Signature verification delays Racial Privacy Initiative vote

By Robert Salonga
DAILY BRUIN SENIOR STAFF
[email protected]

The next step in Regent Ward Connerly’s fight to end
racial classification in the state will now have to wait until
2004, and proponents are banking on California’s voters not
showing up to the polls.

Verifying the required 670,816 petition signatures for the
Racial Privacy Initiative took longer than the state’s June
27 deadline ““ an outcome the Connerly-backed American Civil
Rights Coalition claims to have strategized earlier in their
campaign.

The initiative would bar the state from collecting and
maintaining almost any type of race-based data, with exceptions
including medical research and prisons.

ACRC Executive Director Kevin Nguyen has said all along that
they preferred the 2004 ballot to avoid this November’s
gubernatorial election and to have more time to further publicize
the initiative and raise additional funds.

In April the ACRC said it would submit just enough signatures to
trigger a full count verification by the California Secretary of
State office. The idea worked as planned, and the delay in counting
will likely place the RPI on the March 2004 ballot alongside the
presidential primary election.

“There’s nothing lost by postponing it,”
Connerly said. “We know we have enough to qualify.
That’s the important thing.”

The typically low voter turnout that accompanies a presidential
primary would also be advantageous to the campaign, Nguyen
said.

“The small universe of voters that will turn out helps us
focus our message in a more efficient way,” he said.

But he dismissed the idea that low turnout would not constitute
a mandate by California voters.

“You can’t rob a ballot proposition of legitimacy
because of voter turnout,” Nguyen said. “That’s
not reasonable under our system of democracy.”

Even if the RPI ended up on the November ballot, Connerly
predicted that it would be approved by 60 percent of the vote.

The 1996 ballot initiative Proposition 209 that banned the use
of race and gender preferences in hiring and admissions by state
agencies ““ which Connerly also spearheaded ““ passed
with 54 percent of the vote.

But the issue is not nearly as two-sided as it was six years
ago. Connerly successfully polarized the state as being either for
or against affirmative action, making the vote clear-cut.
It’s trickier now with the RPI because its effects are not as
foreseeable.

The ACRC hopes to use its newfound 18-month extension to make
its stances clear to voters. Many are concerned about the negative
impacts the RPI could have on sociological and public policy
research, which often relies on state-collected data.

“Social sciences data collection would be hampered,”
said Regent Velma Montoya. “I don’t want professors to
be thwarted.”

Others worry about decreased state accountability if the RPI
ever meets voter approval.

“˜”˜It’s very important for the people in the
state of California to know if their government is discriminating
against them,” said Michael Harris, assistant director
for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco.

“˜”˜There’s just no good reason to become
ignorant about things like that that are profoundly
important,” he continued.

Connerly scoffed at any notions about hampering research
institutes dependent on state data.

“It may impair social science researchers who want the
government to gather data for them,” he said. “That
doesn’t mean you can’t collect it on your
own.”

The ACRC also plans on spending the extra time rebuilding its
campaign war chest, since it has spent more than $2 million this
year alone.

With reports from the Associated Press.