Washington Initiative 1000, Affirmative Action and Diversity Commission Measure (2019)
| Washington Initiative 1000, Affirmative Action and Diversity Commission Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 5, 2019 | |
| Topic Affirmative action | |
| Status Approved by the legislature | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
Washington Initiative 1000, the Affirmative Action and Diversity Commission Measure, was not placed on the ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the Legislature, a type of indirect initiated state statute, on November 5, 2019. The measure was approved by the legislature. A veto referendum—Referendum 88—was put on the ballot, however, through a signature petition drive by opponents of Initiative 1000 to let voters decide whether to approve or reject the measure. On November 5, 2019, voters rejected Initiative 1000.
Aftermath
Referendum Measure 88
Washington Referendum 88, the Vote on Initiative 1000 measure, was on the ballot in Washington as a veto referendum on November 5, 2019.
A yes vote on Referendum 88 would have allowed I-1000 to go into effect, allowing affirmative action without the use of quotas by the state of Washington. A no vote on Referendum 88 was to reject I-1000, thereby continuing to ban affirmative action in Washington. Voters rejected I-1000 in a vote of 50.56% to 49.44%.
Overview
What was I-1000 designed do?
Initiative 1000 was designed to allow affirmative action without the use of quotas by the state of Washington. This means that characteristics such as race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, sexual orientation, disability, or veteran status could be used as factors when considering a person for public education or public employment opportunities. I-1000 was designed to ban preferential treatment, meaning those characteristics could not be the sole factor when considering a person for education or employment opportunities. The measure was designed to create the Governor's Commission on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion which is responsible for ensuring compliance with the measure, and is required to issue an annual report on the progress of state agencies in achieving the measure's goal of "guaranteeing every resident of Washington state equal opportunity and access to public education, public employment."[1]
What is affirmative action?
Affirmative action refers to the steps taken by employers and universities to increase the proportions of historically disadvantaged minority groups at those institutions. Historically, affirmative action nationwide has taken many different forms, such as strict quotas, extra outreach efforts, and racial and gender preferences. However, racial quotas in university admissions were banned in a 1978 United States Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.[2] To read more about affirmative action in Washington, click here.
Measure design
To read about what I-1000 was designed to do, click here.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for this initiative would have appeared as follows:[3]
| “ |
Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerns remedying discrimination and affirmative action. This measure would allow the state to remedy discrimination for certain groups and to implement affirmative action, without the use of quotas or preferential treatment (as defined), in public education, employment, and contracting. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ] [4] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this initiative would have appeared as follows:[3]
| “ |
This measure would allow the state to remedy documented or proven discrimination against, or underrepresentation of, certain disadvantaged groups. It would allow the state to implement affirmative action in public education, employment, and contracting if the action does not use quotas or preferential treatment. It would define affirmative action and preferential treatment. The measure would establish a Governor's commission on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and require the commission to draft implementing legislation and publish reports. [4] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure can be read below.[1]
A Chinese translation of the full text of Initiative 1000 was provided to Ballotpedia by Bruce Huang, an English/Mandarin/Cantonese/Sichuanese Linguist. Click here to read this translation.
Support
Click here to read about supporters of I-1000.
Opposition
Click here to read about opponents of I-1000.
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $444,810.94 |
| Opposition: | $0.00 |
Updated campaign finance information for Referendum 88/Initiative 1000 can be found here.
Ballotpedia identified one committee registered in support of the measure: One WA Equality Campaign. The committee reported $444,810.94 in contributions and $686,737.49 in expenditures. The campaign also reported outstanding debts totaling $1.32 million.[5] The top contributor to the committee was Foster Pepper which gave $228,641.57 in in-kind contributions.[6]
Ballotpedia had not identified any committees registered with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) to oppose I-1000. If you are aware of a committee registered to oppose this measure, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.[6]
Support
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Top donors
Below are the donors who gave $15,000 or more to the One WA Equality Campaign.[6]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vulcan Inc | $25,000.00 | $8,126.00 | $33,126.00 |
| Puyallup Tribe of Indians | $25,000.00 | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
| WA Indian Gaming Association | $15,000.00 | $0.00 | $15,000.00 |
| Tulalip Tribes of Washington | $10,000.00 | $0.00 | $10,000.00 |
| Foster Pepper | $0.00 | $228,641.57 | $228,641.57 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Background
Affirmative action
Affirmative action in Washington refers to the steps taken by employers and universities in Washington to increase the proportions of historically disadvantaged minority groups at those institutions. Historically, affirmative action nationwide has taken many different forms, such as strict quotas, extra outreach efforts, and racial and gender preferences. However, racial quotas in university admissions were banned in a 1978 United States Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.[7] To read more about affirmative action in Washington, click here.
Washington Initiative 200 (1998)
Washington I-200 appeared on the ballot as an Initiative to the Legislature for the election on November 3, 1998. I-200 was sponsored by Tim Eyman, a frequent sponsor of initiatives in Washington. Voters approved I-200 in a vote of 58.22% to 41.78%. I-200 prohibited public institutions from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the areas of public education, public employment, and public contracting.[8][9]
The Washington Supreme Court has interpreted I-200 as prohibiting "reverse discrimination where race or gender is used by [the] government to select a less qualified applicant over a more qualified applicant." The Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson issued an opinion in 2017 stating, "I-200 does not prohibit all race- and sex-conscious measures. Rather, it prohibits only measures that have the effect of elevating less qualified contractors over more qualified contractors."[10]
Affirmative action bans in other states
As of 2019, seven other states banned affirmative action at public universities. In Arizona, California, Michigan, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, the bans were put on the statewide ballot and approved by voters. In New Hampshire, the ban was passed by the legislature. In Florida, Governor Jeb Bush created the ban through executive order.[11]
The following constitutional amendments prohibited discriminating against or granting 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:
- California Proposition 209, Affirmative Action Initiative (1996)
- Michigan Proposal 2, Affirmative Action Initiative (2006)
- Nebraska Measure 424, Affirmative Action Initiative (2008)
- Oklahoma State Question 759, Affirmative Action Amendment (2012)
The Oklahoma measure was referred to the ballot by the state legislature while the California, Michigan, and Nebraska measures were initiated by citizens.
The Arizona Proposition 107 of 2010, a legislatively referred amendment, banned affirmative action programs in the state that were administered by statewide or local units of government, including state agencies, cities, counties, community colleges, and school districts.
Path to the ballot
The state process
In Washington, the number of signatures required to qualify an indirectly initiated state statute—called an Initiative to the Legislature in Washington—for the ballot is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast for the office of governor at the last regular gubernatorial election. Initial filings for indirect initiatives cannot be made more than 10 months before the regular session at which their proposal would be presented to lawmakers. Signatures must be submitted at least 10 days prior to the beginning of the legislative session in the year of the targeted election.
The requirements to get an Initiative to the Legislature certified for the 2019 ballot:
- Signatures: 259,622 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was January 4, 2019.
The secretary of state verifies the signatures using a random sample method. If the sample indicates that the measure has sufficient signatures, the measure is certified to appear before the legislature. If the legislature does not approve the measure, it is certified to appear on the ballot. However, if the sample indicates that the measure has insufficient signatures, every signature is checked. Under Washington law, a random sample result may not invalidate a petition.
Details about this initiative
- Nathaniel Jackson submitted this initiative on July 31, 2018. Nathaniel Jackson and Estela Ortega filed similar versions of the measure, Initiatives #981-999, which the sponsors did not circulate petitions for.[3]
- A ballot title and summary were issued for Initiative 1000 on August 22, 2018.[3]
- Tim Eyman filed a challenge to the ballot title in Thurston County Superior Court. A hearing was expected to take place on October 9, 2018.[12]
- The Washington secretary of state's office confirmed to Ballotpedia that sponsors of Initiative 1000 submitted signatures on January 4, 2019.[13]
- On February 7, 2019, the measure was certified to the legislature after enough signatures were found to be valid. Proponents submitted 395,938 signatures. Using a random sample method, the secretary of state's office found that 76 percent of the signatures were valid.[14]
Legislative approval
The state legislature approved I-1000 on April 28, 2019, largely along party lines with all votes in favor coming from Democratic legislators. I-1000 was approved in a vote of 56-42 in the House and 26-22 in the Senate. In the House, one Democrat, Brian Blake of District 19b, joined all House Republicans in voting no. Two Senate Democrats, Mark Mullet of District 5 and Tim Sheldon of District 35, joined the 20 Senate Republicans in voting no. Senator Guy Palumbo (D-1) was excused from voting.[15]
See also
External links
- Click here to see active external links regarding Referendum 88 on the 2019 ballot.
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedText - ↑ Oyez, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke," accessed February 11, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedSoS - ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Included in the total contributions are loans totaling $23,000, which Ballotpedia counts as a cash contribution unless and until the loan is reported as repaid. $18,000 of the loans were forgiven.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Washington Public Disclosure Commission, "Statewide Initiative Committees," accessed July 30, 2019
- ↑ Oyez, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke," accessed February 11, 2015
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Affirmative Action: State Action," accessed April 21, 2015
- ↑ Washington State Legislature, "RCW 49.60.400," accessed May 6, 2015
- ↑ Washington State Office of the Attorney General, "USE OF RACE- OR SEX-CONSCIOUS MEASURES OR PREFERENCES TO REMEDY DISCRIMINATION IN STATE CONTRACTING," accessed August 9, 2019
- ↑ The Century Foundation, "What Can We Learn from States That Ban Affirmative Action?" accessed August 21, 2019
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff, telephone communication with Nathaniel Jackson, September 19, 2018
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff, telephone communication with the Washington secretary of state's office, January 4, 2019
- ↑ Washington Secretary of State's Office, "Initiative Petition Status," accessed February 7, 2019
- ↑ Washington Legislature, "Initiative 1000 legislative votes," accessed April 29, 2019
 |
State of Washington Olympia (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
