Preference Ban Qualifies for Fall Ballot

The “California civil rights initiative,” which seeks an end to the state’s affirmative action laws, was officially qualified for the Nov. 5 ballot Tuesday by Secretary of State Bill Jones.

In a statement, Jones said his finding is based on a random sample analysis of more than 1 million signatures that proponents of the measure submitted in February. The initiative needed at least 693,230 valid signatures to qualify, and Jones said the analysis confirmed at least 770,484 names.

Gov. Pete Wilson, a major backer of the initiative, marked the occasion by commending the campaign’s chairman--UC Regent Ward Connerly--and predicting a contentious battle this fall.

“All Californians should be thankful that Ward has had the courage not simply to speak out, but to take the necessary action to organize the rest of us who feel the same way,” Wilson said in a statement late Tuesday.

“This will be a long campaign, one in which the opponents will try to mischaracterize the intent of CCRI. However, in the end, I truly believe that the public will see through the false claims currently being stated by the opponents of fundamental fairness.”

The initiative is officially titled the “Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment by State and Other Public Entities.” It would eliminate race and gender as considerations in government hiring, contracting or university admissions.

It promises to be one of the most controversial and closely watched decisions on the ballot anywhere in America this fall. As evidence that it will play a key role in the presidential race, the Republican National Committee spent several hundred thousand dollars to help the measure qualify for the California ballot.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole has endorsed the initiative, while President Clinton has said of affirmative action, “Mend it, don’t end it.”

The initiative, originally drafted by two little known college professors, has already triggered a number of protests and marches throughout California. Opponents argue that special considerations for gender and ethnicity are needed to correct past discrimination.