Thus, California law is now in direct conflict with its own constitution and logically in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and 14th Amendment to the federal constitution. In a state already bogged down in multiple bureaucratic problems, facing bankruptcy and in complete disarray, the governor has chosen to make the problem worse. There will be immediate challenges to the legislation, and racial division is once again stoked as if this hadn't all been hashed out fully, completely and definitively thirteen years ago.

Former University of California Regent and conservative activist Ward Connerly was successful in getting the initiative passed, and moved on to get the same measure passed in thirteen other states so far. Of those, only California and Michigan have show consistent intentions to sidestep the provisions of the law. But this is beyond sidestepping--it's outright defiance.

My old friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation have already filed suit against the state (Ward Connerly and the American Rights Foundation are co-plaintiffs in the case). Here's what Connerly had to say: "These new quotas are a destructive and illegal attempt to pull California backward--back to a time when government routinely judged people by their skin color and sex. By enacting Proposition 209 (the CCRI), California voters clearly said that they wanted to move beyond that era of division, discrimination, and animosity. Unfortunately, the message still hasn't gotten through to many state lawmakers and, apparently, not even to the governor. The courts are going to have to instruct them that their constitutional duty is to defend equal rights and equal opportunity, not undermine them."

Liberals and big-government types love to play with constitutional provisions which leave what the state is allowed to do open to multiple interpretations. But they generally won't purposely go out of their way to ignore (or defy) a constitutional provision which clearly says what the government cannot do. And CCRI couldn't say it any more clearly: "Don't even think of performing any state action on the basis of minority status." Ahnuld and the legislature did exactly what they are forbidden in no uncertain terms to do. So far, there doesn't seem to be a single spokesman for the governor, the assembly or the state senate who is willing to make any statement of justification for their action.

There isn't even an economic justification for the action, particularly in a time of budget and monetary crisis. As Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Sharon Browne says: "The governor and the legislature also disregarded principles of sound budgeting, because projects are more expensive when they don't go the the lowest responsible bidder."

Any first year law student can tell you that the "subcontracting" ploy which avoids directly addressing the contractors themselves is a distinction without a difference. It's a non-operative legal fiction. It is a basic of constitutional law that you cannot do that which is constitutional (lowest bidder contractors)in an unconstitutional manner (the minorities subcontractor provision). Think of it this way. If for national security reasons, the Congress determines that a top-secret intercontinental ballistic missile must be entirely produced by American contractors, no agency is then allowed to write a contract with the contractor that says "but 15% of the parts being manufactured must be subcontracted out to North Korea."

I find myself asking the same question asked by La Shawn Barber at Townhall.com: "Why did these elected representatives ignore the will of the people and bring back government-mandated racial discrimination?"