TITLE

Connerly rushing to get another race-based initiative on ballot

Ed Mendel, Staff Writer

April 3, 2002

SACRAMENTO -- Californians may be asked in November to vote on another initiative that deals with race -- this time by preventing state and local governments from routinely classifying individuals by race or ethnicity.

Ward Connerly, a University of California Regent who led a drive that banned state and local government affirmative action programs six years ago, is rushing to meet an April 19 deadline to file petitions.

"We are going to make it," Connerly predicted. "I am very optimistic." He has increased payments to signature-gatherers and is seeking more money for the final push.

Connerly said asking people to check a box identifying their race or ethnicity prolongs "race consciousness" in a society where people are increasingly marrying across racial lines.

He said the government -- which does not classify people by political, religious or sexual orientation -- seems to be moving away from the color-blind goal advocated by civil rights leaders in the 1960s.

Connerly pointed to a number of recent examples of racial division, including demands for reparations for slavery and the battle over a black police chief in Los Angeles.

"We in this state cannot continue this level of race consciousness, racialism if you will, or something is going to explode," he said.

Opponents say the proposed "racial-privacy" initiative would make it impossible to track and monitor discrimination, rolling back progress toward racial equality made since the civil rights era.

Among the opponents of the proposed initiative are the San Diego Bar Association and a half dozen other lawyer groups in San Diego.

Paula Rosenstein, president of the feminist Lawyers Club of San Diego, said the initiative would prevent the collection of statistics needed to chart the progress of minorities in government jobs, which sets an example for the private sector.

"The government has always been the leader in breaking down barriers," she said.

The initiative proposed by Connerly would prevent state and local government from classifying individuals by race, ethnicity, color or national origin, with some exceptions.

Law enforcement officers could use racial information for descriptions of individuals. Programs that would lose federal funding if they do not use racial classifications also would be exempted.

The state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which enforces laws against discrimination, would be exempt for 10 years, and then the exemption could be extended by a majority vote of the Legislature and a signature by the governor.

Any other exemptions from the ban on racial classifications that are needed to serve a "compelling state interest" could be obtained with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and a signature by the governor.

The initiative would be a constitutional amendment that requires nearly 680,000 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Connerly, who originally intended to put the initiative on the March ballot, said the campaign has increased its payments to as much as $1.75 per signature. He said the number of signature-gatherers in the state seems to have shrunk because of the lack of recent initiatives.

But others said Connerly, who led the drive for Proposition 209 in 1996, began with a payment of 50 cents per signature, which was too low to attract many signature-gatherers, particularly for an initiative on a controversial subject.