Sacramento Superior Court holds "public officers" can treat people differently because of race
Today we learned that the Sacramento Superior Court sustained the government’s demurrer in Connerly v. State of California. This case challenged Government Code Section 8252 as facially unconstitutional, because it requires members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission to appoint officers to serve on the Commission according to their race. Proposition 209 prohibits the government from making any race-based decisions in public contracting, public education, and public employment. So, you could reasonably ask, how was Section 8252 — which everyone agrees discriminates on the basis of race — not a violation of Proposition 209? The Court held that “officers” of the Citizens Redistricting Commission, are not engaged in “public employment,” and are therefore free to make race-based decisions without violating Proposition 209.
PLF argued that, by its precise terms, Proposition 209 does not distinguish between “officers” and “employees.” The prohibition against race-based decisionmaking in Proposition 209 applies to all “employment.” Instead of focusing on the language of Proposition 209, the court based its opinion on the view that under California law “officers” are different than “employees.” According to the court, because “officers” are a distinct legal category from “employees,” the voters must have intended to only prohibit discrimination by public employees, not public officers.
Think about that for a second. According to the court, the voters wanted to make sure that public employees — the lowest level of government “employment” — were not hired because of race. But, also according to the court, the voters did not want to prohibit public officers — the highest level of government “employment” — from being hired on the basis of race.
Obviously, we disagree with the court’s decision, and we will be talking with our clients to determine the best course of action.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.