# 1996 California Proposition 209

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
2030
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
2026
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
2028
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
2025
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 :
Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative or CCRI) is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed, thereby banning affirmative action in the state's public sector.

## History
### Context

The controversy pertaining to affirmative action in California can most notably be traced back to the historic 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. There were two major decisions from the case that still stand today. Firstly, the quota system that was once used by the University of California, Davis’ admission process for minority students was ruled unlawful. Secondly, higher-level academic institutions were not prohibited from considering race in the admissions process. The ruling determined in Bakke acted as “a catalyst for voluntary affirmative action programs.” Researchers suggest that the development of such programs for the sake of increasing campus diversity explains the controversy surrounding the implementation of Proposition 209 and Bakke marks the origination of affirmative action debates.

### Origins

The political campaign to place the language of CCRI on the California ballot as a constitutional amendment was initiated by Joe Gelman (president of the Board of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles), Arnold Steinberg (a pollster and political strategist) and Larry Arnn (president of the Claremont Institute). It was later endorsed by Governor Pete Wilson and supported and funded by the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign, led by University of California Regent Ward Connerly, a Wilson ally. A key co-chair of the campaign was law professor Gail Heriot, who served as a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The initiative was opposed by affirmative action advocates and traditional civil rights and feminist organizations on the left side of the political spectrum. Proposition 209 was voted into law on November 5, 1996, with 55 percent of the vote, and has withstood legal scrutiny ever since.

### National impact

In November 2006, a similar amendment modeled on California's Proposition 209 was passed in Michigan, titled the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. The constitutionality of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was challenged in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, made its way to the United States Supreme Court. On April 22, 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is constitutional, and that states had the right to ban the practice of racial and gender preferences/affirmative action if they chose to do so through the electoral process.

## Text

The text of Proposition 209 was drafted by Cal State anthropology professor Glynn Custred and California Association of Scholars Executive Director Thomas Wood. Its passage amended the California constitution to include a new section (Section 31 of Article I), which now reads:
   (a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
   (b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
   (c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
   (d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
   (e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.
   (f) For the purposes of this section, "state" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the state itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the state.
   (g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
   (h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

### Senate Bill 185

On September 1, 2011, SB 185 passed both chambers of the California State Legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown. SB 185 would have countered Proposition 209 and authorized the University of California and the California State University to consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, to the maximum extent permitted by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution, and relevant case law. SB 185 was strongly supported by the University of California Students Association.

### Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5

On December 3, 2012, California State Senator Edward Hernandez introduced California Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5 (SCA-5) in the State Senate. This initiative proposed an amendment to the state constitution to remove provisions of California Proposition 209 related to public post-secondary education, to permit state universities to consider applicants' race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admission decisions. If passed by both the State Senate and State Assembly, SCA-5 would have been presented to California voters in the November 2014 election. SCA-5 was passed by the California State Senate on January 30, 2014. On February 24, 2014, Gene D. Block, chancellor of UCLA, sent an open letter to all students and faculty expressing his strong opposition to Proposition 209. Following resistance from various citizen groups, including Asian American groups, Senator Hernandez withdrew his measure from consideration.

### Proposition 16

On January 18, 2019, Assemblymembers Shirley Weber, Mike Gipson, and Miguel Santiago introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5 (ACA 5) ACA 5 was a proposed constitutional amendment that would have repealed the provisions enacted by Proposition 209. In June 2020, the California State Legislature passed ACA 5 with more than a two-thirds vote in each house, allowing the proposal to become a qualified ballot measure and later Proposition 16. Proposition 16 was rejected by 57.23% of voters in the November 2020 election, meaning that Prop 209 remains in the California Constitution.

### Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7

In 2023, Assemblymember Corey Jackson introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 7 (ACA 7). The amendment's author decided to let the proposal die, in part due to the fear that "... voters wouldn’t pass the measure..."

## Support

Supporters of Proposition 209 contended that existing affirmative action programs led public employers and universities to reject applicants based on their race, and that Proposition 209 would "restore and reconfirm the historic intention of the 1964 Civil Rights Act." The basic and simple premise of Proposition 209 is that every individual has a right, and that right is not to be discriminated against, or granted a preference, based on their race or gender. Since the number of available positions are limited, discriminating against or giving unearned preference to a person based solely, or even partially on race or gender deprives qualified applicants of all races an equal opportunity to succeed. It also pits one group against another and perpetuates social tension.

### Individuals in support

* Ward Connerly
* Bob Dole, 1996 presidential candidate
* Dan Lungren, California Attorney General
* Pete Wilson, Governor of California
* Gail Heriot
* Eugene Volokh
* Darrell Issa
* Roger Hedgecock
* Lance Izumi
* Sally Pipes

### Organizations in support

* American Civil Rights Institute
* California Republican Party
* Center for Equal Opportunity
* Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)

## Opposition

Opponents of Proposition 209 argued that it would end affirmative action practices of tutoring, mentoring, outreach and recruitment of women and minorities in California universities and businesses and would gut state and local protections against discrimination. After passage of Proposition 209, some students protested at universities including UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Santa Cruz, and San Francisco State University.

### Individuals in opposition

* Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator
* Ellen DeGeneres, talk show host
* Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator
* Dolores Huerta, civil rights activist
* Rev. Jesse Jackson, civil rights activist
* Coretta Scott King, wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
* William Levada, Archbishop of San Francisco
* Roger Mahony, cardinal and Archbishop of Los Angeles
* Rosa Parks, civil rights leader,
* Colin Powell, then-retired U.S. general
* Bruce Springsteen, musician
* Chang-Lin Tien, UC Berkeley Chancellor
* Charles E. Young, UCLA Chancellor

### Organizations in opposition

* AARP of California
* ACLU
* American Jewish Congress
* Asian Law Caucus
* By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)
* California American Association of University Women
* California Labor Council, AFL-CIO
* California Teachers Association
* Chinese for Affirmative Action
* Feminist Majority
* Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF)
* Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
* League of Women Voters of California
* National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
* National Lawyers Guild
* National Organization for Women (NOW)
* Pacific Gas and Electric
* Southern Christian Leadership Conference
* University of California Student Association (UCSA)
* United Farm Workers
* YWCA USA

## Results

Proposition 209 :
| Choice | Votes | % |
| Yes | 5,268,462 | 54.55 |
| No | 4,388,733 | 45.45 |
| Valid votes | 9,657,195 | 94.11 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 604,444 | 5.89 |
| Total votes | 10,261,639 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 15,662,075 | 65.53 |
| Source: November 5, 1996, Complete General Election Statement of Vote |||

### Voter demographics

On November 5, 1996, the Los Angeles Times conducted an exit poll of 2,473 voters who cast ballots in the general election at 40 polling places. The margin of error was 3 percent (higher for subgroups). The following is the exit poll data on Proposition 209:
Los Angeles Times Exit Poll :
| Demographic subgroup | Support | Oppose | % of total vote |
| All Voters | 54% | 46% | 100% |
| Ideology ||||
| Liberal | 27% | 73% | 21% |
| Moderate | 52% | 48% | 47% |
| Conservative | 77% | 23% | 32% |
| Party ||||
| Democratic | 31% | 69% | 21% |
| Republican | 80% | 20% | 38% |
| Independent | 59% | 41% | 14% |
| Gender ||||
| Male | 61% | 39% | 47% |
| Female | 48% | 52% | 53% |
| Race ||||
| White | 63% | 37% | 74% |
| Black | 26% | 74% | 7% |
| Latino | 24% | 76% | 10% |
| Asian | 39% | 61% | 5% |
| Age ||||
| 18–29 | 50% | 50% | 19% |
| 30–44 | 51% | 49% | 35% |
| 45–64 | 58% | 42% | 35% |
| 65+ | 60% | 40% | 11% |
| Family income ||||
| Less than $20,000 | 41% | 59% | 12% |
| $20,000 to $39,999 | 48% | 52% | 24% |
| $40,000 to $59,999 | 56% | 44% | 23% |
| $60,000 to $74,999 | 65% | 35% | 15% |
| $75,000+ | 59% | 41% | 26% |
| Education ||||
| High School or Less | 54% | 46% | 20% |
| Some College | 60% | 40% | 29% |
| College or More | 54% | 46% | 27% |
| Post-Graduate | 48% | 52% | 24% |
| Religion ||||
| Protestant | 62% | 38% | 49% |
| Catholic | 54% | 46% | 24% |
| Jewish | 42% | 58% | 6% |

## Aftermath
### Legal challenges

Proposition 209 has been the subject of many lawsuits in state courts since its passage but has withstood legal scrutiny over the years. On November 27, 1996, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson blocked enforcement of the proposition. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently overturned that ruling.
On August 2, 2010, in a case brought before the Supreme Court of California by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) found for the second time that Proposition 209 was constitutional. The ruling, by a 6–1 majority, followed a unanimous affirmation in 2000 of the constitutionality of Prop. 209 by the same court.
On April 2, 2012, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the latest challenge to Proposition 209. The three-judge panel concluded that it was bound by a 9th Circuit ruling in 1997 upholding the constitutionality of the affirmative action ban. Ninth Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima disagreed in part with the ruling, saying he believes the court "wrongly decided" the issue in 1997.

### Effect on enrollment, graduation, and income

According to UC Office of the President, "Proposition 209 instigated a dramatic change in UC admissions policy, with URG [under represented group] enrollment at the Berkeley and UCLA campuses immediately falling by more than 60 percent and systemwide URG enrollment falling by at least 12 percent." The same report concluded that "Prop 209 led URG applicants to cascade out of UC into measurably less-advantageous universities, which combined with declines in degree attainment and STEM persistence to lower each URG applicant's wages by about 5 percent between ages 23 and 35." Another study found that while enrollment of minority students dropped immediately in the wake of Prop 209, the grades and academic achievements of the students in the system rose significantly.
Based on "University of California Applicants, Admits and New Enrollees by Campus, Race/Ethnicity", prepared by Institutional Research, the University of California Office of the President, August 11, 2011, enrollment percentages of the four major ethnic groups university-wide are:
Ethnic group enrollment percentages in first-year enrollment of University of California (%) :
| Ethnic group | African American | Asian | Latino | White (Non-Hispanic) |
| 1999 | 2.7 | 29.4 | 10.8 | 41.2 |
| 2000 | 2.8 | 29.1 | 11.2 | 39.8 |
| 2001 | 2.7 | 29.5 | 11.8 | 38.7 |
| 2002 | 2.9 | 30.4 | 12.1 | 38.3 |
| 2003 | 2.9 | 29.8 | 12.7 | 37.5 |
| 2004 | 2.8 | 30.8 | 12.7 | 36.9 |
| 2005 | 2.8 | 32.1 | 13.0 | 37.0 |
| 2006 | 3.0 | 32.6 | 13.6 | 35.9 |
| 2007 | 3.3 | 32.2 | 14.2 | 35.0 |
| 2008 | 3.4 | 31.6 | 15.4 | 34.0 |
| 2009 | 3.3 | 31.6 | 15.9 | 33.7 |
| 2010 | 3.5 | 32.4 | 17.1 | 31.4 |
| 2011 | 3.5 | 32.0 | 18.6 | 30.8 |
| 2012 | 3.7 | 31.7 | 18.7 | 28.0 |
| 2013 | 3.6 | 30.1 | 19.3 | 27.9 |
| 2014 | 3.7 | 29.7 | 19.9 | 26.4 |
| 2015 | 3.6 | 28.9 | 19.5 | 25.4 |
| 2016 | 4.1 | 28.5 | 21.7 | 24.4 |
| 2017 | 4.1 | 28.5 | 21.6 | 24.2 |
| 2018 | 4.2 | 29.2 | 21.4 | 23.0 |
| 2019 | 4.2 | 29.6 | 21.8 | 23.1 |
| 2020 | 4.5 | 31.7 | 22.5 | 22.9 |
| 2021 | 4.7 | 30.2 | 22.8 | 22.3 |
| 2022 | 4.7 | 32.6 | 23.2 | 21.1 |
| 2023 | 4.8 | 32.5 | 24.3 | 20.6 |
African American enrollment rates dropped significantly immediately after the passage of Prop 209. Criticism was raised that of the 4,422 students in UCLA's freshman class of 2006, only 96 (2.26%) were African American. Despite this, African American enrollment has rebounded and even exceeded its pre-Prop 209 percentages.
The percentage of Latino students admitted to the UC system as of 2007 exceeded the Proposition 209 level, though this is also correlated with an increase in the Latino population in the state of California.
Researchers also found that enrollment statistics for Native American students beginning in 1997 through 2006 declined by 38% cumulatively and, unlike other ethnic groups, have not increased since.
A comprehensive, peer-reviewed study by Zachary Bleemer found that Prop 209 has had a negative impact on graduation rates, graduate school attendance, and income for black and Hispanic students.
In 2021, the University of California freshmen class reached an all-time high with 84,223 students. Latinos were the largest group at 37%, followed by Asian Americans at 34%; Non-Hispanic White students at 20%; African Americans at 5%; and 4% were composed of members of other groups, including American Indians, Pacific Islanders or those who declined to state their race or ethnicity.

### Private sector response

One response to Proposition 209 was the establishment of the IDEAL Scholars Fund to provide community and financial support for underrepresented students at the University of California, Berkeley. Private universities and colleges, as well as employers, are not subject to Proposition 209 unless they receive public contracts.