Majority Rule’s Not Absolute

In the wake of passage of Proposition 209, we are again reminded that our system of government depends on two balancing principles that sometimes seem in conflict but actually temper one another.

The first is that ours is a government of majority rule, expressed democratically through a system of elected representatives. The second is that the power of even a democratic majority must be limited to ensure individual rights.

California voters passed Proposition 209 by a 10% margin. Nevertheless, Proposition 209’s opponents have gone to court to strike down the initiative, in furtherance of the principle that the majority must be prevented from visiting injustice on any minority.

Challenging an initiative that won by a margin this large may seem anti-majoritarian, but it is part of the checks and balances fashioned by the Founding Fathers. It is unfortunate that the post-election aftermath of the deceptively named “California civil rights initiative” has come to be dominated by arguments about the power of the majority in American society.

This debate has its origins in the belief that it was the intent of our founders that a simple majority of voters could dictate the way all Americans live and impose their will on the minority at any time, under any circumstances, for any reason.

In truth, the foundations of our dual-principle system are far more complex. They are the reason why the American democratic system has survived and so many other governmental concepts have failed since the Bill of Rights became the law of our land. From time to time, we may wish that our method of government did not afford so many opportunities for people to undo what some of us think is right. Yet its intended guarantee that the majority cannot always force its will on the minority is what has kept us great.

The historical reality is that the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights recognized that one of the most important objectives of any American government would have to be limiting the ability of a simple majority to impose tyranny on all. They also recognized that the federal government has a responsibility to guarantee equal justice in ways no individual state can defy.

Opponents of Proposition 209--a coalition that includes the ACLU--filed the lawsuit challenging Proposition 209 because it is a barefaced example of an attempt to use a majority vote to repeal the basic civil rights of huge numbers of Californians. Proposition 209 would overtly legalize types of gender discrimination that are now illegal. It would destroy the ability of many groups of Americans who have experienced discrimination in the past--and still experience it today--to seek equity in the workplace, educational institutions and competition for public contracts.

Polling throughout the campaign established that most Californians did not understand that Proposition 209 would outright repeal affirmative action programs. These polls also found that affirmative action remains a concept that is popular in our state. Obviously, some supporters of Proposition 209 do not share the view that the initiative strikes a blow against equality. And it is on the question of which side interprets the language of this initiative correctly that so much depends.

This kind of impasse is precisely why the courts were given the power to invalidate legislative actions. We Americans value liberty so much that we have deliberately made it very difficult to limit our freedom.

Proposition 209 is in the courts. That is where it belongs. Its supporters and opponents will have many opportunities to explain to judges at many levels why they think their views are correct. Eventually, the courts will decide which view prevails.

That is how our system works. No majority of Americans would want it any other way.