Wilson Urges Legislature to Act on Prop. 209

Gov. Pete Wilson said the next step for Proposition 209 is in the state Legislature and he called on lawmakers Tuesday to remove or amend 30 state statutes that he identified as granting illegal race or gender preferences.

Now that a federal appellate court has ordered implementation of the 1996 ballot measure, Wilson said the Legislature’s action could spare taxpayers and voters the time and expense of pursuing each statute through the courts.

But for the first time, the governor’s move also puts the highly political issue of eliminating affirmative action programs squarely in the domain of the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

The response there Tuesday indicates that the fate of affirmative action could be a contentious issue during the upcoming election year.

“The Legislature is going to create its own priorities and not be dictated to by the governor,” said Assembly Majority Leader Antonio Villaraigosa (D-Los Angeles). “Most of us believe Proposition 209 is a divisive and mean-spirited law. It is clearly supported by the people, but so is education, and many other things.”

Proposition 209, which passed last November with 54% of the vote, is intended to eliminate race and gender preferences in state government hiring and contracting and in university admissions.

The measure was placed into effect just over a week ago when it was ruled constitutional by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and the U.S. Supreme Court failed to issue a stay. Opponents have since appealed for a hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court, but there has been no response so far.

Wilson’s call for action Tuesday is part of a multilayered attempt by the governor to implement Proposition 209 as quickly as possible.

He has already challenged five statutes in court that cover the bulk of affirmative action programs in state government. Primarily, those statutes aim at state hiring procedures and billions of dollars in public contracts that are shared among businesses owned by minorities and women.

Those challenges are now pending in a Sacramento Superior Court and a hearing is scheduled for next month.

On Tuesday, Wilson identified 25 additional statutes that he considers to be in conflict with Proposition 209.

The list includes a variety of programs and laws regarding education, health, contracting and governmental procedures.

Some examples are an advisory council on American Indian child education, a requirement that the governor’s appointments to the state Board of Prison Terms and the Youthful Offender Parole Board be demographically reflective of the state population, a fellowship program for minorities and women who want to be teachers, and a nursing program that provides scholarships to minority students on the condition that they practice for some period “in medically underserved areas.”

Wilson singled out the nursing program as one that should be retained if it is opened to include any nursing student.

If the Legislature does not act to eliminate or amend those statutes, Wilson left open the possibility that he will seek his own court action--as he has on the other statutes. But he also predicted that the statutes would be challenged by activist groups or aggrieved individuals.

On Tuesday, Proposition 209 proponents repeated firm warnings that they will sue local governments--such as in San Francisco--where leaders have pledged resistance to the ballot measure. One such suit was filed Tuesday against the city of San Jose by the same conservative law firm that is defending Proposition 209 in court.

In Los Angeles on Tuesday, Mayor Richard Riordan said he is confident the city’s laws are consistent with Proposition 209 even though, in areas such as the Police Department, there has been aggressive recruitment and promotion of minority and female officers.

“When I leave office, I will be judged on the competency of our work force and the diversity of our work force,” said Riordan, who opposed the ballot measure last year after weeks of hesitating over what position he would take. “We have the most diverse city in the world. It’s important that our work force reflect our diversity.”

Wilson aides said the 30 statutes they identified Tuesday are “simply a starting point” for all of the legal changes that will be necessary to make state laws consistent with Proposition 209.

They did not speculate on how many more statutes will be challenged. They also did not reveal the cost of the targeted programs or how many people will be affected.

Proposition 209 opponents criticized the governor’s action Tuesday, saying it is premature for the Legislature to change state law before a final answer is received from the U.S. Supreme Court.

“It is clear that he is jumping the gun while this matter is still pending,” said Mark Rosenbaum, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney in Los Angeles who is handling the court challenge of the ballot measure. “I think the governor’s Proposition 209 hit list today highlights in red why the Supreme Court must determine the constitutionality of this law. The governor’s announcement . . . means that California can no longer claim to be the land of equal opportunity.”

Villaraigosa said the Legislature might act to implement Proposition 209 if it clears the courts intact. But he also insisted that voters consider this a low-priority issue that Wilson is exploiting for his own political gain.

“People are tired of this junk,” he said. “And that’s what it is--junk.”

At a press conference in Los Angeles, however, Wilson sought to cast the issue as a prominent landmark in national history.

“We now have the opportunity to give California what those who supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act always wanted--a colorblind society,” the governor said.

Wilson also taunted his critics by continuing to paraphrase a famous quote from the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that was a flash point during last year’s Proposition 209 campaign.

Without naming King, the governor repeated the proponents’ claim that elimination of race- and gender-based programs will mean “an individual can be judged for the content of their character and not the color of their skin.”

Times staff writers Bettina Boxall and Jim Newton in Los Angeles contributed to this story.