# Senate Constitutional Amendment 5

Elections in California :
Federal governmentU.S. President
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
Dem
Rep
2000
Dem
Rep
2004
Dem
Rep
2008
Dem
Rep
2012
Dem
Rep
2016
Dem
Rep
2020
Dem
Rep
2024
Dem
Rep
U.S. Senate
1849
1850
1852 sp
1856
1857 sp
1860
1860 sp
1868
1872
1873
1873 sp
1878
1880
1885
1886 sp
1887
1891
1891 sp
1893
1895 sp
1897
1900 sp
1903
1905
1909
1911
1914
1916
1920
1922
1926
1928
1932
1934
1938
1940
1944
1946
1946 sp
1950
1952
1954 sp
1956
1958
1962
1964
1968
1970
1974
1976
1980
1982
1986
1988
1992
1992 sp
1994
1998
2000
2004
2006
2010
2012
2016
2018
2022
2022 sp
2024
2024 sp
2028
U.S. House of Representatives
1849
1851
1852
1854
1856
1859
1861
1863
1864
1867
1868
1871
1872
1875
1876
1879
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
12th
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1987
5th sp
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
32nd sp
2002
2004
2005
5th sp
48th sp
2006
50th sp
2007
36th sp
2008
12th sp
2009
10th sp
32nd sp
2010
2011
36th sp
2012
2014
2016
2017
34th sp
2018
2020
25th sp
2022
22nd sp
2024
16th
20th sp
30th
45th
47th
2026 :
State governmentExecutive Governor
1849
1851
1853
1855
1857
1859
1861
1863
1867
1871
1875
1879
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2003 (recall)
2006
2010
2014
2018
2021 (recall)
2022
2026
Lieutenant governor
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Attorney general
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Secretary of state
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Treasurer
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Controller
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Insurance commissioner
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Superintendent
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Board of equalization
2018
2022
Legislature Senate
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special
Assembly
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2021 (79th sp)
2022 (17th sp)
2024
Special
Judiciary Court of appeals
1994
1998
2002
2006
Elections by year
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2012
Jun
Nov
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
State propositions1910–1919
1911
4
7
8
1960–1969
1964
14
1970–1979
1978
6
8
13
1980–1989
1982
8
1986
64
65
1988
98
99
1990–1999
1994
187
1996
196
209
215
218
1998
6
10
227
2000–2009
2000
21
22
36
39
2003
53
54
2004
1A
55
56
57
58
59
60
60A
61
62
63
64
65
66
69
71
2005
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
2006
81
82
83
85
87
89
90
2008
91
92
93
94, 95, 96, and 97
98 and 99
1A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2009
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1F
2010–2019
2010
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2012
29
30
32
34
37
38
39
2014
1
2
41
42
45
46
47
48
2016
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
2018
68
69
70
71
72
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2020–2029
2020
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2022
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
32
33
34
35
36
Full list :
Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles County Board of supervisors
1980
1996
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Ballot measures
1980
A
2008
R
2012
B
J
2016
M
Elections
2020
2022
2024
Los Angeles Mayor
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1909 (sp)
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1929
1933
1937
1938
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2022
2026
City attorney
2009
Ballot measures
1986
U
2017
S
Elections
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019 (sp)
2020
2022
2023 (sp)
2024
Long Beach Mayor
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022 :
Orange CountyOrange County Board of supervisors
2018
2020
2022
2024
District attorney
2018
Anaheim Mayor
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Irvine Mayor
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Costa Mesa Municipal
1947
1953
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
SacramentoMayor
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
San Diego CountySan Diego County Board of supervisors
2020
San Diego Mayor
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1932
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (sp)
1984
1986 (sp)
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2005 (sp)
2008
2012
2013–14 (sp)
2016
2020
2024
City attorney
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
City council
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special :
San FranciscoMayor
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1931
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (recall)
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2018 (sp)
2019
2024
District attorney
2019
2022 (recall)
2022 (sp)
2024
Board of supervisors
1977
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Board of education
2018
2022 (recall)
Ballot measures
2024
G
Elections
2004
Mar
Nov
2005
2006
Jun
Nov
2007
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2011
2012
Jun
Nov
2013
2022
Feb :
San JoseMayor
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024 :
Other localities
Bakersfield
Mayoral elections:
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Fresno
Mayoral elections:
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Oakland
Mayoral elections:
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024
Riverside
Mayoral elections:
1997
2001
2005
2009
2012
2016
2020
2024
San Bernardino
Mayoral elections:
2005
2009
2014
2018
2022
Stockton
Mayoral elections:
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
vte :
Senate Constitutional Amendment 5 (SCA 5) was introduced by California State Senator Edward Hernandez to the California State Senate on December 3, 2012. This initiative would ask voters to consider eliminating California Proposition 209's ban on the use of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in recruitment, admissions, and retention programs at California's public universities and colleges. SCA 5 was passed in the California Senate on January 30, 2014 but was subsequently withdrawn by Hernandez due to strong opposition, mainly from Asian Americans.

## Background and Content of SCA 5

In 1996, California became the first state to outlaw affirmative action in public universities and state hiring. Proposition 209 prohibited state government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education.
Hernandez introduced Senate Bill 185 in 2011, which sought to achieve what SCA 5 intended and was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown.
SCA 5 essentially does the following two things:
* Deletes the specific provisions implemented through the enactment of Proposition 209 that prohibit the State from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin, in the operation of public education.
* Deletes the UC and the public school system from the definition of the "state" under Section 31 of Article 1, thereby repealing the application of the provisions of Proposition 209 to those entities.

## Support

The lead author of the bill, Senator Hernandez, argued that due to Proposition 209, "there has been a precipitous drop in the percentage of Latino, African American, and Native American students at California public universities, despite the fact that those same groups have seen steady increases in their percentages of college-eligible high school graduates."
The same arguments for support were summarized as follows in the bill analysis:
"According to the author's office, immediately following the November 1996 passage of Proposition 209, there was a significant drop in the percentage of enrolled minority students at both the UC and the CSU. The author's office is concerned that, in spite of new eligibility requirements and admissions initiative which have helped to restore the numbers of some underrepresented students, the proportion of underrepresented students eligible for UC and CSU has not kept pace with the proportion of the high school graduating class that they now represent."
On February 24, 2014, Gene D. Block, Chancellor of UCLA, sent an open letter to all students and faculties expressing his strong opposition to Proposition 209.
The following Asian American organizations supported SCA 5:
* Asian Americans Advancing Justice | Asian Law Caucus
* UC Asian American & Pacific Islander Policy Multicampus Research Program (AAPI Policy MRP)
* National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education (CARE)
* Chinese for Affirmative Action
* The Civil Rights Project
* Asian Pacific Americans for Higher Education (APAHE)
* Southeast Asia Resource Center (SEARAC)
* Hmong Innovating Politics (HIP)
The following organizations support SCA 5, according to the Legislature's record.
* AFSCME
* American Association of University Women
* Association of California Healthcare Districts
* Bassett Teachers Association
* California Academy of Physician Assistants
* California Association for Nurse Practitioners
* California Black Chamber of Commerce
* California Black Health Network
* California Communities United Institute
* California Hospital Association
* California Medical Association
* California Nurses Association
* California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
* California Pharmacists Association
* California Primary Care Association
* California State Student Association
* California Teachers Association
* Equal Justice Society
* Equality California
* Health Access California
* Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities
* Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
* Medical Oncology Association of Southern California, Inc.
* People Improving Communities through Organizing
* Public Advocates
* The Greenlining Institute
* University of California Student Association
* Western Center on Law and Poverty

## Opposition

California State Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff voiced opposition to SCA 5 in the State Senate. Democrats Leland Yee, Ted Lieu, and Carol Liu were among those who voted for SCA 5 in the Senate, but the three senators have since asked Hernandez to hold the bill from an Assembly vote in order to better assess its potential impacts, in light of fervent opposition among the public. In addition, Assemblyman Ed Chau has promised that he will vote against SCA 5 if it is voted on in the State Assembly.
Opposing organization in the Legislature's record:
* American Civil Rights Coalition
Other organizations and individuals opposing SCA 5 included:
* American Civil Rights Institute and Ward Connerly
* Project on Fair Representation
* The Century Foundation
* The Center for Individual Rights
* Chinese American Federation (Representing about 100 Chinese American organizations)
* 80-20 National Asian American PAC
* The Committee of 100
* Asian Americans for Political Advancement PAC
* Backbone Foundation
* Chinese Alliance for Equality
* Chinese Americans for Progress and Equality
* Chinese United
* Chinese Young Professionals Networking
* Chinese-American Institute for Empowerment
* DFW Chinese Alliance
* On Leon Merchants Association of Miami
* Overseas Chinese Association of Miami
* Silicon Valley Chinese Association
* The Chinese Association of Science, Education and Culture of South Florida
* The Federation of Florida Chinese Associations
* The Great Philadelphia United Chinese American Chamber of Commerce
* The United Association of Chinese Alumni in Great Houston
* United Asian Americans for Activism
* United Chinese Associations of Eastern USA
* United Chinese Foundation
* The World Association of Chinese Elites
* Chinese-American Oceanic and Atmospheric Association
* 80-20 Asian American PAC Virginia-Maryland-DC Chapter
* USCCA (Univ. of Southern California, California Alumni Association)
* San Diego Asian American for Equality
* Indian American Forum for Political Education
* Chinese Americans for Progress & Equality
* Asian American Voters
* Joint Chinese University Alumni Association
* The Orange Club
* Central California Chinese Cultural Association (CCCCA)

### Arguments

Major arguments against SCA 5 include:
Failing to address root causes of the problem
* To address the problem of failing to obtain college admission, the root causes in early stage should be identified and the quality and outreach of K-12 education should be improved. Artificially lowering the admission standard for a small group of students will not address the root problems. On the other hand, college enrollment should be increased to accommodate qualified students.
Pursuing the wrong metrics for diversity
* Diversity is defined by the collection of different life experiences, thinking models, approaches to problems, and fresh perspectives within a group of people, not defined by the superficial differences in skin colors. Improving education diversity is to improve different thinking methods and problem solving skills for students so they can be better prepared for life challenges later on, not to increase the number of different skin colors.
Wrongfully blaming Proposition 209
* The UC system already leads the country in its admission of talented, socioeconomically disadvantaged students. In 2011–12, 41 percent of the enrolled students at UC and CSU were Pell Grant recipient students (i.e. most often undergraduates with family incomes under $20,000).
* Graduation rates for all races and ethnicities increased by using race and gender neutral policies.
Relying on shaky fundamental supportive data
* Hernandez did not provide publicly accessible sources of the data used to support his statement of the problem. His data is also selectively based on a few campuses (such as UCLA and UC Berkeley) of the UC system or a few isolated years after 1996 (2004 was singled out for example).
* Based on publicly accessible data, it is indisputable that both in absolute numbers and percentages, minorities that attend the University of California have increased. Comparing the data in 1996 and 2013: Black students' population increased from 4% to 4.3% out of 6.6% of the California population, Chicanos and Latinos increased from 14.3% to 27.8% out of 38.2% population, Asian increased from 32% to 35.9% out of 13.9% population. The only race group with decreased student population is whites (decreased from 41% to 27.9%, out of 39.4% population).
Ineffective and harmful policies
* Preferential treatments for certain racial groups in college admission will inevitably deny other racial groups' access to the same education system, creating or sustaining an Asian quota, for example. This may increase the risk of racial tensions or even hostilities in California.
* Race-based preferential treatments in college admission do not work based on latest research.

## Legislative action

SCA 5 passed the State Senate on January 30, 2014, and crossed over to the Assembly. On March 17, 2014, at Hernandez's request, Assembly Speaker John Pérez referred the measure back to the Senate. In a joint statement with Hernandez, Pérez announced the creation of a bicameral commission on issues surrounding recruitment, admissions, and retention in California's systems of higher education. Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg also issued a statement stating that he is a supporter of SCA 5: "I look forward to working with Senator Hernandez, my Senate colleagues, and the Assembly in bringing all communities together for a serious and sober examination of affirmative action."

### Voting in the Senate

On January 30, 2014, the bill passed in the Senator in a party-line vote, with 27 ayes, 9 noes, 3 NVR (no votes recorded)
* Ayes: Beall(D), Block(D), Calderon(D), Corbett(D), Correa(D), De León(D), DeSaulnier(D), Evans(D), Galgiani(D), Hancock(D), Hernandez(D), Hill(D), Hueso(D), Jackson(D), Lara(D), Leno(D), Lieu(D), Liu(D), Mitchell(D), Monning(D), Padilla(D), Pavley(D), Roth(D), Steinberg(D), Torres(D), Wolk(D), Yee(D)
* Noes: Anderson(R), Berryhill(R), Fuller(R), Gaines(R), Huff(R), Knight(R), Vidak(R), Walters(R), Wyland(R)
* NVR: Cannella(R), Nielsen(R), Wright(D)

## Public reactions

SCA 5 received heightened public attention after it passed the State Senate. A Change.org petition has been launched to press the State Assembly to vote No on SCA 5. The petition gained over 80,000 supporters in less than two weeks.
Resistance to the bill included a petition to stop the bill that received more than 112,000 signatures. Many different Asian lobbying groups also attacked the bill, including the Southeast Asian Resource and Action Center and the Filipino Advocates for Justice in Union City and Oakland.
Republicans also attacked the bill and went against the Democrats, who had a supermajority in the Senate. Republicans spoke at a forum called "Stop SCA 5," which was sponsored by the Chinese-American Institute for Empowerment, which is based in San Francisco.
The bill stagnated while under intense opposition until Senator Edward Hernandez took it off the table. The bill did not qualify to be put on the election ballot as a referendum.

## Aftermath

A Change.org petition to stop the bill had more than 112,000 signatures at that time, and at the request of three Democratic senators who voted for the bill in January, Senator Hernandez put the bill on hold. There has been no further action or attempt to revive the bill.
Assembly Bill 1726, which was seen by some as a prelude to a revival of SCA 5, was signed into law in late 2016.
Another piece of legislation, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (ACA 5), was introduced by Assembly Members Weber, Gipson, and Santiago on January 18, 2019. ACA 5 was a resolution to propose to California voters an amendment to repeal Proposition 209. ACA 5 eventually became Proposition 16 and failed in the 2020 election.