Monday, 8/25/97 Court denies appeal of Prop. 209 AFFIRMATIVE
Supreme Court gets extension to consider review of case before
initiative takes effect
By Tyler Maxwell Daily Bruin Senior Staff Proposition 209, the
voter-approved initiative banning race and gender preferences, will
go into effect within two weeks if the U.S. Supreme Court does not
agree to review the case. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
refused Thursday to reconsider a 3-0 ruling by a panel of the court
that found Prop. 209 to be a constitutional declaration of
neutrality and equality  not the state-sanctioned
discrimination portrayed by civil rights groups. Under the appeals
court¹s rules, the decision would normally become final in
seven days. However, the court has ordered a brief extension on the
seven days. No explanation was given for the extension. After that,
Prop. 209 would take effect unless the court issued a stay that
would prevent implementation. However, a stay from the same panel
that upheld the measure is unlikely. The next step for the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the main legal opponent of Prop. 209,
is to seek a stay from the 9th District Court, as well as the U.S.
Supreme Court, for the duration of the appeal, which could last at
least until next summer if the court accepts the case. ³This
is the first time in the nation¹s history that state and local
government have had their hands tied when it comes to remedying
past discrimination against minorities and women,¹¹ said
ACLU lawyer Mark Rosenbaum. Gov. Pete Wilson praised the decision,
saying in a statement that it ³has now ruled very clearly and
very forcefully that 209, as the people of California well
understood when they voted for it, means an end to racial, ethnic
and gender discrimination.² Rosenbaum predicted that the
Supreme Court would review the case. Others were not so optimistic.
³I don¹t expect the Supreme Court to review the case in
light of its past decisions regarding these issues,² said
Raymund Paredes, UCLA¹s vice chancellor for academic
development. ³Prop. 209 is now the law in California and we
now have to proceed accordingly.² Time will tell who is right
about whether the Supreme Court decides to review the case.
³The Supreme Court has complete discretion about whether to
review a case when asked,² said Jonathan Varat, professor of
law at UCLA law school. ³The court is asked to review about
6,000 cases a year reviewed in lower courts, and they actually
review about 100.² This is a very high profile case, and that
increases its chances of being accepted by the Supreme Court.
³There is a fifty-fifty chance that it will be reviewed by the
Supreme Court,² said Varat. Despite the loss of affirmative
action, the UC campuses are committed to maintaining diversity.
³I think this presents us with a great challenge,² said
Paredes. ³We are going to have to maintain diversity without
affirmative action.² Robert Naples is a member of the UCLA
task force on Prop. 209, formed during Chancellor Charles
Young¹s tenure. Should 209 become law in the near future,
UCLA¹s current plan is to follow the procedures outlined in a
directive issued by Chancellor Young last May. Prop. 209, approved
by 54 percent of the voters, would prohibit preferences based on
race or sex in state and local government employment, education and
contracting. Enforcement of the initiative was barred three weeks
after the election by Chief U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson
of San Francisco, who said opponents were likely to prove it
unconstitutional. Some Republicans in Congress have threatened him
with impeachment because of the ruling. But a three-judge panel of
the appeals court overruled Henderson on April 8, saying not only
that opponents were not entitled to an injunction against the
measure but also that it was clearly constitutional. Prop. 209
³addresses in neutral fashion race-related and gender-related
matters² in the spirit of the constitutional guarantee of
equal protection under the law, said Judge Diarmuid
O¹Scannlain about the 3-0 decision. He said affirmative action
programs based on preferences are constitutionally suspect, hurt
some while helping others, and can be abolished by a state. With
Daily Bruin wire reports. Previous Daily Bruin Story Passage of
Prop. 209 renews debate Enforcement of Proposition 209 blocked by
federal judge