Affirmative Action Measures Threaten to Confuse Voters : Initiatives: Five have been proposed already--two with the same name, two with almost the same text. And more are expected to compete for the state ballot.

As James W. Reede Jr. recalls it, he was so offended that affirmative action could be wiped out by the proposed “California Civil Rights Initiative,” that he is trying to usurp the catchy name for his own ballot proposition.

But, unlike the highly publicized measure, Reede’s proposal would write affirmative action guarantees into the state Constitution as a remedy for past and current discrimination.

The group behind the CCRI, not surprisingly, is angry. “This is clearly a cheap attempt to capitalize on our success,” said Joe Gelman, director of the CCRI campaign, which has the backing of Gov. Pete Wilson. “People are not going to be fooled.”

Not fooled, maybe, but probably confused.

While the debate over the merits of affirmative action rages on, no less than four competing affirmative action initiatives have been filed with state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren--although not a single signature has yet been collected for any of them and the most well known, the CCRI, has yet to be filed. And officials are expecting more.

The dueling initiatives bring to mind the 1988 ballot brawl over competing automobile insurance reform measures. In that election, four propositions collided in a bruising, big-spending battle noteworthy in part for the confusion it engendered among voters. The one that won was Proposition 103, which promised a 20% premium rebate.

Gelman said his CCRI would be filed late in the summer or early fall. It has received national attention as a remedy for reverse discrimination.

Written by two academicians, the measure would outlaw race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin as a reason for “discriminating against or granting preferential treatment” to any person or group in public employment, admission to college or awarding government contracts.

With slight variations, two competing anti-affirmative action proposals mimic Gelman’s plan. On the flip side, two others--including Reede’s--would write affirmative action or equal opportunity guarantees into the state Constitution.

How many of the initiatives will land on next year’s statewide ballot is problematical. Historically, fewer than one in three proposed initiatives (29%) ever appear before the voters, said aides to Secretary of State Bill Jones. Of those that do, nearly 70% fail.

Filing a proposed initiative with the state is relatively simple and cheap. Qualifying it for the ballot is a much steeper, and more expensive, hurdle indeed.

It will take the signatures of at least 693,230 voters to qualify a proposed constitutional amendment for the 1996 ballot. To play it safe for expected invalid signatures, campaigns usually must collect at least 1 million names.

Election analysts say this translates into about $1 expended for each signature, if the campaign is handled by professionals. Organizers of the original CCRI have hired managers for their operation, but proponents of the competing measures say they intend to involve networks of volunteers, usually a much more difficult task.

Nonetheless, observers predict a scenario in which both paid and unpaid signature gathers descend on a public whipsawed by the various competing proposals, even though most initiatives probably will fail to obtain sufficient signatures.

“Any time you have four or five very similar measures, it becomes more difficult for the public to discern one from the other,” Jones said. But he also noted that “the public finds a way to sort through them, if you look at the past track record.”

Despite what Reede and Gelman want to call their proposals, it is the attorney general who writes the official title.

Reede, an officer of the Sacramento NAACP and a public utility employee, said he filed his paperwork as an individual and not on behalf of the NAACP. He said he envisions a campaign organization of “all those who have been aided by various affirmative action programs, the majority of which have helped women.” He said potential volunteers would come from the ranks of the NAACP and other minority activist groups.

“If people are voting for a civil rights initiative, let it be civil rights . Don’t use a smoke-and-mirrors term to make an agenda that is not civil rights,” Reede said.

Even though not a single signature has been gathered, initiative sponsors have already unleashed campaign fire on each other.

Gelman recently warned that the term “California Civil Rights Initiative” is legally protected as proprietary. He said that if Reede or anyone else tries to use it for fund-raising or other campaign purposes, they will be sued.

As for proponents of competing anti-affirmative action measures, Gelman asserted that “anyone can talk the talk, but the question is, who is going to walk the walk?”

One such competitor, Richard Halvorson of the San Diego-based Californians for Equal Opportunity, a former supporter of the original CCRI, said he is prepared to make the walk with bipartisan volunteers. He said Gelman wants to use the affirmative action controversy as a “wedge issue” against Democratic candidates.

Halvorson’s measure, the “Stop Quotas Equal Opportunity Initiative” borrows heavily from the CCRI, but additionally would prohibit preferential treatment based on age or religion.

A third anti-affirmative action plan is sponsored by a Northern California man named Gene Thompson, of Auburn, who failed to return a reporter’s telephone calls. He apparently copied an early draft of the CCRI proposal.

Reede and his measure in favor of affirmative action faces competition from a proposal advanced by Californians for Economic and Educational Opportunity. Its spokesmen say their plan would keep existing affirmative action programs intact but would stress equal opportunity for all “qualified individuals.”

“Our initiative essentially says that if you are qualified, then you should have the opportunity to compete,” said Ron Baker, a state employee and communications director for Californians for Economic and Educational Opportunity. “As a concept, equal opportunity works. When it does not work, that’s when you need affirmative action . . . as a remedy.”

Baker said his fledgling Sacramento-based group has started organizing efforts in Southern California and the Bay Area and will seek bipartisan support from coalitions that oppose repeal of affirmative action. “We just want to ensure that in some manner equal opportunity is protected,” he said.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

The Initiatives at a Glance

The chief features of the affirmative action initiatives that have been proposed--but have not yet qualified--for the 1996 ballot:

* California Civil Rights Initiative No. 1: Would prohibit state and local government entities from using “race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin as a criterion for either discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group in the operation of the state’s system of public employment, public education or public contracting.” Californians Against Discrimination and Preferences, P.O. Box 67278, Los Angeles 90067

* California Civil Rights Initiative No. 2: Would make it legal for state and local agencies to “remedy past and current discrimination in education, hiring practices, housing and contracting, because of race, ethnicity, gender or religion, through the use of goals or other corrective measures.” James W. Reede Jr., P.O. Box 162104, Sacramento 95816

* Stop Quotas Equal Opportunity Initiative: Would outlaw use of “race, color, age, religion, gender, ethnicity or national origin as a criterion for granting preferential treatment to an individual or to a group in the operation of state employment, state education or state contracting.” Californians for Equal Opportunity, P.O. Box 17103, San Diego 92177

* California Economic and Educational Opportunity Act of 1996: Would require state and local government agencies to “continue public contracting, public employment and public education programs which accentuate a commitment to equal opportunity for qualified individuals.” Californians for Economic and Educational Opportunities, P.O. Box 2832, Sacramento 95812

* Untitled: Virtually the same as California Civil Rights Initiative No. 1, except it would include payment of plaintiff attorney fees by defendants sued for violating the initiative’s prohibition. Gene Thompson, 3856 Creekside Place, Auburn, Calif. 95602

Sources: State attorney general and campaign materials