Proposition 54 Fact Sheet
August 2003
The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation's oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition representing more than 180 member organizations, has a long-standing commitment to encouraging equal opportunity and diversity, and ensuring the elimination of discriminatory practices in the areas of education, employment, government contracting, and in the delivery of health care.
LCCR opposes the so-called "Racial Privacy Initiative"(California's Proposition 54), because it would eliminate the collection of data that are necessary tools and information to prosecute unfair and illegal discriminatory practices. In addition, the initiative would negatively impact public health programs, complicate health care delivery, and harm other social service programs by eliminating information necessary to make budget decisions for health prevention programs tailored to different communities and cultures.
Background
On October 7, 2003, California voters will consider Proposition 54 "otherwise known as the so-called Racial Privacy Initiative or CRECNO (Classification on Race, Ethnicity, Color, and National Origin). If approved, Proposition 54 would ban California from collecting racial and ethnic data in all but a few exempted areas. Without data collection, this radical measure would damage the state's ability to address disparities by race or ethnicity in discrimination and hate crimes, health care and disease patterns, and educational resources and academic achievement.
The lead proponent of Proposition 54 is Ward Connerly, a vocally conservative member of the University of California Board of Regents, and key figure behind the passage of Proposition 209, the 1996 ballot measure that ended California's use of affirmative action in higher education and employment, and Initiative 200, which banned in 1998 Washington state?s consideration of race, ethnicity, gender, or national origin in public contracting, employment, and higher education. Proposition 54 is Connerly's far-reaching attempt to further an ultra-conservative goal of eradicating equal opportunity and equity in all areas of society, including the delivery of health care.
Effects of Proposition 54
If passed, Proposition 54 would impede community groups, local governments, and the state in developing solutions to disparities in the delivery of health care, education, and law enforcement in California. Further, Proposition 54 would hide real differences among racial and ethnic groups in health care, disease patterns, educational opportunities, and academic achievement and thereby deprive doctors, educators, scientists, and advocates access to powerful tools to identify and measure ways to respond to the needs of disadvantaged communities. For example, if approved, Proposition 54 would:
Erode basic civil rights protections - If Proposition 54 is approved, victims of discrimination based on race and ethnicity will not have the data to meet court standards in proving racial discrimination when it comes to state employment, contracting, or housing. However, discrimination complaints on the basis of age, gender, and religion, could continue to be pursued, creating an unfair disparity among victims of discrimination. Further, without data on race and ethnicity in law enforcement, it would be nearly impossible to track and thereby prevent racial profiling in the state.
Hamper tracking of hate crimes - Proposition 54 would prevent the state attorney general and public agencies from prosecuting and tracking race and ethnicity-based hate crimes and therefore impede efforts to educate against hate. Also, under Proposition 54, the state Department of Justice could no longer require local police to collect data on victims and suspects, important data that can help solve crimes.
Impede public health protections and the elimination of disparities in health care delivery - Health conditions such as breast cancer, heart disease, infant mortality, and AIDS affect individuals differently depending on race or ethnicity. Racial and ethnic groups experience differences in treatment, have different rates of risk behavior, and respond to different methods and messages in important prevention programs ranging from lead poisoning, to teen smoking, to suicide. Although Proposition 54 includes some exemptions for health care data collection, public health prevention resources that are often carefully allocated to specific racial and/or ethnic groups would be severely impacted by Proposition 54. Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher states that "[W]ithout that data we could not even begin on a course toward eliminating disparities in health; we would not be able to measure our success or evaluate our objectives toward eliminating disparities. . . ."
Undermine school accountability - The collection of data and information is the centerpiece of California's Public School Accountability program, as it holds schools to two standards: general improvement, and improvement for students of different races and ethnic backgrounds. Therefore, racial data is a central part of the evaluation process and allows schools to determine the rates at which particular groups are improving so that resources may be targeted for the best overall improvement. Without this measurement data, schools would not be accountable to the goal of advancement and improvement among all students.
Proposition 54 is a radical measure that is being put forth to further an extreme goal of eradicating equal opportunity. Those opposed to Proposition 54 represent a wide range of interests, including health care professionals such as doctors, nurses, hospitals, and health insurance companies; business owners; education advocates, teachers, and school boards; civil rights organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, Asian Law Alliance, California Women?s Law Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the NAACP; state and local government officials such as California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Los Angeles Mayor James Hahan, and California Assembly Majority Leader Wilma Chan; and law enforcement groups such as the National Black Police Association, Inc.
