Petitions Turned In for Affirmative Action Ban

Gov. Pete Wilson, University of California Regent Ward Connerly and other backers of an intensely debated initiative to ban most government-sponsored affirmative action programs turned in more than a million petition signatures Wednesday, opening the way for a referendum in November on the potentially explosive social issue.

Wilson and Connerly, who with the California Republican Party are the driving forces behind the so-called “California civil rights initiative,” declared that its aim is to end bigotry.

“Bigotry will have no currency in California,” said Connerly, the campaign’s chairman, who is African American. “We will not tolerate it from whites. We will not tolerate it from blacks.”

Wilson, who is Connerly’s friend and political godfather, likened the proposed initiative to the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and called the delivery of the signatures necessary to place the measure on the ballot a “truly historic moment.”

“This is an effort to bring fairness, to restore fairness to California,” said Wilson, who began promoting the initiative last year during his failed presidential campaign.

Already one of the most widely discussed issues of the day, the initiative would prohibit government from granting preferences based on race or gender in hiring and contracting, and in admissions to public universities. It would affect state and local government practices, but not affirmative action programs in private industry.

It will take officials about a month to verify whether enough signatures are valid. To place the measure on the Nov. 5 ballot, signatures of 690,000 registered voters are needed.

Wilson, Connerly and other proponents say the initiative is intended to give all Californians equal opportunity, regardless of race or gender. Opponents, including virtually all Democratic leaders, call it a cynical attempt to divide the state along ethnic lines.

“Pete Wilson plays the politics of division, and that’s what he’s doing here,” said Steve Smith, spokesman for the state Democratic Party.

The brainchild of two little-known California academics, the initiative is certain to be an issue in virtually every campaign in the state, from president to city council, and could attract as much attention as Proposition 13, the property-tax-cutting measure of 1978, and Proposition 187, the anti-illegal immigration measure of 1994.

“It’s extremely popular among California voters, especially Republican types,” said John Herrington, California Republican chairman. “It will help in the [election day] turnout, and it will be an issue that will be very difficult for the Democrats to deal with.”

The initiative battle will be fought in the nation’s most ethnically diverse state. As opponents organize a campaign to defeat the measure, polls show that the measure is supported by a majority of Californians, with white men its strongest backers.

“We’re at a threshold, a crossroads,” said Ralph Carmona, a UC regent who opposed Connerly and Wilson last year when they pushed the Board of Regents into ending racial and gender preferences in admissions and hiring at the university.

Noting that only 1,000 African Americans who graduate from public high schools in California each year qualify for admission to UC campuses, Carmona said the initiative “doesn’t deal honestly with the realities of California.”

“It is going to hit at the heart of whether California can grapple with its diversity, or whether we are going to deny that race exists,” Carmona said.

Connerly said he hopes to attract more support from blacks and other minorities, arguing that the measure would help end bigotry by ending racial preferences.

“It’s time for black Americans to stop identifying with America’s past and to identify with its future,” Connerly said. “I want to try to convince black Americans that their rights are no more secure than anybody else when we allow our government to play racial games.”

Despite all the attention that the proposed initiative has received, its sponsors almost failed to gather enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot. In December, the campaign was so low on funds that it could not pay American Petition Consultants, the Sacramento firm gathering the signatures, and the drive was suspended for a critical three weeks.

That prompted the California Republican Party to intervene and push to install Connerly as chairman. When he took over in mid-December, only 200,000 signatures had been gathered.

But Connerly quickly went to work, raising more than $500,000. With that money, the measure’s proponents succeeded in reaching their goal of 1 million signatures.

In fact, backers gathered about 1.1 million signatures at a cost of $1.3 million, Connerly said. Wilson and Connerly turned in a portion of those signatures to the Sacramento County registrar of voters while other campaign workers brought additional names to registrars’ offices in each of the 57 other counties.

County workers will tally the signatures and report to Secretary of State Bill Jones, who will determine if enough are valid to place the measure on the ballot.

Of the 1.1 million signatures, about 147,000 were obtained by volunteers and another 145,000 were the result of a direct mailing sent primarily by Wilson. But the bulk of signatures, about 800,000, came from paid signature gatherers.

Connerly said the campaign had to twice increase the price of the paid signature-gathering effort to make up for lost time. In the closing weeks, individual petition circulators were paid a premium price of $1 per signature.

The state Republican Party is the initiative’s largest single donor so far. Hoping to give Republican candidates an issue to build campaigns on, the GOP spent $250,000 on the petition drive, Connerly said. Underscoring its importance in the presidential election, the national GOP also assisted, helping pay for a mailing of petitions to 1 million voters.

Wilson put his own reputation behind the measure, signing the direct mailers and urging that his supporters sign petitions. The governor has raised about $300,000, Connerly said.

Despite the Republican Party support, corporate California, which typically contributes to Republican candidates and causes, is notable for its lack of giving on this issue. Hughes Electronics, for one, has donated nothing and has no plans to do so.

“Hughes still supports affirmative action, regardless of what the state of California does,” said Hughes spokesman Richard H. Dore. “Hughes plans to continue with its diversity plan.”

Several other firms, including Arco and Bank of America, recently signed a statement issued by the California Business Roundtable reaffirming their commitment to affirmative action.

“Many corporations market products toward people who would be most offended by this initiative,” said a spokesman for a major California corporation who asked to remain anonymous. “If you’re marketing gasoline, a large share of your market is likely to be those who are offended. If you’re marketing tobacco, a large segment of that population is going to be offended.”

Wilson acknowledged the difficulty in raising money from large companies, saying: “There are a number of large corporations that frankly will not have the courage to do this, and it’s because they anticipate they will be made to pay a price through boycotts.”