Redirecting the Affirmative Action Express

Republicans are salivating and Democrats are shuddering at the prospect of a 1996 ballot brawl over affirmative action. It probably would generate a high voter turnout among white men, who tend to support GOP candidates. But cool heads are working behind the scenes to stave off the fight.

In the end, partisan politics may well drive this racially divisive issue onto the November ballot, giving Republicans a hot issue and chasing Democrats for cover, including President Clinton. In fact, there could be anti-affirmative action measures on ballots in several states. Again, California is leading the charge, as in past rebellions against taxes and illegal immigration.

“We’re going ahead with this regardless of whether the Legislature pays attention to us,” vows Glynn Custred, 57, an anthropology professor at Cal State Hayward, who with another apolitical academician has drafted the “civil rights initiative.” It would forbid state and local governments and public universities from granting preferences based on race, ethnicity or gender in hiring, contracting or admitting students.

“The initiative has momentum and it can’t be stopped,” Custred says. “It’s like a freight train moving down the track.”

But in truth, this train is moving a lot slower than generally portrayed. Almost all the fuel has been supplied by news media attention.

It’s a shoestring operation that hasn’t even begun to raise serious money. Nor has it submitted an application to the state attorney general to begin collecting signatures to get on the ballot.

There are pluses and minuses in this for Democrats. It means there still is time to hop aboard the train and maybe help drive. But it also means that if left to propel itself, the poky train may not arrive in time for the March primary--the ballot Democrats prefer--and could run over them in the November general election.

*

Bipartisan talks are under way in the Legislature with the goal of defusing this issue politically. The aim is either to place on the March ballot a state constitutional amendment Democrats grudgingly could accept, or--less likely--head off a ballot measure altogether.

One potential roadblock to agreement could be stonewalling by GOP leaders who covet the political issue more than the policy change. Another is if Democrats shy away because they’re intimidated by minority and feminist groups.

A consensus is emerging: It might be OK to junk the racial/gender preferences and provide breaks for people who have an economic disadvantage. Many minorities still would qualify.

“Why should a middle-class black whose parent is a stockbroker be given a preference over some hillbilly up in my district?” asks Assemblyman Bernie Richter (R-Chico).

But like other initiative supporters, Richter would allow means-test preferences only for entry-level jobs and student admissions, not in contracting and faculty hiring.

Richter, a member of the initiative advisory board, last week suggested that a ballot measure might be avoided if the Legislature just passed his anti-affirmative action bills. And he tossed that on the negotiating table.

“My (party) won’t like it,” asserted the Republican lawmaker. “My side wants to use it as an inflammatory wedge issue. But I’d like not to tear the state apart. The reason we have a Legislature is to deal with these kinds of problems.”

*

Moderate Sen. Tom Campbell (R-Stanford), another leader in the movement, agrees that passage of Richter’s bills would represent “a major, A-plus victory--underline it in red--for the principle of a colorblind government.”

But he and others are leery of merely enacting statutes that might be repealed by a future Legislature or overturned by a court. They’d prefer that their proposal be embedded in the state Constitution, where it only could be changed by another vote of the people.

The hope of initiative backers is that the Legislature will copy their proposal into a constitutional amendment and place it on the March ballot, thus saving them the $1-million cost of collecting signatures. Democratic leaders would have to help muster the required two-thirds legislative vote. The Legislature also could pass separate bills dealing with economic preferences.

This seems to be the direction the train is heading--slowly, cautiously toward political accommodation.

“There’s probably going to be some legislative product,” says Senate President Pro Tem Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), whose task is to protect the Democrats’ narrow house majority. “There’s sufficient steam that some tension has to be released.”

It’s better for Lockyer’s party to help release that tension now than to leave it to the GOP and riled voters.