In a dramatic floor vote last week, the California State Assembly passed ACA 7, a constitutional amendment that would narrow the protections of Proposition 209 and reopen the door to race-based preferences in public education.
The measure passed with exactly 54 votes, the bare minimum two-thirds threshold required to advance a constitutional amendment. For several tense minutes, the vote board showed the proposal failing by two votes. The roll call remained open for more than five minutes as legislative leaders worked the floor. Ultimately, Assembly members Soria and Alvarez voted “aye,” pushing the measure across the finish line.
ACA 7 now moves forward to the state senate for consideration.
What ACA 7 Would Do
Passed by voters in 1996, Proposition 209 added clear language to the California Constitution:
“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.”
Prop 209 applies to public employment, public education, and public contracting. California voters reaffirmed that commitment in 2020 when they rejected Proposition 16, which would have repealed Prop 209 outright.
ACA 7 narrows those constitutional protections.
Under ACA 7:
- “Public education” would be removed from the constitutional prohibition.
- The ban on race-based preferences would apply only to public employment, public contracting, and “higher education admission and enrollment.”
- K–12 education policies, grant programs, state-funded initiatives, and other aspects of public education would no longer be constitutionally barred from using race- or sex-based preferences.
On the Assembly floor, opponents described the measure plainly.
Assemblymember David Tangipa warned:
“Let us remember and let us recognize what ACA 7 really is. It is to allow racial discrimination in the state of California. It is to allow and repeal Prop. 209 that bans that practice.”
Supporters argue the amendment provides clarity and allows targeted interventions in education policy. But critics say the practical effect is unmistakable: it reauthorizes the government to treat citizens differently based on race.
Conflict With Equal Protection Principles
The debate comes in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, where the Court ruled that race-based admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
California Family Council Vice President Greg Burt warned that ACA 7 would reverse California’s long-standing commitment to equal treatment under the law and invite years of legal uncertainty and public division.
“California should not weaken the constitutional guarantee that government will treat people equally,” Burt said. “ACA 7 invites the state to sort students and families by race again, and once starts handing out benefits based on skin color. This doesn’t heal old wounds; it deepens them and creates new ones.”
A Biblical Perspective: God Shows No Partiality
Beyond constitutional concerns, this debate touches something deeper: the biblical principle of impartial justice.
Scripture is clear that favoritism, even when well-intentioned, is wrong. James 2:1 (ESV) commands: “My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.”
And James 2:9 (ESV) warns: “But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.”
God does not grade human worth by race, ethnicity, or social status. Acts 10:34–35 (ESV) declares: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”
Every person is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). That means every person has equal dignity and equal value before their Creator.
Racism is a sin. Discrimination rooted in prejudice is evil. But the answer to past injustice is not new injustice. Using discrimination to “fix” discrimination only reinforces the very worldview that divides people into racial categories and treats individuals as representatives of groups rather than as moral agents made by God.
A society cannot build unity by lawfully reintroducing partiality.
Voters Have Spoken Before
In 1996, Californians passed Proposition 209 with 54.55% of the vote.
In 2020, voters rejected Proposition 16 and reaffirmed the constitutional ban on racial preferences.
Assemblymember Carl DeMaio reminded colleagues:
“Would you please listen to the voters. They do not want discrimination. This would be a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money to put this yet again on the ballot and very disrespectful to once again try to pit people against each other…”
Now the Legislature is asking voters once more whether California should permit racial preferences in public education, especially in K–12 policy and programs now excluded from Prop 209’s constitutional protections.
The Path Forward
California’s civil rights tradition should be rooted in equal treatment, individual dignity, and merit-based opportunity.
Scripture teaches impartial justice. The Constitution demands equal protection. And California voters have twice affirmed that government should not discriminate or grant preferential treatment based on race.
ACA 7 asks them to reconsider, and if it reaches the ballot, the decision will belong to the people of California.
