California lawmakers are advancing another attempt to narrow the protections of Proposition 209, the constitutional amendment that prohibits race and sex-based preferences in public education, employment, and government contracting.
This week, the Senate Education Committee voted 5-2 to advance Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 (ACA 7), a state constitutional amendment allowing race and sex preferences in K-12 education policies, grant programs, and state-funded initiatives, while still prohibiting this type of discrimination in public employment, public contracting, and higher education admissions and enrollment. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Corey Jackson (D-Moreno Valley) and listed as a priority bill for the California Legislative Black Caucus, was approved along a party-line vote. Democrats voted yes, and Republicans voted no.
Supporters argued that ACA 7 provides a significant step toward addressing inequities in outcomes between the races, while the opposition testimony insisted that handing out aid based on race is immoral, unfair, and illegal. When the author was asked what this bill offers that cannot already be done under existing law, there was no clear answer.
Voters Have Settled This Question. Twice.
California voters approved Proposition 209 in 1996 with 54 percent support, writing into the state constitution a clear principle: the government shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any person based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.
In 2020, voters were asked to repeal those protections through Proposition 16. Despite a campaign backed by millions of dollars and virtually every major political institution in the state, Californians said no, with nearly 57 percent voting to keep Prop 209 intact.
ACA 7 is the latest attempt to accomplish what voters have twice refused to allow.
What ACA 7 Would Actually Do
Supporters call ACA 7 a “clarification.” Opponents call it what it is: the reauthorization of race-based distinctions in California public education.
The measure removes “public education” from the constitutional prohibition against preferential treatment. K–12 education policies, grant programs, and state-funded initiatives would no longer be constitutionally barred from using race as a factor.
As Assemblymember David Tangipa said on the Assembly floor: “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.”
The Author’s Points
During Senate Education Committee testimony, Jackson argued that Proposition 209 has prevented districts from implementing programs he believes would help close racial achievement gaps. He pointed to disparities in discipline rates, test scores, and outcomes, and argued educators need flexibility to use race-conscious approaches when designing interventions.
One example cited during the hearing involved literacy programs tailored to African-American students. As Jackson explained: “Black people need more Black books and Black tutoring.”
The assembly member insisted that ACA 7 would not permit unlawful discrimination because federal equal protection standards would remain in effect.
The Opposition’s Points
Opponents countered that ACA 7 undermines the core principle of equal treatment under the law.
Frank Xu began his opposition testimony by asking a simple question: “Under which scenario would you think California public agencies should be allowed to discriminate against Californians on the basis of race or rest ethnicity?”
Xu argued that ACA 7 could allow educational institutions to consider race when awarding financial aid, rather than basing assistance solely on a student’s individual financial circumstances.
“Handing aid out based on race is fundamentally unfair and immoral,” Hsu said. He concluded: “We will be ready to sue the state and any public entity that implements ACA 7.”
Several senators pressed the author to identify specific programs currently prohibited under Proposition 209. Throughout the hearing, Assemblyman Jackson struggled to point to concrete examples that could not already be implemented through race-neutral means.
“So I’m trying to understand what modalities you’re looking for, what resources you’re looking for that do not allow you to use the culture-based under the current system,” Senator Ochoa Bogh asked.
When pressed, Jackson cited literacy programs and culturally tailored interventions, pointing to different book selections and teaching methods. Ochoa Bogh immediately questioned whether those were race-based at all.
“So culture?” she asked.
“Correct,” Jackson replied. “It’s more cultural based, not race based.”
That answer deepened her concerns. If the interventions are cultural rather than racial, what exactly prevents schools from implementing them today?
Jackson maintained the issue is not whether programs are technically prohibited, but whether districts believe they are permitted. “We’re focused on a permissive language, not a restrictive language,” he explained.
Ochoa Bogh remained unconvinced. “I don’t think people really understand why this is needed. What exactly is not able to be provided right now that you need to have clarification as to what this means?”
She warned that without a clearer answer, Californians would rightly conclude ACA 7 creates race-based preferences. Drawing from her own experience as an English-language learner, she argued educational challenges are better addressed through need-based solutions. “I’d rather focus on what we have in common.”
Why Is ACA 7 Necessary? No One Could Say.
After 90 minutes of testimony, lawmakers still could not identify a single educational practice that ACA 7 would make possible, and that is currently prohibited. The author himself acknowledged that the interventions he described are cultural, not racial. If race is not the operative factor, why does the Constitution need to change?
California schools already receive billions targeting disadvantaged students based on economic need, English-language status, foster care, and other measurable factors, without touching Prop 209.
God Shows No Partiality
The heart of this debate is whether people should be treated as individuals or categorized by race.
Scripture is clear: “But if you show partiality, you are committing sin” (James 2:9). Acts 10:34–35 declares that God “shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”
Every person bears the image of God, which means equal dignity before their Creator, regardless of skin color. The answer to historical injustice is not new injustice. Sorting students by race does not heal old wounds. It deepens them.
What Comes Next
ACA 7 moves to Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments for a hearing on June 9th. If it passes the committee, it will need to meet the two-thirds threshold among all the Senators. In the end, California voters will decide its fate at the ballot box.
CFC Vice President Greg Burt was direct: “Equal treatment under the law should not depend on a person’s race. California voters have repeatedly affirmed that principle, and ACA 7 moves the state in the wrong direction by reopening the door to race-based preferences that divide rather than unite our communities.”
Californians have voted on this question twice. The answer has been the same both times. Sacramento should stop asking.
