Democrats Turn A Deaf Ear To Public Opinion On Race

Ward Connerly, the father of California’s Proposition 209 that banned racial preferences, was also a leader in the effort to pass a similar state-wide initiative, I-200, in Washington state. As he has pointed out,

I-200 was opposed by the popular Democratic governor of Washington, the Washington Democratic Party, the largest employers in Washington—Boeing, Microsoft, U.S. Bank, Weyerhaeuser, Eddie Bauer Company—and those who lay claim to being civil rights champions: the Urban League, the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, and others. The initiative was also opposed by virtually every newspaper in Washington, particularly the Seattle Times, whose publisher donated full-page ads worth more than $200,000 to defeat the measure. Vice President Al Gore made four trips to Washington to raise funds and speak out against I-200.

On November 3, 1998, I-200 was approved by 58% of the voters, including 80% of Republican voters, 62% of independents, 54% of labor, a majority of women, and 41% of Democrats.

Now, according to an article in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education, Washington’s Democratic governor, Gary Locke, the same governor who led the opposition to I-200 in 1998, plans to ask state lawmakers to set I-200 aside and allow the state colleges once again to award preferences based on race.

So much for the voice of the people. If you don’t like what they say, ignore them.

Gov. Locke’s request is not itself illegal, since Washington’s constitution provides that laws that come into being through voter initiative can be amended by a majority vote in each chamber of the legislature after two years.

What is legal, of course, is not necessarily wise, a point that is highlighted by Gov. Locke’s disingenuous (at best) and highly misleading explanation of his intent to disregard the opinions of a substantial majority of the voters in his state:

The intent of his proposal is “bringing our admissions processes in line with the U.S. Supreme Court decisions,” Kirsten Kendrick, a spokeswoman for Governor Locke, said Tuesday.

But the Supreme Court did not require or even encourage states to practice racial preference. All it did (“all”!?) was refuse to assert that racial preferences are prohibited by the Constitution. Thus I-200’s ban on racial preferences is already perfectly “in line” with the Court’s ruling.

What is out of alignment is the view of a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court (and most Democrats, as exemplified by Gov. Locke) and the views on the propriety of preferences held by a substantial majority of Americans.

Say What? (2)

  1. Sandy P. January 14, 2004 at 11:21 pm | | Reply

    I used to be on a website w/other Washingtonians (?). Not the first time Locke has gone against his constituents wishes.

  2. Jennifer Swain November 18, 2004 at 6:20 pm | | Reply

    I’m doing a report on retail discrimination. Do you guys have anything on the EDDIE BAUER CHAIN?

Say What?