Three cheers for the Charlotte Observer
The Charlotte Observer takes the Charlotte City Council to task for planning on adopting a race-based city contracting policy. It seems that the City Council spent $300,000 on a consulting firm to determine whether Charlotte could constitutionally create race-based set-asides. When the answer came back, “no,” the City Council spent $25,000 on a different firm to get the answer it wanted. Lo and behold, that firm said Charlotte could institute the presumptively unconstitutional program. Here’s a snippet about what the Observer had to say about that:
If true, the city should continue to work on correcting [contracting discrepancies], but poor performance isn’t a legally sound reason to switch to a race-based hiring program. Charlotte also would need to show that the cause of that performance is direct discrimination against minority- and women-owned firms. MGT didn’t find enough evidence of that. If City Council members think it exists, we’d like to know who they believe is doing the discriminating. [Read the rest]
Hear, Hear! We’d like to know the same thing from CalTrans and San Francisco. Each claims that they need to institute a race-based contracting program because of past discrimination, but neither has offered one shred of evidence of someone discriminating! And for anyone who would like to know how a challenge to a race-based contracting program might look, here is PLF’s model brief on the issue.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›