Watch the Event Promo

If you or someone you know has received a UC rejection letter, you are not alone — and you are not out of options.

SVCAF, in partnership with SARD (Students for Admissions Reform and Diversity), is hosting a free community forum featuring a nationally recognized expert on college admissions policy.

Event Details

• 📅 Date: Sunday, April 5, 2026
• ⏰ Time: 8:00 PM Pacific Time
• 💻 Format: Zoom (Free · Open to All)
• 🎤 Featured Speaker: Professor Richard Sander — UCLA School of Law, Founder of SARD
• 🎙️ Host: Jason Xu — SARD Board Member & Former SVCA Foundation President

About the Speaker

Professor Richard Sander is a law professor at UCLA School of Law and the founder of SARD. He is one of the nation’s leading researchers on college admissions policy and has spent decades advocating for transparency and fairness in university admissions.

What You Will Learn

• Why UC rejections happen — and what the data really shows
• Your rights and options after a rejection
• How to appeal, transfer, or explore alternative pathways
• Policy context: what is changing in college admissions and what it means for you

Register Now — Free!

This event is open to all community members. Register via Zoom to secure your spot:

👉 Click here to register on Zoom

Learn more about SARD at sard.law.

About SVCAF

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is a California nonprofit focused on civic education, engagement, and community empowerment. Learn more at svcaf.org.

Co-presented with SARD — Students for Admissions Reform and Diversity.

A Project by Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF)

Introduction

The Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is committed to empowering civic engagement, particularly among Chinese American communities. We believe that technology, especially artificial intelligence (AI), can bridge the gap between citizens and the legislative process.

With this vision, we are launching AI4Legislation, an open competition that invites innovators to develop and submit open-source, public domain AI tools that make legislation more transparent, understandable, and accessible to the public. The competition will engage participants nationwide, encouraging youth, civic leaders, technologists, and legal professionals to contribute AI-driven solutions that foster greater civic participation.

This document provides an overview of the project, including goals, competition structure, volunteer roles, and how you can get involved.

1. Project Goals

AI4Legislation seeks to:

• Simplify complex legal texts using AI-powered tools to make legislative documents accessible to all.
• Enable better tracking of laws and policies by developing tools that monitor bill progress, amendments, and implementation.
• Encourage civic action by making it easier for citizens to engage with lawmakers and participate in the legislative process.
• Foster open-source solutions that remain publicly available for communities and organizations to use freely.
• Be open to US individuals and teams: The competition is open to all U.S. individuals and teams, but we especially encourage students and young professionals to participate and engage in civic technology.

Through this initiative, we aim to empower individuals and organizations with AI-driven tools that enhance democratic participation.

2. Competition Structure

The AI4Legislation competition is structured in three main phases:

📌 Phase 1: Planning and Fundraising (March-April, tentative)

• Define project milestones, competition categories, and rules.

• Develop a fundraising strategy to secure sponsorships and donations beyond SVCAF’s initial funding.

• Identify potential partners such as civic organizations, legal experts, and AI developers.

📌 Phase 2: Marketing, Outreach, and Submission Phase (May-July, tentative)

• Launch the official competition website and registration.

• Promote the competition via social media, community groups, and educational institutions.

• Conduct webinars, online Q&A sessions, and mentorship programs to support participants.

• Accept and process AI tool submissions.

📌 Phase 3: Judging, Awards, and Post-Competition Showcase (Aug-Sept, tentative)

• Assemble a panel of judges with expertise in AI, law, and civic engagement.

• Evaluate submissions based on impact, usability, and innovation.

• Announce winners and distribute awards.

• Host a showcase event (online) where winning solutions are presented and made open-source.

3. Categories of AI Solutions

Participants will compete in one or more of the following categories:

Legislative Tracking

• AI-powered tools to monitor the progress of bills, amendments, and key legislative changes.

• Dashboards and visualizations that help the public track government actions.

Bill Analysis

• AI tools that generate easy-to-understand summaries, pros/cons, and potential impacts of legislative texts.

• NLP-based applications that translate legal jargon into plain language.

Civic Action & Advocacy

• AI chatbots or platforms that help users contact their representatives, sign petitions, or organize civic actions.

• Compliance monitoring tools, including these that ensure government spending aligns with legislative budgets.

Other Innovations

• Any other AI-driven solutions that enhance public understanding and participation in legislative processes.

4. How Volunteers Can Help

To make AI4Legislation a success, we need dedicated volunteers in various roles. No matter your background, there’s a way for you to contribute! This opportunity is open to **U.S. citizens and permanent residents **only.

Project Management Team

• Lead and coordinate different phases of the competition.

• Develop and track project timelines and milestones.

• Ensure smooth communication among volunteers, participants, and partners.

Marketing & Outreach Team

• Manage social media and online campaigns to attract participants.

• Create promotional materials (flyers, videos, blog posts).

• Conduct outreach to tech communities, legal professionals, and student organizations.

Fundraising & Sponsorship Team

• Identify and reach out to potential donors, corporate sponsors, and grant programs.

• Organize fundraising events or online donation campaigns.

AI & Tech Mentors

• Provide guidance to competition participants on AI development and best practices.

• Help evaluate technical feasibility of AI submissions.

Judging & Evaluation Team

• Review and score competition submissions based on defined criteria.

• Ensure transparency and fairness in the selection process.

5. Initial Funding & Prize Pool

To support the AI4Legislation competition, SVCAF has allocated $10,000 in seed matching funds to the award prize pool. This funding will serve as the initial foundation for the competition’s prizes, with the goal of attracting additional sponsorships and donations to further expand the prize pool.

We welcome contributions from individuals, organizations, and corporate sponsors to help increase the impact of this initiative. All donations will be matched up to $10,000 by SVCAF, effectively doubling the total prize pool and providing more support to participants who develop innovative AI solutions for civic engagement.

If you or your organization are interested in supporting this initiative, please reach out to us. Every contribution helps empower civic awareness through technology!

6. Why You Should Join Us

By volunteering with AI4Legislation, you will:

• Be part of an innovative civic tech initiative that uses AI for social good.
• Work with like-minded professionals, technologists, and civic leaders.
• Gain hands-on experience in project management, marketing, AI development, or legal tech.
• Make a real impact by helping communities better understand and engage with legislation.

📢 Ready to get involved?

📌 Email: info@svcaf.org

📌 Google Sign-up Form for Volunteers: Link

📌 Competition Details: https://github.com/svcaf/2025-AI4Legislation-Public

📌 Discord server to hangout and chat：https://discord.gg/wXwFDWTdqc

Let’s bridge the gap between citizens and legislation with AI—together! 🚀

AI4Legislation：用人工智能提升公民意识与行动

硅谷华人协会基金会（SVCAF）项目

1. 项目简介

硅谷华人协会基金会（SVCAF） 致力于推动公民参与，特别是增强华裔群体在美国社会中的政治与法律意识。我们相信，人工智能（AI） 可以成为连接公民与立法过程的重要桥梁。

基于这一愿景，我们正式启动 AI4Legislation 竞赛，邀请创新者开发并提交 开源、公共领域的 AI 工具，让立法信息更透明、易懂、可行动。本次竞赛面向全美范围内的个人和团队，特别鼓励青年、科技爱好者、公民领袖和法律专业人士共同参与，贡献 AI 解决方案，推动公民对立法的广泛参与。

AI4Legislation 旨在：

• 简化复杂法律文本，利用 AI 技术让立法文件易于理解。
• 提升法律和政策的可追踪性，开发工具帮助公众跟踪法案进展、修正案和实施情况。
• 促进公民参与立法，为公众提供便捷的方式与政策制定者互动。
• 鼓励开源贡献，让竞赛产出的 AI 工具向全社会免费开放。
• 推动青年群体参与，激励学生和年轻专业人士利用 AI 赋能社会。本次竞赛对所有美国个人和团队开放，但我们特别鼓励学生和年轻专业人士参与，积极投身于公民科技领域。

我们希望通过这一项目，让公民更容易理解和参与立法，提高民主意识和行动力。

2. 竞赛流程

AI4Legislation 竞赛分为三个阶段：

📌 第一阶段：规划与筹款（3-4 月，暂定）

• 确定竞赛规则、类别和时间表。

• 设计 筹款策略，吸引更多企业、机构及个人捐助。

• 确定 合作伙伴，包括公民组织、法律专家和 AI 研发人员。

📌 第二阶段：宣传推广 & 作品提交（5-7 月，暂定）

• 启动竞赛官网和报名系统。

• 通过 社交媒体、社区组织、教育机构 进行推广。

• 开展 线上研讨会、答疑会和导师指导计划 支持参赛者。

• 开放并接受 AI 方案提交。

📌 第三阶段：评审、颁奖与成果展示（8-9 月，暂定）

• 组建 专家评审团（涵盖 AI、法律、公民参与领域）。

• 评估参赛作品，根据影响力、实用性和创新性打分。

• 公布获奖名单，颁发奖金。

• 举办 线上成果展示会，向公众开放优秀作品。

3. 竞赛类别

参赛者可选择以下类别之一或多个提交作品：

立法追踪（Legislative Tracking）

• AI 工具帮助跟踪法案进程、修正案和立法进展。

• 以可视化方式展示政府决策和政策变化。

法案解读（Bill Analysis）

• AI 生成 简明法案摘要、优劣势分析和潜在影响评估。

• 结合 NLP 技术，将法律术语转化为通俗易懂的语言。

公民行动 & 倡导（Civic Action & Advocacy）

• AI 互动平台，帮助用户 联系议员、签署请愿书或组织活动。

• 监督法律的执行，包括跟踪政府开支，确保 财政预算与立法规定相符。

其他创新（Other Innovations）

• 任何能提升公民理解立法、推动社会参与的 AI 解决方案。

4. 志愿者招募：我们需要你的加入！

AI4Legislation 的成功需要 热心志愿者 的共同努力。无论你的背景如何，都能在不同岗位贡献力量！

项目管理团队（Project Management）

• 负责竞赛整体策划与执行。

• 制定时间表，确保各阶段顺利推进。

• 维护志愿者、参赛者与合作伙伴之间的沟通。

市场推广 & 社区宣传团队（Marketing & Outreach）

• 负责社交媒体运营，扩大项目影响力。

• 制作 宣传材料（海报、短视频、博客文章）。

• 联络 技术社区、法律界人士、学生组织 进行推广。

筹款 & 赞助团队（Fundraising & Sponsorship）

• 开拓潜在捐助者、企业赞助和基金支持。

• 组织筹款活动，提高资金支持。

AI & 技术导师（AI & Tech Mentors）

• 为参赛者提供 AI 技术指导和咨询。

• 评估 AI 方案的技术可行性。

评审 & 评估团队（Judging & Evaluation）

• 参与作品评审，确保竞赛公平透明。

• 依据创新性、影响力和可行性进行评分。

5. 初始资金与奖池

为了支持 AI4Legislation 竞赛，SVCAF 已拨款 $10,000 作为种子匹配资金，用于奖池。这笔资金将作为竞赛奖金的基础，我们同时也希望通过额外的赞助和捐款进一步扩大奖池规模。

我们欢迎个人、机构和企业赞助，以增强本次竞赛的影响力。SVCAF 将提供 1:1 匹配捐款，最高匹配 $10,000，也就是说，每一笔捐款都会被 SVCAF 等额匹配，从而有效增加竞赛的总奖金，支持参赛者开发创新的 AI 解决方案，促进公民参与立法。

如果您或您的组织有兴趣支持本次活动，请与我们联系。您的每一份贡献，都将助力 AI 技术推动公民意识和行动！

6. 为什么加入我们？

加入 AI4Legislation 志愿者团队，你将：

• 参与 AI+公民科技的前沿项目，推动社会变革。
• 结识志同道合的专业人士，拓展人脉。
• 积累项目管理、技术开发和社会创新的宝贵经验。
• 为推动立法透明度和公民参与贡献实际影响。

📢 **立即加入我们！**Email: info@svcaf.org

📢 志愿者报名表：Link

📢 竞赛细则：https://github.com/svcaf/2025-AI4Legislation-Public

📢 Discord: https://discord.gg/wXwFDWTdqc

让我们携手用 AI 连接公民与立法，推动更透明、更公平的社会进步！🚀

（点击图片进行在线签名）

我需要更多帮助来阻止加州立法机构的权力扩张：上周，我在Instapundit向读者请求在反对加州立法机构试图削弱第209号提案的新努力方面提供“X/Twitter”帮助。你们做到了！感谢所有帮助的人！你们太棒了！

我有另一个请求。幸运的是，这仍然不会花费你一分钱。（如果这个愚蠢的法案通过了全民公投，那时我会开始要捐款，但我们有很大机会在加利福尼亚参议院就阻止它。）

我们的“反对ACA7”的请愿（change.org/VoteNoOnACA7）需要至少25,000个签名才能引起注意。我们可能还需要更多。幸运的是，我们还有一段时间。今天是我们第一个认真收集签名的日子。您不需要是加州人就可以签名。（但如果您是加州人，请务必包括您的邮政编码。在过去，一些立法者要求我们提供来自他们选区邮政编码的签名人数。）

如果您还能将请愿书与您的朋友或通过社交媒体分享，那将会很棒。（我们使用的社交媒体Hashtags：#KeepDiscriminationIllegal #NoACA7 #NoACA7photoparade #ACA7 will be defeated the same way as #prop16.）

(我们人民10倍行动！）

对于那些还没有关注这个问题的人来说，209号提案于1996年通过修宪，其中包括这些措辞：“州不得因种族、性别、肤色、种族或国籍而对个人或群体进行歧视或给予优惠待遇……”加州的深蓝色立法机构一直在争取废除它。他们三年前试图通过第16号提案废除它。但是加州人的压倒性投票选择了保留了宝贵的209提案内容，这让加州左派立法者们感到震惊。那是一个真正的大卫与歌利亚对战时刻；尽管对手的支出超过了我们的14倍，我们仍然赢得了胜利。

（加州宪法中209号提案内容）

对我来说，他们这么快又再次尝试令我感到惊讶。但我想我应该已经预料到了。加州赔偿问题特别委员会今年早些时候发布的报告要求削弱209号提案。它阻碍了他们的提案。就如期待的那样，加州议会投票支持了ACA7。

这次的新尝试更加狡猾。它不是试图直接废除，而是创建了一种操作，另州长可以制定“例外”。纽森州长（以及未来的州长）所需要的只是能够指出（或创建）显示种族偏好（和歧视）将是一件好事的“研究”。但在目前这个社会，任何颠覆现实，指鹿为马的“学术”研究成果都有可能横空出世，对于政府支持的种族歧视项目来说，这样的限制条件将是不值一文。

（Gail Heriot教授）

Prof. Gail Heriot “NO on ACA7 ”主席 （2024） “No on Prop 16″ 联合主席 （2020） “Yes on Prop 209″ 联合主席 （1996） 圣地亚哥大学法学教授 美国民权委员会成员

请大家尽快签署NoACA7在线情愿书（https://www.change.org/VoteNoOnACA7），并传播给至少10个朋友，更多ACA7内容，请移步https://noonaca7.org.

具体来说，Santa Clara County ROV选务总部的负责人单方面决定, 无论是Vote in person(VIP), 即现场投票，或者是Vote by Mail (VBM)就是邮寄选票，如果是under vote 的选票都要经过人工审核。那么**什么是under vote 呢？举例来说，一个职位或提案你空着没选, 就是under vote。**比如在学区委员的选项中，如果有多个候选人竞选三个职位的话，选票中写的是选择no more than three就是不能超过三人，但是如果你只选其中一位心仪的候选人，空着其他两个选择的话，这样的选票也属于under vote。Under vote是非常正常, 合法的选票，选民的意图非常的明确。特别是在Vote In Person (VIP)现场投票的过程中，如果你的选票中有under vote的情况，在经过扫描机时，扫描机会自动提示，让你确认是不是你有意这么选的，你有机会去确认或者修改。然而对于这些under vote 的选票却在选务总部ROV, 在选民们毫不知情的情况下被挑出来，先搁置，再经过人工审核—-即审核人员审核整个选票从而再次确定选民的意图！

加州的选举法明确规定under vote 的选票是应被选举系统按选民意愿接受而不被更改的。对于ROV 这种令人难以置信，明显违反选举法规的做法我们强烈反对并坚决曝光。如果您也认为ROV 无权对我们的合法，正常选票进行人工审核，垦请您加入我们一起对Santa Clara County ROV 的这个违规做法说“不！”。 我们反对ROV 对under vote 的选票进行人工审核的主要原因如下： 1.违反加州选举法规。 2.侵犯选民应被保护的选举隐私，以至影响选民对选举完整性的信心。 3.引入不必要的人工干预和出错机率。特别是现场投票己被确认过。 4.显著增加计票时间。 5.浪费纳税人的钱。

选举过程的正义，是美国民主制度的保障，是选民对美国政治制度的信心所在，这高于任何的政治党派和团体的利益，我们硅谷华人协会基金会强烈建议所有圣县的注册选民都行动起来，向圣县的参事质疑SCCROV的做法， 督促Santa Clara County ROV做正确的事：停止对Under Vote进行人工干预！

请在我们准备好的抗议书上上签名。强烈要求SCCROV尽快改变做法，停止对under vote 的选票进行人工审核

如果您是Santa Clara县的注册选民，请点击链接https://tinyurl.com/2vpe88ym进行签名。希望所有关心加州选举系统公平、公正、完整，透明的朋友们加入我们，献计献策，出力参与，力促这件事情的成功！

以下是签名过程的具体图示：

步骤1: 点击 https://tinyurl.com/2vpe88ym

步骤2: 点击 “Continue” 按钮开始签名过程：

步骤3: 点击 “Click here to sign”,并在弹出窗口输入您注册选民的时候用的名字，再点击”Apply”按钮,您的电子签名和姓名会被自动填入电子文档。

步骤4: 点击文档末尾的 “Click to Sign”按钮，并在弹出窗口输入您的电子邮件地址。

**步骤5: **查看您的电子邮箱，搜索刚刚收到的email，其标题为: “Please confirm your signature on Adjudication Demand Letter”, 来自”Adobe Sign”:

**步骤 6: **点击email里面的 “Confirm my email address“，然后会看到一个绿色的消息： “Your e-signing of Adjudication Demand Letter has been verified. A copy of the signed document is being sent to you.” 此时便大功告成!

欲了解更多详情，请访问SVCAF网站。

Sep 22, 2023

Are You OK with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Second Guessing Your Vote?

For the last four years, Group of Santa Clara County Citizens been Citizen Observers of the Ballot Processing and Vote Tabulation Processes at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (SCCROV). They have discovered during our observations that the SCCROV unilaterally has made the executive decision to suspend and manually **“Adjudicate and Determine the Voter’s Intent” **for Under-Votes on all Voters’ Mail-In and Vote-in-Person Ballots.

The SCCROV’s actions are especially egregious for the In-Person Voter who fills out a paper ballot and scans their ballot using the ICP scanner/tabulator machine. The scanner allows the Voter to review their voting choices on its LCD screen. The ICP scanner/tabulator machine informs the Voter of an **under-vote **condition. It provides the Voter option to confirm or redo their choices. In this case, manually Adjudicating a ballot when the Voter has confirmed their vote in person on the machine is clearly unacceptable.  

The SCCROV’s actions are in Violation of California Election Code Section 19101, California Code Regulation 20982, California Voting System Standard Section 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3 and other relevant election codes and laws. The SCCROV’s unilateral decision violates Voters’ Constitutional Rights to choose not to vote for a particular ballot contest without interference. It creates the opportunity for the Voter’s vote to be tampered with and changed without the Voter’s knowledge.

Federal, State and Local laws do not grant the SCCROV the right to review and suspend Voters’ ballots before tabulating their votes. The SCCROV’s “**Adjudication” **process to determine Voter Intent when the Voter’s Intent by No Vote decisions are clear on their ballots. The ROV’s actions deprive all Santa Clara County Voters of their Constitutional and Civil Rights to a safe, secure, private and accurate voting process. 

An Under-Vote is defined as a No Vote. The Voter decides not to vote for any of the Candidates running in one or more contests, or Proposition and Referendum Measures, by not marking the ballot accordingly. Also, when there are multiple candidates running in a contest, such as in School Board, State and County Judicial Offices, City and Town Council contests and the ballot instructs the Voter to vote for two, three, four or five and the Voter votes for less than the number instructed for the contest.

All Santa Clara County Voters need to contact the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and demand that they direct the SCCROV to cease and desist the **Adjudication **process for under votes for any future elections, and especially fix the vote tabulating for this 2024 election.

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) firmly supports this cause, to make sure Santa Clara’s citizen’s voice get heard by Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and SCCROV, and resolve any election code violation issues.

SVCAF calls for every Santa Clara voter to sign this demand letter to urge Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to stop SCCROV from the manual adjudication process for under votes. If you are a Santa Clara voter, please follow the link https://tinyurl.com/2vpe88y and e-sign the demand.

Below are step-by-step illustration.

Step 1: Click this link (https://tinyurl.com/2vpe88ym)

Step 2: Click “Continue” Button to start the E-sign in the opened doc

Step 3: Click “Click here to sign”, in the popup window, input your full name, click “Apply”, then your Signature and Printed Name will be automatically filled into the doc.

Step 4: Press “Click to Sign” button and input your email address

**Step 5: **Check your email inbox for the confirmation with title: “Please confirm your signature on Adjudication Demand Letter”, from “Adobe Sign”:

**Step 6: **Click “Confirm my email address” link within the email, and when you see the green banner with text: “Your e-signing of Adjudication Demand Letter has been verified. A copy of the signed document is being sent to you.” done!

**Please help spread the word, and collect more signatures. The follow-up updates will be posted on this page as well, so please do visit this page from time to time. **

For media contact: info@svcaf.org

大家好！美国2022年至关重要的中期选举基本尘埃落定了，由于邮寄选票众多，很多我们关心的选举结果是在选举日过去好多天才最终出炉。聚焦到我们Santa Clara County，选举日过去了十几天才有结果，大量的邮寄选票在ROV（Registrar of voters)，即选务总部被处理，数算。

然而我们绝大多数选民不知道的是，我们的选票有可能正在选举总部被人工审核(manual Adjudication)。具体来说，Santa Clara County ROV选务总部的负责人单方面决定, 无论是Vote in person(VIP), 即现场投票，或者是Vote by Mail (VBM)就是邮寄选票，如果是under vote 的选票都要经过人工审核。**什么是under vote 呢？举例来说，一个职位或提案你空着没选, 就是under vote。**比如在学区委员的选项中，如果有多个候选人竞选三个职位的话，选票中写的是选择no more than three就是不能超过三人，但是如果你只选其中一位心仪的候选人，空着其他两个选择的话，这样的选票也属于under vote。Under vote是非常正常, 合法的选票，选民的意图非常的明确。特别是在Vote In Person (VIP)现场投票的过程中，如果你的选票中有under vote的情况，在经过扫描机时，扫描机会自动提示，让你确认是不是你有意这么选的，你有机会去确认或者修改。然而对于这些under vote 的选票却在选务总部ROV, 在选民们毫不知情的情况下被挑出来，先搁置，再经过人工审核—-即审核人员审核整个选票从而再次确定选民的意图！

加州的选举法明确规定under vote 的选票是应被选举系统按选民意愿接受而不被更改的。对于ROV 这种令人难以置信，明显违反选举法规的做法，我们在经过多人,多次观察，取证，书面核实后，对ROV 正式发函提出要求，敦请ROV 负责人改变做法，立即停止对under vote 选票进行人工审核。信函于2022年10月24日用验证邮件certified mail方式寄到ROV。ROV 在10月31日给我们的回复中对undervote 的选票执行人工审核的做法没有提出任何法律、法规的依据却无意改变此操作。对于这次中期选举的under vote 的选票，无论是现场投票VIP, 还是邮寄选票VBM, 都会在ROV 被人工审核, 即manually adjudicated。

如果您也认为ROV 无权对我们的合法，正常选票进行人工审核，垦请您加入我们一起对Santa Clara County ROV 的这个违规做法说“不！”。 我们反对ROV 对under vote 的选票进行人工审核的主要原因如下： 1.违反加州选举法规。 2.侵犯选民应被保护的选举隐私，以至影响选民对选举完整性的信心。 3.引入不必要的人工干预和出错机率。特别是现场投票己被确认过。 4.显著增加计票时间。 5.浪费纳税人的钱。

对此，您可以直接找ROV 质疑，反对。也可以在我们给ROV 的信（petition letter） 上签名。要求其改变做法，停止对under vote 的选票进行人工审核。

签名的步骤如下：(需是Santa Clara County 注册选民）

• 下载并打印 this petition letter (PDF)。

• 在信末尾部分写下您的姓名，地址，日期并签字。

• 将信寄到 Alice Kao, P.O. Box 10472，San Jose, CA 95157， 由我们统一送到ROV

• 在此处登记, 以便统计有多少人签名。签名情况会定期公布、更新。

欲了解更多详情，请访问SVCAF网站。

选举过程的正义，是美国民主制度的保障，是选民对美国政治制度的信心所在，这高于任何的政治党派和团体的利益，我们硅谷华人协会基金会强烈建议所有圣县的注册选民都行动起来，督促Santa Clara County ROV做正确的事：停止对Under Vote进行人工干预！

希望所有关心加州选举系统公平、公正、完整，透明的朋友们加入我们，献计献策，出力参与，力促这件事情的成功！

Election Integrity Project® California (EIPCa) 是一个由美国公民志愿者组成的无党派团体，旨在通过保护我们的自由和方式的投票过程的完整性来履行我们积极参与我们州/国家治理的责任。 EIPCa 志愿者通过在政府部门中保持积极作用来保护我们的共和国，一个民有政府，民有政府，民享政府，赋予公民我们最基本的权利——通过公平和诚实的选举选择我们的代表的权利。

最近（2022年11月21日）加州第九巡回法院裁定：选举诚信项目®加利福尼亚州有资格挑战加利福尼亚州的选举法律、法规和程序。法庭认为：选举诚信项目®加利福尼亚州 (EIPCa) 以及最近和未来的国会候选人有权挑战加州选举法律、法规、政策和程序的合宪性，因为它们涉嫌 削弱或消除选举过程中的诚信。尽管宪法赋予州立法者通过法律来管理选举和处理选票的权力，但 EIPCa 声称他们没有全权通过降低合法选票价值的法律的权力。

该决定将诉讼发回下级法院取证，这是诉讼的下一阶段。

在过去十年中，加利福尼亚州通过的法律、行政命令和法规导致了大量违规行为，在 2020 年大选中达到顶峰，当时纽森州长授权向选民名册上的所有“活跃”登记人邮寄选票，前国务卿亚历克斯帕迪拉废除了签名验证要求。 EIPCa 收到了 700 多份受过 EIPCa 培训的观察员签署的宣誓书，如果作伪证将受到处罚，这些观察员一直报告说选举工作人员没有充分核实签名，在某些情况下，还对没有签名的选票进行清点。

由于州立法机关和亚历克斯帕迪拉都不规定统一和安全的投票和计票程序，因此各县采用的投票程序参差不齐。 EIPCa 及其共同原告对纽森州长、司法部长、国务卿和 13 个县登记官提起了诉讼。

“这起诉讼具有里程碑意义，因为它是第一次挑战加州选举法和程序的合宪性，而我们是第一个取得诉讼资格的人，”为信仰与自由倡导者工作的首席律师玛丽亚·贡代罗 (Mariah Gondeiro) 说。 “如果我们赢了，加州将被要求执行安全和统一的投票和计票程序。”

“十多年来，选举诚信项目®California EIPCa 主席琳达·潘恩 (Linda Paine) 说：“我们研究并记录了加州选举过程的各个方面，并确定了这些法律如何将选举日变成了充满易于操纵程序的 60 天选举季。” “我们现在看到全国各州的加州风格法律造成了同样的问题，这些问题多年来在加州由接受过 EIPCa 培训的观察员已经目睹和记录过。”

关于 Election Integrity Project®California, Inc. (EIPCa) (www.eip-ca.com)：捐款链接： https://www.eip-ca.com/donate/ 需要配捐的请发送收据到 info@svcaf.org 。

Election Integrity Project®California, Inc. (“EIPCa”) 是一家加州501C3非营利性公益公司，致力于通过教育捍卫自己的利益、研究和倡导美国公民根据联邦和州法律充分参与选举过程的公民权利。

The Election Integrity Project® California (EIPCa) is a nonpartisan group of U.S. citizen volunteers seeking to fulfill our duty to actively participate in the governing of our state/country by helping to ensure the integrity of the voting process that protects our freedoms and way of life. EIPCa volunteers seek to protect our Republic, a government of, by, and for the people by maintaining an active role in that part of government which empowers citizens with our most fundamental right ~ the right to choose our representatives by fair and honest elections.

11/21/2022, Santa Clarita, California – The Ninth Circuit has ruled that Election Integrity Project®California (EIPCa) and recent and future congressional candidates have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of California’s election laws, regulations, policies and procedures that have weakened or removed integrity from the election process. Though the Constitution gives authority to state legislators to pass laws to manage elections and process ballots, EIPCa asserts they do not have carte blanche authority to pass laws that diminish the value of the lawfully cast ballots.

The decision remanded the lawsuit to the lower court for discovery, which is the next phase of the litigation.

Over the last decade California has passed laws, orders and regulations that have led to massive irregularities, culminating in the 2020 election, when Governor Newsom authorized mailing a ballot to all “active” registrants on the voter rolls and former Secretary of State Alex Padilla gutted signature verification requirements. EIPCa received over 700 affidavits signed under penalty of perjury from EIPCa-trained observers who consistently reported election workers not adequately verifying signatures and, in some cases, counting ballots without signatures.

Because neither the state legislature nor Alex Padilla required uniform and secure vote casting and counting procedures, uneven procedures were applied across counties. EIPCa and its co-plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Governor Newsom, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and thirteen country registrars.

“This lawsuit is monumental because it is the first to challenge the constitutionality of California’s election laws and procedures, and we are the first to get past standing,” says Mariah Gondeiro, the lead attorney who works for Advocates for Faith and Freedom. “If we win, California will be required to enforce secure and uniform vote casting and vote counting procedures.”

“For over a decade, Election Integrity Project®California has researched and documented every aspect of California’s election process and identified how these laws transformed an Election Day into a 60-day election season fraught with easy to manipulate procedures,” says Linda Paine, President of EIPCa. “We are now seeing California Style laws in states across the country creating the same problems that have been witnessed and documented by EIPCa-trained observers in California for years.”

Donation Link: https://www.eip-ca.com/donate/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dec 04, 2022

A group of Santa Clara citizens contacted the Registrar of Voters of Santa Clara County (SCCROV) during 2022 election season, and they have discovered and confirmed with SCCROV that all the under votes are being manually adjudicated.

Below is a summary of the discovery, by Mr. Ronald J. Meyer.

Are You OK with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Second Guessing Your Vote?

For the last three years, a Group of Santa Clara County Citizens and I have been Citizen Observers of the Ballot Processing and Vote Tabulation Processes at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (SCCROV). We have discovered during our observations that the SCCROV unilaterally has made the executive decision to suspend and manually **“Adjudicate and Determine the Voter’s Intent” **for Under-Votes on all Voters’ Mail-In and Vote-in-Person Ballots.

The SCCROV’s actions are especially egregious for the In-Person Voter who fills out a paper ballot and scans their ballot using the ICP scanner/tabulator machine. The scanner allows the Voter to review their voting choices on its LCD screen. The ICP scanner/tabulator machine informs the Voter of an **under-vote **condition. It provides the Voter option to confirm or redo their choices. In this case, manually Adjudicating a ballot when the Voter has confirmed their vote in person on the machine is clearly unacceptable.  

The SCCROV’s actions are in Violation of California Election Code Section 19101, California Code Regulation 20982, California Voting System Standard Section 3.2.2.2 and 3.2.2.3 and other relevant election codes and laws. The SCCROV’s unilateral decision violates Voters’ Constitutional Rights to choose not to vote for a particular ballot contest without interference. It creates the opportunity for the Voter’s vote to be tampered with and changed without the Voter’s knowledge.

Federal, State and Local laws do not grant the SCCROV the right to review and suspend Voters’ ballots before tabulating their votes. The SCCROV’s “**Adjudication” **process to determine Voter Intent when the Voter’s Intent by No Vote decisions are clear on their ballots. The ROV’s actions deprive all Santa Clara County Voters of their Constitutional and Civil Rights to a safe, secure, private and accurate voting process. 

An Under-Vote is defined as a No Vote. The Voter decides not to vote for any of the Candidates running in one or more contests, or Proposition and Referendum Measures, by not marking the ballot accordingly. Also, when there are multiple candidates running in a contest, such as in School Board, State and County Judicial Offices, City and Town Council contests and the ballot instructs the Voter to vote for two, three, four or five and the Voter votes for less than the number instructed for the contest.

As Concerned Santa Clara County Citizens, we are alerting All Santa Clara County Voters to contact the Santa Clara County ROV and demand that they cease and desist the **Adjudication **process for under votes for any future elections, and especially fix the vote tabulating for this 2022 election.

Ronald J. Meyer, 11/03/2022

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation firmly supports this cause, to make sure Santa Clara’s citizen’s voice get heard by SCCROV and resolve any election code violation issues.

SVCAF calls for every Santa Clara voter to send petition letter to urge SCCROV to stop the manual adjudication process for under votes. If you are a Santa Clara voter, please follow these steps:

• Download this petition letter (PDF)

• Print and sign it wet (sign on paper)

• Mail it to our dedicated PO BOX:

Alice Kao, P.O. Box 10472，San Jose, CA 95157

• (Our volunteer will send it to SCCROV in batches. This is to have a final count on how many signed petition letters have been sent to SCCROV for any further legal actions).

• Click this link and fill in the survey to help our volunteers for progress.

Please help spread the word, and collect more signatures. The follow-up updates will be posted on this page as well, so please do visit this page from time to time.

For media contact: info@svcaf.org

准备直接提交给选民的公投提案

加利福尼亚州总检察长编制了以下用于传播的主题和摘要，说明拟议措施的主要目的和要点：

**（21-0006A1）.要求加州资助宗教和其他私立学校教育。倡议推动宪法修正案和法规的推出。**要求州政府每年向就读宗教学校和其他私立学校的K-12学生的教育储蓄账户每年提供代金券（最初为14,000美元，每年调整一次）。通过通用财政收入和目前分配给公立（包括特许）学校的地方财产税收入支付资金。取消加州宪法中对宗教学校和其他私立学校使用公共资金的禁令。阻止州政府要求学校满足某些要求（包括教师资格认证、课程或监管政策）作为资助条件。教育储蓄账户中的任何多余资金均可用于符合条件的高等教育/职业学校。立法分析人士和财务总监对州和地方政府财政影响的预估摘要：为目前就读于私立学校或家庭学校的学生提供州资金资助，预计会增加州政府的年度支出，大概在47亿至70亿美元之间。根据州政府具体实施措施方式的不同，费用可以通过削减公立学校的资金和/或削减州预算中的其他项目来获得。州政府每年增加的支出费用大概至少有几十亿美元，支付给那些从公立学校转到私立学校的学生。降低公立学校的支出大致可以抵消这些支出费用。可能会降低州政府的教育公债费用，在未来几十年内每年可能达到两亿美元。（21-0006A1）

尊敬的加利福尼亚州州务卿：

我们（以下签名、已注册、合格的加利福尼亚州选民）是本请愿书签名页提及的本县居民。我们特此对加利福尼亚州宪法提出修正请求，以及对各种法规的各种修正和补充，并请求州务卿将其提交给加利福尼亚州的选民，以便他们在下一次大选或在该次大选之前举行的任何全州特别选举中投票通过或拒绝，或按照法律规定予以通过或拒绝。拟议的宪法和法定修正案及增补内容如下：

教育自由法

倡议内容

第1部分 调查结果说明和目的声明

加利福尼亚州人民发现并声明如下：

• 我们的未来取决于我们的孩子从幼儿园到高中的教育，对于那些想要接受教育的学生来说，还要完成大学或职业培训。但是，许多家长觉得他们的孩子被陷在表现不佳的学校，也没有能力为高等教育存续费用。- 教育非常重要，它能够赋予个人力量、打破世代相传的贫困死循环、减少收入不平等现象。不同种族，拥有不同经济条件的父母都希望有替代方案来取代失败的公共教育体系。但是，只有那些能够负担得起私立、教区、宗教或家庭学校学费，能够自由选择的人，才能为他们的孩子取得更好的发展成功。- 加利福尼亚州政府实际上垄断了K-12教育，学生没有就学计划可选择。教育领域缺乏竞争和创新，使得该州的K-12教育成本迅速上升，质量恶化。- 加利福尼亚州目前在K-12公立教育方面的预算约为每位学生2.1万美元，支出源自联邦、州和地方资金，用于约590万名儿童在公立学校教育。在这些款项中，州政府根据《加利福尼亚州宪法》（第98号提案）中的最低资金保障提供了大约800亿美元，即每个学生大约14,000美元。在过去十年中，K-12公立教育的花费几乎翻了一番，而我们公立学校的总入学人数却下降了。- 尽管学术考试的标准已经被逐年降低，但无论以何种标准衡量，学生的表现都在稳步恶化。加州公立学校曾经是最好的学校之一，现在是全美最差的学校之一。家庭正以创纪录的速度离开这里的教育体系。研究表明，在加利福尼亚州的许多城市人口普查区，近三分之一的公立学校教师将孩子送到私立学校。- 有人声称，向这个破败的体系投入更多资金将产生更好的结果。但事实证明，这种说法是错误的。在现有体制上增加支出并不能解决教育危机。所有儿童必须毫不拖延地平等接受优质教育，尤其是我们当中最贫穷和最脆弱的儿童，他们在当前体制下遭受的痛苦最大。只有教育竞争才能确保所有公立和私立学校追求卓越，每个孩子都能获得最适合自己需要的教育。- 目前有许多私立学校、特许学校和家庭学校为儿童提供优质教育。这些学校通常每个学生支出的费用要低得多。但是，对于许多家长来说，即便是私立教育的适度支出也超出他们的能力范围。- 现行制度损害了家庭，妨碍了父母为子女选择最佳教育机会，家长也没余力存钱支持子女接受大学或职业教育。父母是孩子的首个教育者。因此，他们必须能够在不受政府干预或经济胁迫的情况下给子女传授关于道德、知识和宗教的信息。因此，教育资金必须投入为孩子选择的学校。

因此，加州人民特此通过《教育自由法》，以实现以下所有目标：

(1) 应每个学龄儿童的家长或法定监护人的要求，或在年满18岁或已获得独立的、符合条件的学生本人的要求下，为每个学龄儿童创建一个教育储蓄账户；

(2) 为每个学生的教育储蓄账户提供1.4万美元的资金，来源于加州目前立法规定必须用于公共教育的资金，纳税人不承担额外费用；

(3)  授权家长使用教育储蓄账户中的资金，家长可以用来选择任何合格的私立学校进行注册，支付学费和其他教育费用；

(4) 确保资金只能用于符合条件的学生用于教育需要的费用，用于就读受官方认可的、满足要求的私立学校；以及

(5)  允许教育储蓄账户中任何未使用的资金以及这些资金的投资收益用于未来学年费用，并允许学生账户中的任何储蓄资金用于高等教育。

第二部分 建立教育储蓄账户计划

第19.1条（从第69995节开始）添加到《教育法》第3编第5分册第42部分第2章，内容如下：

第19.1条 教育储蓄账户计划

69995.

（a）本条也被称为，被引用为《2022年教育自由法》。

(1) 本法应按字面本身的意思进行解释，以实现其立法意图。本法的目的和所有与授予的权力有关的规定应作广义解释，以实现该意图和目的，不对权力作任何限制。

(2) 特此设立加利福尼亚州机构，名为教育储蓄账户信托（Education Savings Account Trust，“ESA信托”）。

(3)每位有资格进入公立幼儿园（“K”）和1-12年级（含）的合资学生，都有权获得一个教育储蓄账户，申请人可以是该学生的家长或法定监护人，也可在学生本人年满18岁或已获得独立的资格的情况下，要求申请账户。

(4) 每个创建教育储蓄账户并提交参与合同的人都可在其账户中获得K-12年级的存款资金，由父母、法定监护人或受益人 （如果受益人已年满18岁或独立）酌情使用， 用于支付合规的K-12费用，大学学费以及其他合规的教育费用。

(5) 自本法颁布后的第一个财政年度开始，财政部应于每年7月1日确定下一学年的年度教育储蓄账户存款金额。2023-2024学年的教育储蓄账户存款金额应为14,000美元。此后，财政部应按照《加利福尼亚州宪法》（第98号提案）第十六条第8款的要求，调整年度教育储蓄账户存款金额，调整幅度应该按照当前财政年度支出用于支持K-12教育，计算每名学生资助资金的百分比增加或减少。

(6) 对于每个学年，州财务长应从通用财政支出资金中向ESA信托基金转账，金额等于教育储蓄账户存款金额乘以根据第（c）小节建立的账户的数量。根据第69995.2（b）节第二句中的规定，学生允许学年中创建账户，所以存款金额可能低于全额调整金额。州财务长应在每个财政年度向ESA信托基金进行两次相等数额的转账，第一次转账发生在8月1日，第二次转账发生在12月31日。此类转账的金额应该调整到确保ESA账户中有足够的资金按照本法案每月支付给合资的学校。州财务长应在每年6月15日或之前向财政部和立法机构报告转账总额。本法案中没有任何规定禁止立法机构向ESA信托基金追加另外金额。

(7) 在ESA信托内，应设立两个基金，分别为ESA信托项目基金和ESA信托行政基金。尽管有《政府法典》第13340条的规定，基于本条的目的，ESA信托项目基金可以连续拨款给教育储蓄账户信托委员会用于本条规定的用途，不考虑财政年度。ESA信托中的资金只能用于本法案的目的，不得被挪用，借用，或者抵押用于任何其他目的。

ESA信托委员会

权利和责任

69995.1.

(a) ESA信托的目的、权力和职责归教育储蓄账户信托委员会（“ESA信托委员会”）所有，并应由该委员会行使。

(b)ESA信托委员会组成成员包括：根据第69984节第（a）小节第（2）段第（B）分段规定的学者共享（Scholarshare） 投资委员会成员， 无投票权的州学监，以及由积极参与以下机构/人群且被提名的一名成员组成：特许学校，非宗派私立学校、教区/宗教学校，以及在家接受教育的儿童的家长或法定监护人。每个成员都由州长任命，任期最长为四年。

(c)根据第19条（从第69980节开始），ESA信托委员会授予学者共享投资委员会所有必要的权利和责任，包括但不限于以下所有事项：

• 为了该计划的利益以及信托中的账户受益人的利益，对ESA信托中的资金进行投资，对投资和投资表现进行公开报告。投资策略应确保保留必要的资金，以充分资助本法中确定的每个ESA信托账户。
• 从符合条件的个人ESA账号分发资金，并对账户进行审计，以确保支付给符合条件的学校的所有资金都由账户受益人使用，并为账户受益人的利益而使用，促进项目的实施；
• 接受联邦、州或地方政府任何单位或任何其他个人、公司、合伙企业或公司的任何赠款、礼品、拨款和其他款项，存入行政基金或项目基金；
• 为本法案规定的目的，在ESA信托基金内重新分配无人认领的资金；
• 通过法规来实施本条款。

(d). 州财务长根据第69995节第（f）小节转账的资金应由ESA信托委员会分为项目基金和行政基金。所有支付给项目基金的款项应立即进行投资，并在每个ESA中单独核算。ESA信托的所有管理费用，包括投资管理费，均应从行政基金中支取，每年不得超过项目基金总额的百分之一（1%）。

(e)“尽管有上述条款的明确表述，但本协议授予的权力和义务不适用于ESA以外的任何账户的创建、管理或处置。本授权也不适用于与本法案的明确表述或隐含目的相冲突的任何权力或义务的行使。”

创建和管理符合条件的K-12学生账户申请

69995.2.

(a) ESA信托委员会应根据本条为家长或法定监护人创建在线申请，以申请教育储蓄账户和参与协议。ESA信托委员会也应通过邮件接受申请和协议。

(b) 根据第69995（f）节，应接受申请，并持续执行参与协议。必须在4月1日前完成参与协议的申请和签署，才能获得下一学年的全额ESA存款资金。4月2日至10月1日之间签署申请和参与协议，申请人于12月31日收到ESA存款资金，金额按从1月开始的学年剩余月份的比例计算。10月2日至次年4月1日期间收到的所有申请均在下一学年获得的全额ESA存款金额。

(c) 家长或法定监护人应确定合格学生为账户受益人，并签署参与协议。

(d) 一旦申请和参与协议完成，ESA信托委员会应将确认申请人资格所需的信息发送给负责人，负责人应确认申请人有资质或是正在合规学校就读的合格的学生，并在确认后将参与协议副本发送给合规学校。只要受益人仍有资格根据本条获得教育储蓄账户存款金额并规划资金支出，则无需额外申请或协议。但是，如果受益人在另一所符合条件的学校就读，则家长或法定监护人应修改申请和协议。

(e) 加州学监应为所有人或合规学校创建一个在线流程，方便报告不再合格的受益人，或不再在合规学校就读的情况。该流程应规定确定报告方的身份，并对恶意行为者采取保护措施。在收到报告后，负责人应向受益人的家长或法定监护人和学校发出充分通知，告知受益人的资质正在审查中，并为双方提供陈述的机会。作为资质审查流程的一部分，负责人应核实受益人是否在K-12公立学校就读，并确认受益人的资质状态。如果负责人确定受益人不再符合资格，则应向家长或法定监护人或受益人（如果受益人已年满18岁或已获得解放）、学校和ESA信托委员会提供书面决定结果。根据《行政程序法》（政府法典第2编第3部分第1部分第3.5章（从第11340节开始），家长或法定监护人可代表受益人可对该决定提出上诉，或受益人已年满18岁或已独立时可自行上诉。

(f) 任何账户余额均应保留在账户中，并继续供受益人在合规学校使用，前提是受益人符合本法规定的资质要求。如果家长或法定监护人随后让该学生在公立学校入学，则该学生在公立学校入学期间，教育储蓄账户资金和参与协议应暂停，但账户余额应保留在该账户中，以备将来为符合条件的学校支付教育费用。

创建和管理账户申请

加入学校

69995.3.

(a) 州公共教育负责人应创建一份在线申请平台，使得学校有资格根据本条从账户中获得资金，应接收上述申请，根据本法验证资质。

(b) 州公共教育负责人应每半年在加利福尼亚州教育部网站上以书面形式公布并更新符合条件的学校名单，包括地址、联系信息、网址、所服务的年级以及每所符合条件的学校每年级收取的学费。

(c) 州公共教育总监应向加利福尼亚公立学校注册学生的家长或法定监护人提供书面通知，告知其根据本法案向所有合资学生提供的权利和福利。负责人应确保在教育部网站和每个公立学校的显眼位置张贴关于根据本法案向所有合资学生提供的权利和福利的通知，确保家长、法定监护人和在校学生均可看到该通知。应家长、法定监护人或学生的要求，权利和利益通知以及本规定第（b）节所述的合规学校名单应以数字形式或印刷形式在每个公立学校网站上提供。

(d) 公立学校、学区、县教育办公室或教育部的任何代理人或员工不得恐吓、骚扰、恶意、虐待、报复或以任何其他方式阻止询问本法规定的权利和福利的家长、法定监护人或学生，也不得试图劝止家长、法定监护人或学生行使本法规定的各自权利。

(e) 负责人应为所有人或合规学校创建一个在线流程，方便报告不再合资的受益人，或不再在合规学校就读的情况。该流程应规定确定报告方的身份，并对恶意行为者采取保护措施。在收到报告后，负责人应向受益人的家长或法定监护人和学校发出充分通知，告知受益人的资质正在审查中，并为双方提供陈述的机会。作为资质审查流程的一部分，负责人应核实受益人是否在K-12公立学校就读，并确认受益人的资质状态。如果负责人确定受益人不再符合资格，则应向家长或法定监护人或受益人（如果受益人已年满18岁或已获得解放）、学校和ESA信托委员会提供书面决定结果。根据《行政程序法》（政府法典第2编第3部分第1部分第3.5章（从第11340节开始），家长或法定监护人可代表受益人可对该决定提出上诉，或受益人已年满18岁或已获得解放时可自行上诉。

69995.4. 

(a)  ESA信托委员会应规定在项目基金内为申请账户的每名合资学生创建账户，并应根据本条签订参与协议，向每个合资学生的账户存入适当的教育储蓄账户存款金额，并酌情将项目基金的投资收益记入每个账户。

(b) ESA信托委员会应向父母和法定监护人或受益人（如果受益人已年满18岁或已获得解放）提供账户活动的安全在线审查，包括账户存款或信贷、投资收益以及代表受益人向合规学校支付的款项。委员会应保护父母、法定监护人和账户受益人的隐私。

(c) ESA信托委员会应根据参与协议的条款，从8月15日起至5月15日止，分九（9）个月等额向符合条件的学校分配资金。但是，委员会可通过与符合条件的学校达成协议，规定不同的分配时间表。

(d) ESA信托委员会应规定对账户中分配的资金进行随机审计，以确保学生合资、学生入学率、学生出勤率和学校合规。

(e) 在参与的学习不符合资质的时候，ESA信托委员会应获得支付款项的退款。不得向家长或法定监护人或受益人寻求或追讨不符合资质的款项的退款、报销或返还，除非确定此类款项是通过欺诈或非法方式获得的。

(f) ESA信托委员会应提供一份统一的参与协议，供公共教育总监、委员会、家长和法定监护人以及符合条件的学生（如果学生已年满18岁或已获得解放）使用。参与协议中确定的合规学校应为该协议的第三方受益人。

(g) ESA信托委员会应通过实施本条款的相关条例。

保护 – 拒绝资助资金的限制

69995.5. 

(a) ESA信托委员会只能从一个账户向家长、法定监护人或受益人选择的合规学校分配资金。除非第69995.8（a）条另有规定，否则不得将任何资金分配给家长或法定监护人或受益人。学费和K-12合规教育费用的支付只能支付给参与协议中确定为第三方受益人的合规学校。

(b) 州不得限制合规学校的数量、在合规学校就读的学生人数，也不得对任何私立学校、学院或大学获得资金的资格施加任何条件，以下条件要求除外：

• 合资学生入学并就读合规学校的定期证明。- 支付的金额仅用于学费和合规教育费用的定期证明。- 第69995.9（f）（2）节规定的年度认证。- 应进行年度独立财务审计，审计应采用公认的会计原则。符合条件的学校应在每年12月15日前向委员会提交上一财年的年度独立财务审计报告副本。- 如果学生本人在学校拥有和运营的实际场所接受服务，则遵守适用于在加利福尼亚州运营的所有私立学校设施的一般健康和安全标准。

(c) 加州不得限制合规学校的数量、合规学校注册的合资学生数量，也不得对私立学校、家庭学校、学院或大学施加任何课程规定、学生或教师监管政策规定、录取政策规定，或对教师资质提出要求，作为资质或资金条件的一部分。任何私立学校、家庭学校、学院或大学也不得因学生或教师的信仰或宗教行为要求而拒绝参与该计划。

(d) ESA信托委员会或该州任何机构均不得扣留、暂停或中断本法规定的信托基金的应计金额或支出，或以任何理由或任何立场剥夺符合条件的学生享受本法规的利益，但不包括（1）未能满足第69995.9（g）条规定的资格标准；（2） 参与第69995.8条规定的禁止交易；（3）有本法禁止的其他行为。

州立教育机构

依法接受

69995.6.

(a) 加利福尼亚社区学院、加利福尼亚州立大学和加利福尼亚大学以及各校区、分支机构及其职能机构应从该学校的受益人的学费与合规教育费用的账户中接受资金。

(b). 私立学校（包括私立学院或大学）可在向负责人提交申请后选择成为合规学校，并可从该账户受益人的账户中收取学费和合规教育费用，并录取受益人入学。

(c). 职业教育或培训学校可在向院长提出申请后选择成为合规学校，并可从该账户受益人的账户中收取学费和合规教育费用，并录取受益人入学。

在家教育的资格

69995.7.

(a) 第69995节的规定，根据第33190节提交的宣誓书在家接受教育的学生，不在符合本条款规定资质的学习入学，有权获得教育储蓄账户，并根据本法案的日期和要求每年为该账户提供资金。但是，除非或直到账户受益人在本协议规定的合规学校注册，否则不得支付任何资金。记入该账户的资金应保留在该账户中，每年累积，可根据本法规定在符合条件的学校使用。

(b) 根据本法案，在符合条件的私立学校注册，在家庭接受教育的学生有资格获得教育储蓄账户，并将这些资金用于K-12教育和专上教育的合规教育费用。

禁止的交易

69995.8.

(a) 符合条件的学校不得以任何方式向家长、法定监护人或符合条件的学生分享、退还或返还从其账户收到的任何资金。本部分规定不得解释为：禁止对这些人支付或预付的、经核实的合格费用或学费进行报销或抵免。

(b) 如果家长、法定监护人或合资学生未能遵守参与协议的条款，意图欺诈或滥用代表受益人分配的资金，ESA信托委员会可终止和暂停账户和参与协议，但应通知家长、法定监护人以及合资学生，提供听证的机会。如果委员会终止或暂停账户，家长、法定监护人或合资学生可根据《行政程序法》（政府法典第2编第3部分第1部分第3.5章（从第11340节开始））对该决定提出上诉。

定义

**69995.9.**就本条款而言，以下术语定义如下：

• “行政基金”指教育储蓄账户信托内的基金，用于支付ESA信托的管理费用，包括投资管理费用。- “审计”是指由独立审计师进行的年度独立财务审计报告，该报告应采用公认的会计原则，根据本法案寻求资质的学校承担该费用。- “账户受益人”指接受ESA信托委员会创建账户的合资学生。

• “管理成本”指ESA信托委员会管理教育储蓄账户的实际成本，但须遵守法定限额。- “教育储蓄账户存款金额”指根据第69995节第（e）小节计算的金额。- “合规学校”指以下任何学校：- 加利福尼亚社区学院、加利福尼亚州立大学和加利福尼亚大学。- 经认证的K-12学校(无论是否营利)，如第48222节所述，在加利福尼亚州运营，并由州或美国教育部认可的区域认证机构认证，或已申请认证正等待批准的学校，在过去两年中，该校没有被同一认证机构拒绝认证。- 州内或州外私立学院或大学，由所在州或美国教育部认可的地区认证机构认证。- 州内或州外的公立学院或大学，由所在州或美国教育部认可的地区认证机构认证。- 州内或州外职业教育或培训机构，由所在州或美国教育部认可的地区认证机构认证。

• “合资学生”指有资格进入K-12公立学校或进入K-12合规学校的所有人。这包括获得解放的未成年人或达到成年年龄的合资学生。- “ESA信托”指根据第69995节第（b）小节设立的教育储蓄账户。- “ESA信托委员会”指根据第69995.1条第（a）小节设立的教育储蓄账户信托委员会。- “家长或法定监护人”包括已获得解放或已达到成年年龄的合资学生。- “参与协议”是指ESA信托委员会创建的统一合同，必须由ESA信托和合资学生的家长或法定监护人签署，该家长或监护人指示ESA信托代表账户受益人向合规学校支付资金。- “专上合规教育费用”指通常与合格学校的职业培训、本科或研究生教育相关的费用，学费除外，包括但不限于书籍、学校用品和设备、学术辅导、特殊需求受益人的特殊需求服务，以及任意额外的学费和食宿费。- “项目基金”是指在教育储蓄账户信托基金中设立的基金，从普通基金和投资收益以及其他赠款、礼品或拨款中转移的资金将被保存并分离到合资受益人的账户中。- “K-12合规教育费用”是指通常与合规学校K-12学生的教育相关的费用，学费除外，包括但不限于课程、书籍、在线课程、宗教和学术课程材料、学校用品和设备、学术辅导、学术测试费、，特殊需求受益人的特殊需求服务，往返学校的交通，以及由合资学生就读的合规学校负责的学校功能。基于信仰的教育课程不应被排除在外。- “学费”是指符合条件的学校为招收某一年级的学生而收取的金额，以及与申请和注册相关的注册费。- “无人认领资金”指受益人年满30岁后，账户中未支付给合格学校的剩余资金。

部分行政费用的分配

69995.10

（a）立法机构应规定与本法案相关的费用分配如下：对于在本法案颁布前未在K-12公立学校注册的合资学生提供ESA存款费用，立法机构应根据需要，重新调整《加利福尼亚州宪法》第十六条第8节规定的K-12学校的最低资金保障的基数，还可能需要考虑将此类合资儿童纳入本法案修订的“平均每日出勤率”定义。

• 对于为符合条件的学生提供ESA存款资金，该存款资金的项目支出应在普通基金和学生居住的公立学区之间分摊，在公立学区，普通基金和地方财产税收入的一部分将用于教育学生。立法机关应根据执行本规定的需要，规定从学区或州转移的资金。

所得税处理

第三部分 所得税豁免

《税收法典》增加了第17132.2节，内容如下：

17132.2. 

(a) 在本节中，以下术语具有以下含义：

• “账户受益人”的含义与《教育法典》第69995.9条第（b）款规定的含义相同。- “教育储蓄账户”是指根据《教育法典》（教育法典第3编第5部分第42部分第2章第19.1条，从第69995节开始）设立的教育储蓄账户。- “家长或法定监护人”的含义与《教育法典》第69995.9条第（l）款规定的含义相同。- “参与协议”的含义与《教育法典》第69995.9条第（h）款规定的含义相同。

(b) 自《教育自由法》颁布之日或之后开始的应税年度，账户受益人或账户受益人的家长或法定监护人的总收入不得包括以下任何一项：

• 根据《教育法典》第3编第5分册第42部分第2章第19.1条（从第69995节开始）的规定，教育储蓄账户参与协议项下的任何分配或收入。- 任何对教育储蓄账户的捐款。

宪法修正

第四部分 宪法修正

《加利福尼亚州宪法》第九条第8.5款增加如下：

8.5. 尽管本章程有其他规定，包括本条第8节和第十六条第5部分，州和州的每个机构或政治分支机构还是可以根据州与合资学生的家长或法定监护人之间的协议支付学费和教育相关费用，并向教育机构提供税收或其他公共福利，以促进本条第1节的目的，不论学生宗教信仰如何。《加利福尼亚州宪法》第十六条第8.1 款增加如下：

8.1 根据第8节和第XIIIB条第8部分所述，“平均每日出勤率”一词应包含所有在K-12公立学校就读的学生，以及所有有资格在K-12公立学校就读，但已选择使用根据《教育法典》第3编第5节第42部分第2章第19.1条（从第69995节开始）提供资金的教育储蓄账户为K-12教育提供资金的学生。尽管本章程有任何其他规定，包括第十三条第25.5款，立法机构可通过法规要求根据《教育法典》第69995.10款分配从价税收入。

总则

第五部分 总则

• 如果本法案的任何条款或其任何部分因任何原因被认定为无效或违宪，其余条款不受影响，但应保持完全效力，为此，本法案的条款是可分割的。- 该法案旨在全面实施。人们的期望是，如果本法案或与同一主题有关的法案出现在同一州的选举选票上，则其他法案的规定应被视为与本法案相冲突。如果本法案获得更多的赞成票，则应以本法案的全部条款为准，其他法案的所有条款均无效。- 本法第2部分和第3部分可由立法机构可由立法机构两院以的唱名表决计入日志的方式修正法规，但该法规必须符合并促进本法的宗旨。- 如果提起的诉讼全部或部分质疑本法案的有效性，除了遵守《加利福尼亚州政府法》第12511.7节的规定外，还应适用以下规定：- 行政部门和立法机构应继续遵守该法案，除非根据上诉法院的最终判决宣布该法案违宪。- 除下文第（3）款规定外，总检察长应对全部或部分质疑本法案有效性的任何诉讼进行辩护，并有权无条件干预任何捍卫本法案有效性的诉讼。- 如果总检察长拒绝在任何诉讼中为该法案的有效性辩护，总检察长仍应在任何质疑该行为的诉讼中提交答辩书或其他回应状，以及对任何法院判定该法案全部或部分无效的任何判决提出上诉或寻求复审，在必要或适当的情况下，根据总检察长的宪法义务，维护该州捍卫法律的地位，确保该州的法律得到充分执行。- 该法案的官方支持者有无条件的权利作为干预者或真正的利益方参与影响该法案有效性或解释的任何行动。如果州长和司法部长拒绝为法案的有效性辩护，官方支持者也有权代表州在任何此类诉讼中主张州对法案有效性的利益，并对任何使法案无效的判决提出上诉。- 本部分中的任何内容都不妨碍其他公职人员主张州对该方案有效性的权益。

活动细节：所有从现在开始给 SFFA的捐款，SVCAF都提供1:1配捐 (上限 2万美元）。 配捐请求请于 三月一日以前 发到 info@svcaf.org ，请附上 SFFA捐款收据。

备注：SVCA 基金会和哈佛官司的历史渊源:

1. 2014年，反对加州立法院的SCA5（肤色法案）的积极义工创办成立SVCA基金会。 该法案试图推翻加州宪法中的不得按肤色搞特殊照顾的平权条款 （prop. 209），在教育中引入肤色特权。

2. 2015 和2018年SVCA基金会分别两次在湾区请SFFA负责人 Blum 先生代表原告做论坛主题发言，并组织讨论。同时也招收受害学生，吸引SFFA正式会员。听众反映强烈。

3. 2018年底，SVCA基金会派代表团(一行7人)去波士顿参与声援 SFFA状告哈佛的庭审活动，基金会主席在发起大会上发表演讲。

4. 2021年初，应 SFFA要求，SVCA基金会联合一家犹太组织向最高法院提请了正式“法庭之友”文件，支持哈佛官司上诉到最高法院。这份法律文件从哈佛在上世纪20年代歧视犹太人证据出发，发现目前哈佛歧视亚裔的手法和说辞和100年以前如出一辙。这份文件在最高法院决定接受本案件起到积极作用。

我们提交给最高法院的文件的全文链接： /files/archive-20210331104529484_amicus-brief.pdf

6. 历年来，SVCA 基金会直接支持SFFA状告哈佛的官司，捐款+支付律师费总计已经超过7万美元（不包含这次配捐2万的预算）。Blum先生盛赞SVCA基金会为支持SFFA状告哈佛歧视官司的主要组织之一。

更多关于我们组织的信息请访问 svcaf.org

For Immediate Release February 14, 2021

SAN DIEGO, CA – February 14, 2021- Californians for Equal Rights (CFER) and Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) jointly condemn the recent surge of anti-Asian hate crimes in California’s Bay Area communities and urge the upholding of the equal protection principle to combat racial discrimination.

In recent weeks, racially motivated violence has victimized over a dozen of elderly Asian-American residents in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. Many of these senseless crimes were committed by disengaged minority youth from underprivileged communities. Sadly, these assailants targeted vulnerable seniors who are also economically disadvantaged. The string of unfortunate events amplifies the disastrous consequences of racial tribalism and divisions.

“SVCA foundation condemns the recent violence against the Asian community. We are extremely concerned about the deterioration of community safety in recent years and the insidious policy of racial division, which has underlined these racially motivated attacks,” commented Jason Xu, SVCAF’s President, “We urge all community groups, lawmakers, and elected officers to work together to improve public safety!”

“Painful tribalism is rooted in our society’s growing tendency to pit groups against each other on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, or color,” said Frank Xu, CFER’s President, “Concerning movements in public education including the sweeping introduction of critical ethnic studies will only exacerbate our racial divisions.”

Hate crimes against Americans of Asian Descent are rising, constituting a concerning trend. According to data from the San Diego District Attorney’s Office, among all identified hate crimes in 2021 so far, 25% of them targeted Americans of Asian Descent, as compared with 10% in 2020 and 0% in 2019 and 2018.

Neither symbolic proclamation nor one-sided partisan condemnation serves any purpose in alleviating violence and discrimination targeting Americans of Asian descent. Such hypocritical remarks, as exemplified in the AAPI Legislative Caucus’s statement, only inflame social tensions and shift the blame away from true policy failures plaguing our communities.

We must transcend our political and racial divisions to strive a fair and honest process to advance equal treatment. This unifying principle of equality and non-discrimination underscores practical and long-term policy solutions to improve public safety and revive our diverse communities.

Contact: Wenyuan Wu wenyuan.wu@cferfoundation.org (786) 393-8028

About Californians for Equal Rights (CFER): CFER is a non-partisan and non-profit organization established following the defeat of Proposition 16 in 2020, with a mission to defend and raise public awareness on the cause of equal rights through public education, civic engagement and community outreach. In 1996, California became the first U.S. state to amend its constitution by passing Proposition 209 to ban racial discrimination and preferences. Prop 209 requires that “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.” CFER is dedicated to educating the public on this important constitutional principle of equal treatment. www.Cferfoundation.org.

About Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF): SVCAF is a nonprofit grassroot organization working to promote the involvement of Chinese communities in public affairs and public policy in the United States. As an integral part of the Chinese communities in Northern California and with strong ties across the United States, SVCAF is making meaningful progress in providing education to the Chinese communities on the legal and political systems in California and the nation. SVCAF is also encouraging active civil engagement and political participation by the Chinese communities, while actively promoting recognition and respect of their contributions. www.svcaf.org/.

CFER, SVCAF Call for Equal Treatment and Unity in Response to Rising Anti-Asian Crimes ( download pdf)

December 4, 2020 10:08AM

By David J. Bier

点评参议院通过的“高技术移民法案”

2020年12月4日 点评人：David J. Bier

The Senate passed an amended version of the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act (S. 386/H.R. 1044). The bill has already passed the House of Representatives on a massive 365-65 vote. Since then, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) repeatedly attempted to pass the bill on “unanimous consent” under which any member can object—which led to deals with Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Rand Paul (R-KY), David Purdue (R-GA), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) that amended the House bill. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) who was the latest member to object lifted his hold last night, allowing final passage.

参议院日前通过了修订版的高技术移民法案(S.386/H.R.1044)。 该法案之前在众议院以365赞成比65反对大比重投票通过。此后，在与Chuck Grassley（爱荷华州共和党）、Rand Paul（肯塔基州共和党）、David Purdue（佐治亚州共和党）和Dick Durbin（伊利诺伊州民主党）等参与其修订的参议员协议之后， Mike Lee （犹他州共和党) 参议员屡次试图以“一致同意”（只要有一人反对，决议即告失败）通过了此法案。而最后一个反对此法案的Rick Scott（佛罗里达州共和党）参议员，也在昨晚表示同意通过。

The Senate version is now substantially different from the House version with deleterious provisions to which the House Judiciary Committee has already voiced opposition, but it has also committed to finding common ground to resolve. 

至此，该法案的参议院版与众议院版在影响深远的若干规定上有本质不同：众议院司法委员会已经表示反对，但表示仍有“求同存异”的探讨空间。

What’s in the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act, December 2020 version?

2020年12月通过的 高技术移民法案 有哪些主要内容？

Green card reforms:

绿卡改革

• Phases out employment-based per country limits on green cards: The main purpose of the legislation is to treat all employment-based immigrant visa applicants on a first-come, first-served basis without regard to birthplace. Under current law, immigrants from no single birthplace can receive more than 7% of the total number of immigrant visas or green cards issued in a year unless they would otherwise go unused. The effect of this provision is that while Indians are half the skilled employer-sponsored applicants, they receive just 10 percent of those green cards and—as a result—are nearly 90 percent of the backlogged applicants.

逐步淘汰对每个申请人出生地国家职业绿卡的限制：该立法的主要目的是按照先到先得的原则对待所有职业技术移民签证申请人，而不考虑其出生地。根据现行法律，单一出生地的移民一年内所获得的移民签证或绿卡的总数不得超过总数的7％，即便其他区域的额度并未用尽。这项规定导致，尽管印度人占据雇主资助的职业技术申请人数量的一半，但他们只获得发放绿卡的10％，结果他们占积压申请人中的将近90％。

• Comments: The House bill is the same. Basically, this provision is the only reason the bill has made it as far as it has. The discrimination against Indian skilled immigrants mean, as I’ve estimated before, that new Indian green card applicants will almost certainly never receive green cards in their lifetime. More than 200,000 of the 700,000 Indians in line will likely die before they receive their green cards. The fact that other immigrants almost immediately receive their green cards makes the system massively unfair and is already causing skilled workers to leave the country. Indians and Chinese—the only two significantly backlogged applicants—also receive wage offers significantly higher than those for the average applicant from other countries.- *评论：*众议院版法案基本相同。基本上，这项新规定是该法案制定且能通过的唯一原因。正如我之前估计的那样，对印度职业技术移民的歧视意味着，新的印度绿卡申请人几乎肯定无法在活着的时候收到绿卡。在排队的700,000印度人中，有超过200,000可能会在收到绿卡之前便已离世。而其他出生地移民几乎立即获得绿卡的事实致使该系统的严重不公平，并已导致职业技术雇员离开美国。并且，印度人和中国人（仅有的两个严重积压的申请人出生地）的工资要比其他国家的平均申请者要高出很多。

• Provides for an 11-year phase out period: The bill’s green card changes will only take effect on October 1, 2022. For the EB-2 and EB-3 categories for non-executive level employees of U.S. businesses, the bill guarantees immigrants which are not from the top two origin countries (India and China) a certain percentage of the green cards for 9 years: year 1 (30%), year 2 (25%), year 3 (20%), year 4 (15%), years 5 and 6 (10%), and years 7 through 9 (5%). No more than 25 percent of these “reserved” green cards can go to immigrants from any single country. No more than 85 percent of the other “unreserved” green cards can go to a single country (India). In addition, a minimum of 5.75% of all EB-2 or EB-3 green cards will go to immigrants from these non-top 2 countries for 9 years prioritizing spouses and minor children of immigrants already in the United States and immigrants awaiting visas abroad. It’s unclear if the 5.75% counts toward the prior reservation or must be in addition to it. This ambiguity means it is not possible to say with certainty how long it will take for the current backlog to be processed under the bill.

提供11年的过渡期：法案的绿卡改革将于2022年10月1日生效。对于美国企业非高管员工的EB-2和EB-3类别，该法案保证除来自前两个出生地（即印度和中国）的移民，获得绿卡连续9年占一定比例：第一年（30％），第二年（25％），第三年（20％），第四年（ 15％），第5和6年（10％）以及第7至9年（5％）。这些“保留的”绿卡中，最多只能有25％归属任何同一个国家的移民。其他“未保留的”绿卡中，最多只能有85％归属一个国家（即印度）。此外，至少5.75％的EB-2或EB-3绿卡将分发给非印度及中国的移民，为期9年，且优先考虑人已在美国的移民和等待海外签证的移民配偶及其未成年子女。目前尚不清楚5.75％是计入预先保留，或是额外的保留。规定此模棱两可意味着，尚无法明确规划在该法案下处理当前积压需要多长时间。

• Comments: The House bill would have taken effect immediately and only contained a 3-year phaseout with set asides for non-Indian or Chinese applicants of 15% in the first year and 10% in the next two years. Eleven years is an incredibly long time to continue a system based on birthplace discrimination. It will probably take about 13 years to process all existing Indian applicants under this system, while new applicants continue to take priority. If only applicants who are not currently in the United States received priority, that would be a rational basis for discrimination since those already in the United States are already benefiting more from the U.S. immigration system than those abroad. But these provisions continue the discrimination that the bill is designed to eliminate for a decade (albeit to a lesser degree).- *评论：*众议院版法案则是立即生效，且仅包含3年的过渡期，对非印度或中国的申请人占用名额在第一年为15％，在之后两年则为10％。十一年对于持续基于出生地歧视的体系来说是一个非常长的时间。在这个体系下，所有现存的印度申请人大概需要约13年的时间来处理，而新申请人仍将继续处于优先地位。如果只有目前不在美国的申请人获得优先权，这将是歧视的理性基础，因为人已在美国的申请人比在国外的已经从美国移民制度中受益更多。但是该法案的相关规定导致其本旨在消除的这类歧视又将延续十年（尽管程度较小）。

• Guarantee for nurses and physical therapists: The bill carves out 4,400 EB-3 green cards (11% of the category) for nurses and physical therapists—defined as “shortage occupations”—for 7 years. The spouses and minor children would not count against this limit but would still receive green cards at the same time.

对护士和理疗师职业移民的保障：该法案为护士和理疗师（定义为“短缺职业”）职业单独划分了4,400张 EB-3类绿卡（占类别的11％），为期7年。且配偶和未成年子女将不计入这一限额，仍将同时获得绿卡。

• Comments: The House bill has no similar provision. This essentially creates a temporary new category for legal immigrants who DOL deems to be in short supply. I have no problem with this. It is as arbitrary as the rest of the employment-based categorization scheme and does not involve birthplace discrimination.- 评论：众议院版法案没有类似规定。这实际上为劳工部DOL定义的短缺职业合法移民开创了一个临时的新类别。笔者对此没有意见。它与其他基于职业的分类方案一样主观，不涉及出生地歧视。

• Caps H-1B visa holders and H-4 visa holders (or those who held H-4 status in the last 2 years) to no more than 70% of all employment-based green cards during the first 9 years after implementation and 50% for all subsequent years.

在实施后的第一个9年内，对H-1B和H-4签证持有人（或最近2年内持有H-4身份的人）的上限不超过所有职业绿卡的70％，此后年份的50％。

• Comments: This is a way of continuing discrimination against Indians indirectly because Indians are 70 percent of H-1B visa holders. Moreover, nearly all of the backlogged immigrants in the green card queue from India are working on the H-1B visa. This provision undermines the purpose of the bill and makes little sense as an anti-H-1B measure because it forces H-1B holders to remain on the temporary status longer than they would otherwise. We don’t know the exact breakdown of the status of those in the green card backlog from India, but it’s likely at least 90 percent H-1B visa holders, so this will delay the receipt of green cards to backlogged Indians. If not for the backlog, the effect would not be very great. About 70 percent of EB-2 and EB-3 green card applicants in 2019 were on the H-1B visa based on Department of Labor’s labor certification data. It is likely less than this in the EB-1 category (multinational executives, those with extraordinary ability, etc.) who have other temporary visa options available or come from abroad, and there probably are very few in the EB-4 special immigrant and EB-5 investor categories, so assuming only 50 percent of EB-1 is on H-1B visas, the number of new H-1B green card applicants is probably only slightly higher than 50 percent. That said, it would hamstring any increase in that program.- 评论：这仍是一种持续地间接歧视印度人的方式，因为H-1B签证持有者中印度人占70％。甚至，印度绿卡排队中几乎所有积压的移民都在持H-1B签证工作。该条款规定破坏了法案的目的，并且作为反H-1B措施没有任何意义，因为它迫使H-1B持有人在临时身份上的停留时间比原本更长。印度籍绿卡积压者的确切身份分类不得而知，但H-1B签证持有者可能至少占90％，因此这将继续延迟积压的印度人收到绿卡。如果不是为了解决积压，该法案的效果将大打折扣。根据美国劳工部的劳工证书数据，2019年约70％的EB-2和EB-3绿卡申请人持有H-1B签证。而在具有其他临时签证选择或来自国外的EB-1类别（跨国企业高管，z杰出技术人才等）中，这一比例可能要低于此水平；且在EB-4特殊移民和EB-5投资移民类别中H-1B就更少了。因此，假设EB-1签证中只有50％是H-1B签证，那么新的H-1B绿卡申请人数可能仅略高于50％。也就是说，这将阻碍该程序的任何进程。

• Raises the family-sponsored per country limit on green cards to 15 percent: Family-sponsored preference categories also currently have a 7% limit on green cards for immigrants from individual birthplaces. The bill more than doubles that limit to 15% increasing in absolute terms from about 15,820 to 33,900. This will primarily benefit long-backlogged immigrants from Mexico and the Philippines, but also India and China.

把按国别的家庭移民绿卡限制提高到15*％***：目前家庭移民类别绿卡按申请人出生地的限制为7％。法案增加了两倍多，从绝对值15,820增至33,900，限制为15％。这将主要使墨西哥和菲律宾以及印度和中国的长期积压移民受益。

• Comments: The House bill is the same. This provision does not go as far as the employment-based provision in ending discrimination based on birthplace in the family-sponsored system, but it is a significant benefit to long-backlogged, family-sponsored immigrants who are mostly waiting for immigrant visas abroad.- 评论：众议院版法案相同。这项规定与职业移民的规定相比，在消除基于出生地的歧视方面并没有更大变化，但对于长期积压的家庭移民（主要是在国外等待移民签证的移民）而言，则是一个重大利好。

• Bars adjustment of status to all Chinese “affiliated” with the Chinese Communist Party: The new language (presumably proposed by Sen. Scott) requires DHS to “not adjust status of any alien affiliated with the military forces of the People’s Republic of China or the Chinese Communist Party” (CCP). This is similar to the existing ground of inadmissibility in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(D) for members or those “affiliated with” any communist party anywhere. However, the existing ground of inadmissibility has exceptions for involuntary membership, past membership, or close family members. However, the current ground applies to both adjustment of status in the United States as well as consular processing abroad. Effectively, this provision requires all Chinese immigrants to apply for immigrant visas at consulates abroad.

禁止调整与中国共产党有“联系”的所有中国人的身份：新的措辞（可能由Scott参议员提出）要求国土安全部“不得调整与中国军队或中国共产党（CCP）有联系的任何外国人的身份。这与8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(D) 中现有的不可接纳理由条款相似：适用于共产党员或与任何地方的共产党“有联系”的人员。但是，现有的不可接纳理由条款设置了例外情况：非自愿入党人员，过往成员或成员亲属。但是，当前的理由既适用于美国的身份调整，也适用于国外的领事处理。实际上，该规定要求所有中国移民在国外领事馆申请移民签证。

• Comments: This is just more de facto national origin discrimination. Most Chinese have no ideological connection to the CCP even if they join it. The main reason to have joined the party is that it facilitates promotions, especially within government or state-owned enterprises but overall. Lotus Yuen of The Atlantic has called membership the “ultimate resumé booster” in China. It can also allow Chinese to avoid direct state persecution. While the government obviously has an interest in stopping actual espionage, this ban is overbroad. The United States should want communists to experience the superiority of the U.S. system and encourage defectors from communist China. The United States has benefited greatly from Chinese immigrant innovators in science, technology, and medicine, and this ban would push inventors back toward the communist regime. That said, because it only applies to adjustment in the United States, the practical effect amounts to an expensive inconvenience rather than an outright ban.- 评论：这实际上只是国籍歧视。即使加入中国共产党，大多数中国人与中共也没有思想联系。加入该党的主要原因是，其他领域也罢，但特别是在政府或国有企业内部，它提供了晋升通道。Lotus Yuen曾在大西洋月刊发表：将党员资格称为中国的“简历终极助推器”。它还可以使中国人避免直接受到官方起诉。尽管美国政府显然有兴趣制止实际的间谍活动，但这项禁令过于宽泛。美国应该希望共产党人体验美国制度的优越性，从而鼓励脱离共产主义中国。美国从科学，技术和医学等领域中国籍移民创新者那里获取巨大利益，而这项禁令将使这些创新者重返共产主义政权。即便如此，因为它仅适用于美国国内的身份调整，实际的效果不是彻底的禁止，而是更加耗费的不便。

Adjustment of status from temporary visa to green card

从临时签证到绿卡的身份调整

• **“Early filing” (H-1B lite status): Allows backlogged temporary workers to receive a separate, limited, 3-year, renewable employment authorization (apart from their underlying status) 2 years after their employer petition was approved by filing an adjustment of status to legal permanent residence application (i.e. green card application) prior to a green card number being available under the caps. You can credit Sen. Durbin with this provision. **Currently, anyone whose adjustment of status application is pending for at least 180 days can receive an employment authorization document (EAD). This EAD allows them to work for any employer that they want while remaining in line based on the original employers’ petition. The original employer’s petition remains valid so long as they work in “the same or a similar occupational classification.” However, you currently cannot apply for legal permanent residence prior to a green card or immigrant visa number being available. The bill states that these new “early filers” could also receive this same authorization. However, the bill adds new requirements for this authorization. The job would have to have wages “commensurate with” those for the employer’s similarly situated U.S. workers in the area.

**“提早申请”（简易H-1B身份）：允许积压的临时雇员在雇主申请被批准后2年获得单独的，有限的，为期3年的可再续签的就业许可（在他们的基础身份之外）。在限额之内提供绿卡编号之前，先将身份调整为合法的永久居留申请（即绿卡申请）。**此条款可归功于Durbin参议员。当前，身份调整申请待决时长超过180天的任何人都可以收到就业许可证（EAD）。EAD允许他们为想要的任何雇主工作，同时仍与原始雇主的申请书保持一致。原始雇主的申请书只要在“相同或相似的职业分类”中工作，便保持有效。但是，申请人目前无法在获得绿卡或移民签证号码之前申请合法永久居留权。该法案指出，这些新的“早期申报者”也可以获得同样的授权。但是，该法案为此授权增添了新的要求。该工作的工资必须与该地区雇主给类似的美国员工工资“相匹配”。

If the employer had fewer than 2 such employees, it would have to attest that they were similar to the wages for similar U.S. workers in the area. The worker would have to file a Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability with a request for employment authorization. The employment authorization would last for three year increments with renewals, which is better than the adjustment of status EAD available now (which is only a 1 or 2 years). The worker would also have to provide a signed letter from their employer with the required attestations. A Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability would need to be filed (again if necessary) within 12 months of the green card application being adjudicated. If the Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability was deemed not to meet the requirements, the green card application would be denied. The minor children and certain spouses of temporary workers would also not benefit from this provision. The cost would be $2,000 for each Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Portability, in addition to the cost of the adjustment of status green card application. Half the fees would go to immigration adjudications and half into the general fund of the U.S. Treasury.

如果雇主的此类雇员少于2名，则必须证明他们与该地区类似美国员工的工资相符。员工必须提交一份“实际工作机会确认或合适的雇佣许可申请”。雇佣许可的续签期限为三年，这比现行的EAD（仅1年或2年）身份调整要好。员工还必须提供其雇主的签名信，并附有必要的证明。在裁定绿卡申请后的12个月内（必要时再次）需要提交一份实际工作机会确认或合适的雇佣许可申请。如果认为“实际工作机会确认或合适的雇佣许可申请”不符合要求，绿卡申请将被拒绝。未成年子女和某些临时雇员的配偶也不会从这项规定中受益。除了调整身份绿卡申请的费用外，每次实际工作机会确认或合适的雇佣许可申请的费用为2,000美元。一半的费用将用于移民裁决，另一半将收归美国财政部的普通基金。

• Comments: The senators have made this provision about as watered down as they can get it, but it is still the most important unequivocally positive change from the language that the senators have added. It would make it easier for H-1B workers to change jobs. Currently, H-1Bs stuck in the backlog have to renew every single year, which is costly and problematic if the government decides to readjudicate the underlying H-1B petition. It would also allow other temporary workers, such as those on Optional Practical Training, to extend their status when they otherwise would not be able to, potentially enabling them to avoid having to obtain an H-1B at all.- 评论：参议员们已尽其所能地将这项规定“打折扣”，但与参议员所添加的语言相比，这毫无疑问仍然是最重要的积极变化。 这将使得H-1B员工更容易更换工作。目前，积压在案的H-1B必须每年更新一次，如果政府决定重新审理正在进行的H-1B申请，这些都是成本昂贵且会造成潜问题。新规还将允许其他临时员工（例如OPT员工）在原本无法获得的条件下延长其身份，从而有可能完全避免启动H-1B流程。

• **Prevents “aging out” of children of temporary workers in the backlog who have filed an adjustment of status application under the early filing provision. **Currently, a dependent child of an H-1B worker loses their status on their 21st birthday. They also lose their eligibility for a green card at the same time. The bill would provide them both a status past their 21st birthday.

防止根据提早备案规定提出身份调整申请的积压临时员工的子女由于“超龄”而失去资格。目前，一名H-1B员工的受抚养子女在21岁生日时便失去了身份。他们也同时失去了获得绿卡的资格。而该法案将为在他们超过21岁仍然提供身份。

• Comments: This is an unambiguously positive provision.- 评论：毋庸置疑这是条积极的规定。

H-1B high skilled temporary worker reforms (none in House bill)

H-1B 高技术临时员工改革（众议院版法案没有体现）

• ***Requires the posting of H-1B jobs for new H-1Bs on government website for 30 days. ***If the Department of Labor (DOL) cannot get the website up and running within 180 days, the bill allows just a 30-day extension. If the website still cannot work, the H-1B program could not permit additional H-1B applications.

要求将新H-1B申请的H-1B职位在政府网站上发布30天。如果劳工部无法在180天内启动此网站，则该法案只允许30天的延长期。如果该网站届时仍然无法正常运行，则H-1B程序将不允许接收新的H-1B申请。

• Comments: This seems like it is risking a lot for DOL to create a working website in less than a year. Forcing employers to advertise positions that may or may not actually be available makes little sense.- 评论：对于DOL而言，在不到一年的时间内创建可正常运行的网站似乎将具很大风险。强迫雇主宣传可能对实际提供的职位并没什么意义。

• Bans advertising only to H-1Bs.**

禁止仅仅只向H-1B身份员工投放广告。**

• Comments: This provision is not unreasonable.- 评论：这条款并非无凭无据。

• Bans recruiting primarily H-1Bs.

禁止主要雇佣H-1B*。***

• Comments: Unlike the prior ban on advertising, this provision undermines a major purpose of the H-1B visa, which is to allow employers to hire workers for specialty positions. This tells businesses that they cannot simply recruit and hire a specific foreign worker or workers who they believe will fill whatever niche they need. Moreover, the “primarily” implies that companies would have to spend at least 50 percent of their time recruiting U.S. workers, even if they had already decided that a specific noncitizen was the person that they wanted. It treats the H-1B program like the lesser-skilled H-2 programs where the main purpose of the hire is labor, not skills. Moreover, it would greatly harm businesses that already employ the worker under a different visa category (L-1, F-1, J-1, etc.).- 评论：与先前的广告禁令不同，该条款破坏了H-1B签证的主要目的之一，原目的是允许雇主雇用员工担任特殊职位。这告诉企业，他们不能简单地招聘和雇用特定的一个或多个外国员工，以填补他们认为的任何特定需求职位。而且，“主要”意味着即使公司已经确定特定的非公民是他们想要的人选，公司也将不得不花费至少50％的时间来招聘美国公民。它像低技能的H-2计划一样对待H-1B计划，在该计划中，雇用的主要目的是获得劳动力，而不是特殊技能。此外，这将极大损害已经雇用不同签证类别（如L-1，F-1，J-1等）员工的企业。

Employers could probably evade this requirement by making the job descriptions so demanding that only an existing employee could fill the position, as they commonly do under the permanent labor certification process. But why do the authors think it helps U.S. workers to create a bunch of sham job advertisements? The Justice Department’s recent Facebook lawsuit highlights the perils of handing such vague language to any administration. This concern is compounded because the bill also allows DOL to troll through companies’ files whenever it wants without any underlying complaint from an employee or U.S. worker. 

雇主有很大可能通过做出职务说明来规避这一要求，就像通常在永久劳工证明程序下所做的那样，要求仅现有雇员才能担任该职位。但是为什么立法者认为制造大量假工作广告有利于美国员工呢？司法部最近在Facebook提起的诉讼中强调了这种含糊的语言给行政部门工作带来的危害。这种担忧使情况更加复杂，因为该法案还允许DOL在没有任何雇员或美国员工的实质投诉前提下，仅在其认为需要时随意查阅公司文件。

• Requires providing every W-2 for every H-1B worker employed by the company over whatever period DOL wants.

要求在DOL认为需要时，公司向其提交任何时段的每个H-1B雇员的每个W-2工资证明。

• Comments: This provision would impose a significant administrative burden for no upside. The H-1B process is already too time-consuming and expensive.- 评论：此规定将带来巨大的行政负担而没有任何好处。 H-1B流程已经非常耗时耗力。

• Bans hiring new H-1Bs if an employer has more than 50% of its workforce on H-1Bs or L-1s (for skilled intracompany transfers from abroad).

禁止已有持H-1B或L-1签证（同公司跨境技术员工）雇员超过50%的雇主雇佣新的H-1B员工。

• Comments:As far as I can tell, only two large companies come close to fitting this profile: Cognizant (49.999%) and Tech Mahindra (50.3%), though a few others may be close if H-1B visas were more readily available. The provision sets a dangerous precedent that H-1B-heavy companies should be legally discouraged. But it’s unclear what the purpose of this restriction is, except to target certain companies that specialize in certain tech services to the benefit of others who are more widely diversified. Even if the requirement was only 25 percent, it would only force Cognizant and other specialized companies to sell or merge with a larger company with more employees, not change any business practices or cease hiring H-1B workers.- 评论：据我所知，只有两家大公司目前接近此条款限额：Cognizant（49.999％）和Tech Mahindra（50.3％），但如果更容易获得H-1B签证，还有其他几家公司可能也接近。该规定开创了危险的先例，即在法律上不鼓励公司雇佣H-1B员工。但是，目前尚不清楚此限制的目的是什么，除了针对某些专门从事特定科技服务的公司，而使其他多元化程度更高的公司受益。即使该要求限额降至25％，也只会迫使Cognizant和其他专业公司自行出售或与拥有更多员工的大公司合并，而不会改变任何商业惯例或停止雇用H-1B员工。

• Requires DOL to charge a fee for H-1B labor condition applications (LCAs) to cover the cost of processing.

要求DOL开始对H-1B雇工征收LCA申请费以承担处理成本。

• Comments: The bill also says that the fee could be used for “administration, oversight, investigation, and enforcement.” If the purpose of the fee is to cover the cost of the application, that’s reasonable. If the purpose is to force compliant employers to cover the costs of DOL actions against noncompliant employers, that’s unfair. This authority should be at least clarified.- 评论：该法案还指出，该费用可用于“行政，监督，调查和执行等”。如果收费的目的是支付申请费用，那是合理的。如果目的是强迫合规雇主承担针对不合规雇主的DOL诉讼费用，那是不公平的。此授权至少应该对此做出澄清。

• Bans B-1 temporary business visas for anyone who would “normally” be classifiable as an H-1B:

禁止批准任何“通常”会被归类为H-1B签证的B-1临时商务签证申请：

• Comments: This provision is unambiguously negative. Foreigners visiting the United States “temporarily for business” can receive a B-1 visa if they .The State Department has stated since the 1960s that in cases where a person who could qualify as an H-1B is only coming for a short period, they are “more appropriately” classified as a B-1 so long as they are paid from sources abroad. In a proposed rule, the comment period of which ends in December 21, the State Department is proposing its own reversal of this policy. Presumably this legislative provision is also intended to stop this practice, though the word “normally” adds some ambiguity. The “B-1 in lieu of H-1B” option is important because there is no other option specifically for skilled professionals on short-term assignments, especially those that come up suddenly and need to be completed quickly. - 评论：这项规定无疑是负面的。如果外国人赴美“暂时处理商务”，他们将获得B-1签证。国务院表示，自1960年代以来，有资格作为H-1B资格的人仅短期逗留，只要他们从国外获得薪酬，就被“更恰当地”归类为B-1签证。在一项拟议的法规中，其意见征询期将于12月21日结束，国务院正在提议自己撤销这一政策。尽管“通常”一词增加了一些灰色地带，但该立法条文大概也旨在阻止这种做法。 “用B-1代替H-1B”这一选项很重要，因为没有其他选项专门适用于短期任务的专业人员，尤其对于那些突然发生且需要快速完成的任务。

U.S. businesses contracting with foreign companies, foreign multinationals investing in the United States, or foreign companies without a physical presence in the United States use this option, but it’s unclear how widespread it is because the State Department doesn’t separately record B-1s-in-lieu-of-H-1Bs from the total 38,000 B-1s. In 2010, however, the State Department stated that the consulates in India (the largest source of H-1Bs) made “fewer than 1,000” such grants against nearly 60 times as many H-1Bs. Nonetheless, this rule directly restricts legal trade, travel, and employment to no benefit to the United States.

与外国公司签约的美国企业，在美国投资的外籍跨国公司或在美国没有实体的外国公司都适用此选项，但目前尚不清楚它的广泛性，因为国务院没有单独记录总共38,000 B-1签证中的“B-1替代H-1B“。然而，早在2010年，国务院曾表示，印度领事馆（H-1B的最大来源）提供了“不到1000个”此类批准，而H-1B签证的数量则是其近60倍。但是，该规则直接限制了合法贸易，旅行和就业，对美国没有任何好处。

• Requires employers that retaliate against people who “reasonably believe” are disclosing evidence of an H-1B violation to pay backpay.

要求雇主禁止对“有理由相信”的人进行报复，如有人提供披露违反H-1B规定的证据，其欠薪必须得到支付。

• Comments: This is an extension of current law prohibiting employers from retaliation by explicitly requiring them to pay backpay.- 评论：这是对现行法规的扩展，它通过明确要求雇主支付欠薪以禁止其进行打击报复。

• Requires DOL to review H-1B LCAs for “fraud or misrepresentation” rather than only for “completeness and obvious inaccuracies”.

要求DOL审查H-1B LCA的“欺诈或失实陈述”，而不仅仅是“完整性和明显的不准确性”。

• Comments: This undermines the type of expedited review that LCAs receive. As soon as adjudicators must undertake a more substantive review than completeness and obvious inaccuracies (such as, an internal inconsistency), the review will add significantly more time and expense to an already expensive and time-consuming process.- 评论：这破坏了接收LCA后快速审查的类型。一旦审查者必须进行比“完整性和明显不准确性”（例如内部意见不一致）更为实质性的审查，那么该审查就会在时间和费用上本来就很昂贵且耗时的流程基础上，再大大增加成本。

• Requires employers pay at least the actual wages paid to similar U.S. workers in the local area. .

要求雇主至少支付类似当地美国员工的实际工资。

• Comments: This provision extends a current provision of the law to state the “actual wages” must be based only on wages of workers in the area of intended employment. There is also a slight tightening in how it defines similar U.S. workers from “similar experience and qualifications” to “substantially the same duties and responsibilities.” In some cases, using only U.S. workers in one area might raise the wage in some cases, while it might lower the wage in other cases. Again, narrowing the workers to those with “substantially similar duties and responsibilities” would have the same ambiguous effect.- 评论：此条款扩展了的现行法规，即规定“实际工资”必须仅基于预期就业地区员工的工资。从“相似的经验和资历”到“基本相同的职责和责任”，它对相似的美国员工的定义也略有收紧。某些情况下，在一个地区仅使用美国员工可能会提高工资，而在其他情况下则可能会降低工资。同样，将员工范围缩小到“职责和责任基本相似”的员工，将导致相同的模棱两可效果。

• Vastly expands DOL audit and investigation authority:

• Allows DOL to conduct compliance surveys or annual audits of any H-1B employer.

• Requires audits of anyone with 100 H-1B workers if more than 15% of their employees.

• Allows investigations based on anonymous sources not in the form of a complaint from workers or other harmed parties.

• Allows DOL to audit or investigate based on information in an LCA.

• Eliminates the requirement that the DOL secretary personally certify that reasonable cause exists for an H-1B investigation.

• Removes the 60-day time limit on investigations.

大大扩展DOL的审核和调查权限：

• 允许DOL对任何H-1B雇主进行合规性调查或年度审核。

• 要求对所有雇佣超过100名H-1B员工（如果占其雇员超过15％）的雇主进行审核。

• 允许基于匿名来源进行调查，而不因员工或其他受害方的投诉。

• 允许DOL根据LCA中的信息进行审核或调查。

• 消除了劳工部部长亲自证明对H-1B调查存在合理原因的要求。

• **取消了调查的60天期限要求。**Comments: Currently, H-1B audits are based only on complaints or other verified, non anonymous sources that come to the DOL from people DOL knows would have knowledge of an H-1B violation. According to DOL, this latter authority had never been used as of this year, so H-1B audits have exclusively been based on complaints. Congress imposed these restrictions because it wanted to limit the authority of DOL to conduct meritless investigations. These provisions would allow DOL to target employers for audits without any reason to believe a violation has occurred. This is yet another burden in an already burdensome and expensive process.- 评论：目前，DOL 启动H-1B审核仅基于：1.违反H-1B流程的知情人员投诉；或2.其他经过验证的非匿名信息来源。根据DOL官方规定，后一项到今年为止从未被使用过，至此H-1B审核完全基于投诉。国会之所以增加这些约束，是因为它希望限制DOL自行开展无缘故调查的权限。这些规定将使DOL可以将雇主定位为审核对象，而无需任何相信发生了违规情况理由。这是本来已经很麻烦且昂贵的行政过程中的又一个负担。

• Eliminates the protection from penalties for employers that made a good faith effort to follow the rules or that underpaid employees based on use of a prevailing wage methodology based on industry standards.

取消对雇主真诚遵守规则或基于基于行业标准的基本工资方法使用薪水不足的雇主免于罚款的保护。

• Comments: These harmful provisions are replaced with a benignly labeled “information sharing” provision on page 19.- 评论：这些恶法条款已被第19页上贴上良性标签的“信息共享”条款所代替。

• Triples the fines for H-1B LCA violations. Fines increase from $1,000 to $3,000 for non-willful violations, from $5,000 to $15,000 for willful violations, from $35,000 to $100,000 for displacement of U.S. workers.

**对H-1B LCA违规处以三倍罚款。**非故意违反的罚款从1,000美元提高到3,000美元，故意违反的罚款从5,000美元提高到15,000美元，导致美国员工失业的罚款从35,000美元提高到100,000美元。

• Comments: Adjustments for inflation since 1998 would not quite double the fine amounts, so these increases are clearly intended as more than an update to outdated statutory figures.- 评论：自1998年以来的通货膨胀调整不至于导致罚款数额增加一倍，因此，这些加倍显然不仅是对过时法定数字的更新。

California Election Integrity in Jeopardy With Vote-by-Mail Ballots to Every Voter

随着向每位选民邮寄选票，加州选举的廉正性受到威胁

13 California counties now have more registered voters than eligible citizens

加州13个县目前登记的选民多于有资格的公民**

‘Regular people, regardless of party affiliation, they really do want fair and honest elections.’

***‘***普通人，无论其政党归属，他们的确真的想要公平和诚实的选举。’

The Election Integrity Project California is warning that an all-vote-by-mail ballot election in the state and the state’s largest cities, means hundreds of thousands of likely deceased or relocated could “receive” ballots; thousands of duplicated voters would be mailed two or more ballots.

加州选举廉正项目(EIP)正在警告州和州里最大城市的完全邮寄投票选举意味着几十万可能已经去世或搬家的人会“收到”选票；两份或更多份选票会邮寄给数千名重复选民。

EIP says the entire state has bloated voter lists so this problem will be even worse if state lawmakers pass legislation to mandate mail ballots to all Californians.

EIP说整个州都膨胀了选民名单，因此如果州立法者通过立法规定邮寄选票给所有加州人，那么这个问题将会更加严重。（ 编者注：因为 COVID-19, 已经通过了这种法律。)

“In fact, we are about to publish that 13 counties now have more registered voters than eligible citizens, as of Feb 18, 2020,” EIPCa’s chief analyst, Ellen Swensen told California Globe.

“事实上，我们将要发布的信息是，截止于2020年2月18日，13个县现在登记的选民多于有资格的公民，” EIPCa的首席分析员Ellen Swensen告诉加州环球。

“Los Angeles County debuted a new voting system in the March 3 election, and it was plagued with problems,” EIP said. “Unreliable connections with the state voter database, inadequately trained election workers and new machines that broke down created long lines and voter frustration.”

“洛杉矶县在3月3日的选举中首次使用了一个新的投票系统，而它饱受问题的困扰，” EIP说到。“与州选民数据库不可靠的连接、培训不足的选举工作人员以及出故障的新机器造成了排长队和选民的懊恼。”

“Many reportedly gave up and did not vote. In a questionable response to these problems, California’s Secretary of State (SOS) Alex Padilla directed county Registrar Dean Logan to mail a vote-by-mail (VBM) ballot to every Los Angeles County registrant for the November 2020 election.”

“据报道许多人放弃了，没有投票。作为对这些问题的令人质疑的回应，加州州务卿（SOS）Alex Padilla指示县登记员Dean Logan通过邮件寄出邮寄投票（VBM）选票给每一位洛杉矶县的登记者用以2020年11月大选。”

In addition to the California voter rolls filled with ineligible voters, Fox News recently reported that a 62-year-old man pleaded guilty in Feb., to a large-scale, illegal “ballot harvesting” scheme to pay homeless people living on Los Angeles’ infamous Skid Row to forge hundreds of signatures on ballot petitions and voter registration forms, during the 2016 and 2018 election cycles. The man was sentenced to one year in county jail and 100 hours of community service.  Eight other faces various charges affiliated with this scheme.

除了满是无资格选民的加州选民名单外，Fox新闻最近报道了一名62岁男子在2月承认进行了一个大规模的非法“投票采集”骗局的罪名，他在2016年和2018年选举期间支付住在洛杉矶臭名昭著的Skid Row的流浪汉以在投票请愿书和选民登记表上伪造数百个签名。该男子被判处入县监狱一年徒刑和100小时的社区服务。其他8人面临和该骗局有关的多种指控。

According to EIPCa:

据EIPCa称：

• Los Angeles County has 206,728 registrants who have not voted or updated their registrations since November 2008 or before. Though they have not voted in more than a decade and may have died or relocated, these 206,728 registrants are still listed as “active” voters and would be mailed VBM ballots. This means hundreds of thousands of VBM ballots will be mailed to potentially ineligible voters, which will open the door to unlawful voting. The risk is increased because California law allows anyone to gather and deliver these ballots to the officials.

洛杉矶县有206,728名登记者，他们自从2008年11月或更早就没有投过票或更新过他们的登记。虽然他们十多年里都没有投过票并且可能已去世或搬家，这206,728名登记者仍然被列为“活跃”选民，并会在邮件里收到VBM选票。这意味着几十万份VBM选票将被邮寄给可能无资格的选民，这将带来非法投票。因为加州法律允许任何人都可以收集并把这些选票交付给官员，这增大了该风险。

• Los Angeles County has 8,158 persons who have TWO active voter registrations in their names. These persons will each be mailed two VBM ballots. Persons receiving two VBM ballots can easily vote twice undetected, since the system has them documented as two different registrants.

洛杉矶县有8,158人，在其名下有两个活跃的选民登记。这些人每人都会在邮件里收到两份VBM选票。收到两份VBM选票的人可以轻易地投两次票而不被查出，因为系统已经把他们记为两名不同的登记者。

How does the Election Integrity Project know this?

选举廉正项目是如何知道此事的？

Election Integrity Project, California Inc. purchased the VoteCal voter registration and voting history files on February 18, 2020. In its initial review of the data, EIPCa identified significant list maintenance deficiencies in Los Angeles (LA) County. The purpose of this letter is to alert you both to these deficiencies as LA County considers the Secretary’s direction to send vote-by-mail (VBM) ballots to all active registrants in the November 2020 election.

加州选举廉正项目公司在2020年2月18日购买了VoteCal选民登记和投票历史文件。在其对数据的首次复审中，EIPCa找出了洛杉矶（LA）县在名单维护上有显著的不足。这封信的目的是警告你们两位有这些不足，当时LA县在考虑州务卿的指示在2020年11月大选中把邮寄投票（VBM）选票发送给所有活跃登记者。

In a March 9, 2020 letter to Sec.of State Alex Padilla and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, EIPCa enumerated their findings:

在2020年3月9日给州务卿Alex Padilla和洛杉矶县登记员-记录员以及县政官员Dean Logan的信里，EIPCa列举了他们的调查发现：

• LA Finding # 1: “No Show” Registrants LA County currently has 206,728 registrants who have not voted or updated their registrations since November 2008 or prior. Though they have likely died or relocated, these “no show” registrants remain in active status and will be mailed VBM ballots in November if the county mails ballots to every active registrant. 1,486 are over 100 years old and 117,500 have no record of ever having voted, yet they remain on the active file list.

LA调查发现第1点：“不出席”登记者 LA县目前有206,728名登记者，他们自从2008年11月或更早就没有投过票或更新过他们的登记。虽然他们可能已经去世或搬家，这些“不出席”登记者仍然保留活跃状态，如果县邮寄选票给每一位活跃登记者，那么他们在11月会在邮件里收到VBM选票。1486人超过100岁，而117,500人从未有投票记录，但是他们仍然留在活跃文件名单上。

Making matters even more concerning, EIPCa co-founder Linda Paine said in a California Globe interview last March 2019, the California Legislature has taken the in-depth reports provided by the Election Integrity Project documenting election weaknesses, and used the information to pass legislation enshrining ways to compromise elections. However, Paine said California Republicans ignored the warnings and patterns. “It’s like a Trojan Horse,” Paine said. “They are using it to put progressives in every office from dog catcher on up.”

让事态更加令人担忧的是，EIPCa联合创始人Linda Paine在2019年3月的一次加州环球访谈中说到，加州议会收下了选举廉正项目提供的记录选举弱点的深度报告，并利用这些信息通过了立法，正式写进了使选举陷入危险的方式。然而，Paine说加州共和党人忽略了这些警告和模式。“这就像特洛伊木马，” Paine说。“他们利用它把进步人士安置在每一个办公室里，从捕狗者起一直到上层。”

Paine said California is no longer functioning like a Republic – “it’s more like an oligarchy at every jurisdiction and in every county.” However, Paine promised, “We are moving heaven and hell, with or without the California Legislature.”

Paine说加州不再像共和国一样运转——“它在每个司法管辖区和每个县级别上都更像寡头政体。” 然而Paine保证，“无论有没有加州议会，我们都会竭尽全力。”

Getting back to 2020, EIPCa recommends that LA county mail all “no show” registrants a card under NVRA Section 8(d)(2) and inactivate these registrants while the county researches their respective eligibility. Though an inactivated “no show” will not be mailed a VBM ballot, he/she but can still vote in person while on the inactive list.

回到2020年上，EIPCa建议LA县依据NVRA第8(d)(2)章给所有“不出席”登记者邮寄卡片并撤销这些登记者，同时调查他们相应的资格。尽管不会邮寄VBM选票给被撤销的“不出席”者，他/她在列于撤销名单的同时仍然可以亲自前往投票。

• LA Finding #2: Duplicated Registrations— LA County has 10,556 registrants who appear to be registered to vote more than once. Of these, 21 appear to be registered three times. Each occurrence entails two or more registrations under the same name, same/similar birthdate and same address. Suspected duplicates living at differing addresses in the county have additional matching criteria such as email, phone number or mailing address. Persons who appear to be registered under both married and maiden names are included, while likely twins are excluded. The DMV voter registration system appears to be the source of many duplicated voter registrations. Data errors also contribute (misspellings, spacing mistakes, flipped names (e.g., John Smith, Smith John), flipped birthdates (e.g., 2/4/57, 4/2/57)).

LA调查发现第2点：重复登记——LA县有10556名似乎登记投票超过一次的登记者。在这些人当中，21人似乎登记了三次。每次都包含了在同一姓名、相同/类似生日和相同地址之下的两个或更多登记。住在县里不同地址的疑似重复者有额外的匹配标准，例如电子邮件、电话号码或邮政地址。似乎用婚后和婚前姓名都登记的人被包括在内，而可能是双胞胎的人被排除在外。DMV选民登记系统似乎是许多重复选民登记的来源。数据错误也是一个原因（错拼、字距错误、姓和名颠倒（例如，John Smith，Smith John）、生辰月日颠倒（例如，2/4/57，4/2/57））。

• LA Finding #3: Duplicate Registrants with Matching EMS IDs — Of the 10,556 suspected duplicates, 324 have different VoteCal Registration IDs but matching county EMS IDs. Matching EMS IDs should make it easy for the county and state to identify and merge these duplicates, yet they remain on the VoteCal file as two distinct active-status registrations for each person.

LA调查发现第3点：有匹配EMS ID的重复登记者— 在10556名疑似重复者中，324人有不同的VoteCal登记ID，但有匹配的县EMS ID。匹配的EMS ID应该让县和州发现及合并这些重复者变得容易，但他们仍以每个人有两个不同的活跃状态登记保留在VoteCal文件中。

• LA Finding #4: Duplicated Registrants to Receive 2+ VBM Ballots — If LA County mails ballots to all active registrants in November, 8,158 of the duplicated registrants will each be mailed two VBM ballots and five will be mailed three VBM ballots. This is because they have two or three active-status registrations each. Persons receiving more than one VBM ballot can easily vote more than once undetected, since the system has them documented as different registrants.

LA调查发现第4点：重复登记者将收到两份以上VBM选票 — 如果LA县在11月邮寄选票给所有活跃登记者，那么8158名重复登记者将每人在邮件里收到两份VBM选票，而5人将在邮件里收到三份VBM选票。 这是因为他们每人有两个或三个活跃状态的登记。收到超过一份VBM选票的人可以轻易地投超过一次票而不被查出，因为系统把他们记为不同的登记者。

• LA Finding #5- Possible Double Voting — The data show that 1,300 LA County duplicate registrants have already voted more than once in at least one election. This may be actual double voting, accidental duplication of voting histories, or some of both. VoteCal may be auto-duplicating voting histories for some LA County voters who use DMV registration.

LA调查发现第5点——可能有双重投票 — 数据显示1300名LA县重复登记者已经在至少一次选举中投票超过一次。这可能是实际双重投票、投票历史的意外复制，或者两者都有一些。VoteCal可能对一些使用DMV登记的LA县选民自动复制投票历史。

• LA Finding #6: Registered in LA County Plus One Other County — 2,439 additional persons are registered in LA County plus one other county, primarily Orange County and San Diego County. Some will receive one VBM from LA County and one VBM from the other county, if LA County mails VBMs to every active registrant.

LA调查发现第6点：在LA县及其它一个县登记 — 另外2439人在LA县及其它一个县登记，主要是橙县和圣迭戈县。如果LA县邮寄VBM给每一位活跃登记者，那么有些人会收到来自LA县的一份VBM和来自另一个县的一份VBM。

• LA Finding #7: Other Ineligible Registrants — LA County currently has 855,788 ineligible registrants (total LA County active plus inactive registrants on February 18, 2020 compared to the Secretary of State’s February 18, 2020 estimate of eligible citizens). While there are 1,539,513 inactives that LA County is currently working to update or cancel, the 206,728 active “no show” registrants, 10,556 duplicated registrants and 2,439 cross-county duplicates discussed above are further contributing to LA County’s unacceptably high level of ineligible registrations.

LA调查发现第7点：其他无资格的登记者 — LA县目前有855,788名无资格登记者（2020年2月18日那天总的LA县活跃加不活跃登记者数与州务卿对2020年2月18日那天有资格的公民数的估算相比较）。虽然LA县目前正在着手更新或取消1539,513名不活跃者，以上讨论的206728名活跃“不出席”登记者、10556名重复登记者和2439名跨县重复者进一步加剧了LA县难以接受的高度无资格登记。

As an aside Swensen said, “vote by mail ballots are only mailed to Active-status, so not all registrants will get ballots. Inactive and Pending status will not get VBMs. The 200,000+ are likely ineligible registrants who should have been inactivated or cancelled but are still listed ‘active’ status for some reason. The dups getting two VBMs each have two active-status registrations.”

此外Swensen说过，“邮寄投票只邮寄给活跃状态，所以不是所有登记者都会收到选票。不活跃和待定状态将不会收到VBM。这20多万人很可能是无资格登记者，他们本应被撤销或取消，但由于某些原因仍被列为“活跃”状态。这些每人收到两份VBM的重复者有两个活跃状态的登记。”

“We have found in our work that when we’re talking to just regular people, regardless of party affiliation, they really do want fair and honest elections,” EIPCa’s Linda Paine said in a recent Fox News interview. “They want to know that if their candidate lost — that they lost because the process was fair and honest. What we’re seeing is the lack of integrity in the process.”

“我们在工作中发现当我们和一般普通人谈话时，无论其政党归属，他们的确真的想要公平和诚实的选举，” EIPCa的Linda Paine在最近一次Fox新闻访谈中说到。“他们想知道如果他们的候选人输了——他们是因为参与过程是公平诚实的而败阵。我们现在看到的是此过程中缺少廉正性。”

The Election Integrity Project-California, founded in 2010, is a non-partisan, non-profit volunteer organization that advocates for citizens to become active participants in the electoral process, according to its website.

加州选举廉正项目成立于2010年，据其网站描述，是一家无党派、非盈利性志愿者组织，提倡公民在选举过程中成为积极的参与者。

If you need to report voting irregularities, EIPCa has this Citizen Incident Statement [PDF no longer available].

如果你需要报告在投票上的不正当行为，EIPCa有一份公民事件声明 [PDF已失效]。

以“觉醒”为名，大学录取程序取消SAT成绩将伤害少数族裔

by Kenny Xu May 22, 2020 02:55 PM

【译者注：Kenny Xu is another recipient of SVCAF’s Voice of Chinese Americans Award. He published this opinion article in Washington Examiner on May 22, 2020】

(“觉醒”是政治术语: 是指非裔美国人对有关社会正义和种族正义的问题的感知意识。它源于非裔美国人白话英语表达“ stay woke”，是指对上述社会政治问题的持续关注。) – 译者加注

We should all be concerned about the University of California regents’ decision to eliminate the SAT and the ACT from college admissions by 2025. This change will harm the very same minority students who administrators supposedly seek to protect. 

 “在2025年前大学录取过程中取消SAT和ACT成绩作为参考” 我们都应该对加利福尼亚大学系统（拥有十所公立大学组成的研究性大学系统，下文简称“UC系统”）董事会这一决定而感到担忧。这一变化将损害那些原本应由校方行政管理层保护的少数族裔学生。

The decision flouts the recommendations of UC’s own faculty leadership and the task force convened to study the issue. It reflects not rational policymaking but a growing movement on the Left to do away with standardized testing in college admissions due to a perceived racial bias against black and Hispanic applicants.

这项决定无视了来自UC系统教职员工及为研究该问题而召集的专家工作组两方的建议。它反映了非理性的政策制定，体现左派越发高涨的运动：因为“普遍认为”地对非裔和拉丁裔申请人的种族偏见，近而取消大学招生过程中的标准化考试。

These sentiments are simply false. 

而这些观点显而易见是错误的。

There is no evidence that the SAT is “biased” against black and Hispanic applicants. What is used to justify these claims are the sizable differences in average scores across demographic groups. But discrepancies alone do not prove discrimination.

没有证据表明SAT对非裔和拉丁裔申请人存有“偏见”。用来证明这些主张的理由是各种族人群的平均分数差异很大。但仅仅靠差异并不能证明歧视。

The true purpose of the SAT is to predict college success, and it does that very neutrally along racial lines. SAT correlations with college GPA are nearly identical between black students (0.49), Hispanics (0.55), Asians (0.54), and white students (0.56), all of which are considered “high.” In fact, there is potential evidence that the SAT tracks college GPA in black students better than it does for white students. This is likely why there hasn’t been much noise from predominantly black colleges to eliminate the tests.

SAT的真正目的是预测完成大学学术的潜力，并且在种族方面秉持非常中立的立场。非裔学生（0.49），拉丁裔（0.55），亚裔（0.54）和白人学生（0.56）的SAT成绩与大学GPA（考察大学生总体成绩的平均绩点）的相关性几乎相同，所有这些都被认为是“高度关联”。实际上，有潜在的证据表明，相较于白人学生，SAT能够更好地追踪预测非裔学生的大学GPA。这很可能就是为什么以非裔生源为主的大学却没有太多发声要求剔除测试的原因。

SAT and ACT scores also hedge against a very real fraud sweeping the country and devastating low-income black and Hispanic communities: grade inflation.

SAT和ACT分数还可以用来应对席卷全国破坏低收入非裔和拉丁裔社区且非常真实的假象：分数膨胀。

In places such as New York City, in predominantly low-income black and Hispanic neighborhoods with decrepit public schools, such inflation runs rampant, and the number of students in NYC who pass math classes but fail basic math performance tests is unconscionably high. Over 140 high schools in New York City have entire grades with over 90% math exam failure rates, but grade inflation and unwritten “no-fail” policies have allowed them to pass students anyway. 

在纽约市某些区域，主要是充斥着破败公立学校的低收入非裔和拉丁裔社区，分数膨胀畸高，纽约市通过数学课程但未通过基本数学成绩测试的学生人数高得离谱。纽约市超过140所高中的整个年级都有90％以上的数学考试不及格率，但是分数膨胀和不成文的“不给 不及格”政策使这些学校无论如何都可以放水学生升学。

In fact, between 80% and 94% of students in NYC public middle schools passed their math classes, but just 2% to 15% passed their math exams. There is little doubt that as students in NYC are being passed from grade to grade, the acquisition of true math skills that would help them succeed in college or in working life is criminally perfunctory. And that lack of preparation will show up in college life. 

实际上，纽约市公立中学的学生中有80％至94％通过了数学课程，但只有2％至15％通过了数学考试。毫无疑问，随着纽约市的学生从一个年级升入另一个年级，让他们获得真正的数学技能以助力将来大学或工作中有所成就简直就是痴人说梦。而这种知识储备不足的现象则会凸显在大学学术生涯。

On the other hand, many wealthy white parents exploit the predominance of extracurricular activities in college admissions to give their kids an unmerited advantage in the admissions process. In one extreme example, famous Hollywood actors were able to get their children into elite schools by bribing their swim team coaches. Even without explicit bribery, wealth is far more likely to buy dance lessons or lacrosse uniforms that provide great boosts to extracurricular profiles than it is to buy actual cognitive ability as measured by a test. 

另一方面，许多有钱的白人家长则充分发掘大学招生中对课外活动的要求，让孩子在招生过程中享有无功而得的优势。在某些极端的例子中，好莱坞著名演员们通过贿赂游泳队教练，使他们的孩子被精英学校录取。即使没有明显的贿赂，比起买来通过考试测评而获得的实际认知能力，拥有财力也更大可能购买舞蹈课或曲棍球制服，从而极大提升包装了课外活动表现。

To gain the latter, you have to work hard and prepare, or at least show enough discipline to grind out study hours on practice exams.

为了获得实际认知能力，你必须努力学习并准备，或者至少表现出足够的纪律性以合理安排备考的学习时间。

Does anyone really think making an admissions system less accountable, less reliant on objective metrics, and more dependent on the individual sentiments of college admissions officers who hold biases just like any of us will somehow result in a *less *corrupt system? 

难道真的有人认为这么搞会产生一个更少腐败的系统吗？让招生系统更不负责任，更少依赖客观指标，转而更多地依赖像我们任何常人一样带有偏见的大学招生人员的个人观点？

More likely, it will just benefit the rich and white even more. 

反而结果是更有可能让富人和白人受益更多。

The moral blinders on the elite UC system are so strong, however, that it chooses to ignore this data, as well as the recommendations from the very people it hired to make a decision on this matter, and to vote 23-0 to eliminate the tests. Why?

但是，精英UC系统上的卫道士们是如此强大，以至于选择忽略此数据和它聘用的对此问题做决定的专业人士的建议，并以23-0一边倒投票取消考试成绩作为参考。为什么？

Truthfully, this is all part of a left-wing push to reduce and eventually eliminate the notion of individual merit altogether. Believing judging people on the basis of merit to be odious, the Left would prefer to structure its institutions on the basis of race, ethnicity, and its own political predispositions. Don’t believe me?

坦白地讲，所有这一切是左翼势力努力达成的目的：减少并最终完全消除个人成绩优秀概念。左派认为根据成绩优秀来评判个体是可恶的，因此宁愿根据种族，民族和政治倾向来建立自己的高等教育体系。还不信我吗？

A bill to revoke neutrality laws and allow race and sex preferences in public college enrollment and government employment is also making its way through the California legislature.

一项旨在废除相关中立法律并在公立大学入学和政府岗位招聘中允许种族和性别偏好的法案也正在加利福尼亚州立法机构中酝酿。

The left’s piety about “diversity” should not be interpreted as sincere outreach to black people and Hispanics. It is just another power grab to restructure society how they see fit.

左派对“多样性”的虔诚不应被理解为对非裔和拉丁裔的真诚服务。这仅仅是另一项他们企图攫取的政权，以他们认为合适地方式来重塑社会。

Kenny Xu works for Young America’s Foundation and writes on race and identity politics from Washington. Follow him on Twitter @kennymxu and Facebook at thekennethxu.

Kenny Xu 供职于“美国青年基金会”，并长居于首都华盛顿，对种族和个体政治议题供稿。你可以通过Twitter推特账号@kennymxu *，Facebook脸书账号thekennethxu.*追踪他。

作者：EIP-Ca （加州选举完整项目) 立法监督总监Ruth Weiss， ruthweiss@eip-ca.com

加利福尼亚圣克拉丽塔。由于加州AB 860法案的生效，今年11月普选所有加利福尼亚州的选民将收到邮寄选票。这引起了许多担心，其中一个担心是邮寄选票的丢失。今年3月份初选时丢失的选票数量达到数十万！

为确保在11月的选举中不会发生这种选票丢失的情况，请立即前往 WheresMyBallot.sos.ca.gov进行注册以接收有关您的选票的电子邮件，SMS（短信）和/或语音呼叫通知。我刚刚做了，大约只需要20秒。

注册后，当选举时间到来时，您会收到如下通知：

• 您的选票由您的选举办公室（或供应商）放到邮件中- 您的选票在10月5日至10月9日之间邮寄出来- 邮政的预计递送日期- 如果它未能如期到达，您可以致电取消并更换，以防止有人用你的名字进行选票欺诈- 什么时候选举办公室收到您的选票- 您的选票被计算或拒绝- 如果被拒绝：为什么以及可以采取的步骤- 如果在特定日期之前未收到您的选票会提醒您。

目前加州58县中的52个县正在提供这项服务。（请看文章最后有关列表）。如果您的县尚未提供此服务，请点击此处，了解如何检查你的选票。

在忘记之前，请立即执行此操作。然后告诉每个人您都知道。

WheresMyBallot.sos.ca.gov 

下面的县提供WheresMyBallot选票跟踪服务

• Amador- Butte- Calaveras- Colusa- Contra Costa- Del Norte- El Dorado- Fresno- Glenn- Humboldt- Inyo- Kern- Kings- Lake- Lassen- Los Angeles- Madera- Marin- Mariposa- Mendocino- Merced- Mono- Monterey- Napa- Nevada- Orange- Placer- Plumas- Riverside- Sacramento- San Benito- San Bernardino- San Diego- San Francisco- San Joaquin- San Luis Obispo- San Mateo- Santa Barbara- Santa Clara- Santa Cruz- Shasta- Siskiyou- Sonoma- Stanislaus- Sutter- Tehama- Trinity- Tulare- Tuolumne- Ventura- Yolo- Yuba

点击此处，可以直接转向选票跟踪网站

编者按：Mr. Haibo Huang is one of the recipients of SVCAF’s Voice of Chinese Americans Award. He published an op ed  about ACA-5 in San Diego Union Tribune on June 9th. Here is his unabridged article in both English and Chinese.

**ACA-5 is a Wolf-in-Sheep’s-Clothing

ACA-5, 一只披着羊皮的狼**

ACA-5 seeks to repeal Prop 209 under the guise of “Affirmative Action”, “Equality” and/or “Diversity”.  Like its predecessors SCA5 and AB1726, it seeks proportional representation, a.k.a. “racial balancing”, a patently unconstitutional goal under the California and the U.S. constitutions. Thereby, the California constitution must be amended to make way.

ACA-5 以“平权行动”，“平等”和/或“多元化”等美丽字眼为幌子提议废除（1996年通过的）209号加州宪法修正案。像其前身SCA5和AB1726一样，它真正寻求的是比例代表制，又称“种族平衡”。这样做明显违反加利福尼亚和美国宪法，因此，加州宪法本身必须被修改以为其让路。

The phrase Affirmative Action originated in President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925 in 1961 and in President Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 in 1965.  The exact original words are:  “Take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”  The focus is to stop discrimination using racial criteria, a goal ACA-5 seeks to revoke by repealing Prop 209.  The so-called “Affirmative Action” ACA-5 seeks is to change “without regard to” into “must consider” race in all government decisions.  Through such a “bait and switch” tactic, ACA-5 spins “Affirmative Action” on its head to accomplish the exact opposite.  It also spins the concept of “equal opportunity” by equating it to “equal outcome”, presented deceptively as “Affirmative Action”, “Equality” and/or “Diversity”.  Who would be so audacious, unreasonable, reactionary and repugnant as to oppose such noble ideals?  Under the resplendent cloth masquerades the ravening wolf of “racial preference”.

平权行动起源于1961年肯尼迪总统签署的10925号行政命令和1965年约翰逊总统签署的11246号行政命令。确切的原文是：“采取平权行动，以确保应聘者申请工作过程中，以及在被雇用期间所享受的待遇不受其种族，肤色，宗教，性别或国籍因素的影响。” 重点是要停止因使用种族标准而产生的歧视，ACA-5旨在通过废除第209号提案来销毁该目标。ACA-5寻求的所谓“平权行动”是在所有的政府决定中将种族因素从“不考虑”变为“必须考虑”。通过这种“偷梁换柱”策略，ACA-5打着“平权行动”的幌子以达到完全相反的效果。它还将“机会均等”的概念与“结果均等”划等号，欺骗性地将其等同成”平权行动“，“平等”和“多元化”。对于这样金字招牌包装下的“崇高理想”又有谁敢对它大胆妄议，批评和反对呢？于是，“种族优先”之实的恶狼就藏在伪善的羊皮底下悄无声息地来到了羊群之中，谁是它饥肠辘辘肚子里的下一餐呢？

San Diego Asian Americans for Equality (SDAAFE) firmly supports Johnson/Kennedy Affirmative Action and opposes the anti-affirmative-action attempt of the ACA-5 authors to bring back race into government decisions.  We support the compassionate ideal of helping socioeconomically underprivileged people of any race without regard to race, for which no constitutional amendment is needed.  Race is a forbidden classification for good reason, because it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of his or her own merit and essential qualities.  Racial preference is not transformed from ‘patently unconstitutional’ into a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it ‘racial diversity’.  The Equal Protection Clause commands the elimination of racial barriers, not their creation in order to satisfy our theory as to how society ought to be organized.  As Chief Justice John Roberts put it succinctly: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

圣地亚哥亚裔平权会（SDAAFE）坚决支持约翰逊/肯尼迪原版的平权行动，坚决反对ACA-5作者盗版并偷梁换柱将种族优先重新合法化的反平权行动。我们支持那博爱和“帮助任何种族里社会经济地位低下的人群”的崇高理念。这种理念不分种族，根本无需修宪即可执行。宪法禁止以种族因素作为分类标准是很有道理的，因为它根据一个人的肤色和祖先，而不是个人的基本素质和贡献所来决定其社会价值是对个人价值和尊严的侮辱。简单的贴上“种族多样性”的标签是不能将明显违宪的种族优先概念伪装成重要的国家利益。美国宪法第十四条《平等保护条款》要求消除已有的种族障碍，而不是通过人为设置新的种族优先障碍来满足我们对公义社会的理解和渴望。正如首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨（John Roberts）所说：“禁止种族歧视最好方法就是禁止用种族的眼光来区别对待所有事情。”

Racial preference passes over better qualified candidates for schools or government jobs based on innate characteristics a person cannot change.  It papers over deep-rooted social problems, condemning under-privileged kids of all races to a permanent cycle of dysfunctional schools and compromising academic missions in the long run.  It seeks to disregard rules and standards by rigging the outcome for the “chosen people,” not unlike the ongoing college admissions   scandal. It unpatriotically hurts American competitiveness in this age of global economy.  President Barack Obama also recognized that we Americans are not living in a bubble.  In his commencement speech to the historically black Morehouse College students on May 19th, 2013, he told the aspiring graduates “…in today’s hyperconnected, hypercompetitive world, with a billion young people from China and India and Brazil entering the global workforce alongside you, nobody is going to give you anything you haven’t earned.  And whatever hardships you may experience because of your race, they pale in comparison to the hardships previous generations endured and overcome.”

种族优先会使资历条件最合格的人选因个人无法改变的先天特征而失去入学或在政府工作的机会。它掩盖了根深蒂固的社会问题，迫使所有种族的弱势群体的孩子们永远接受劣等学校的教育，从而坑害国家的发展和教育大业。它试图无视规则和标准而为 “被拣选的人”篡改结果，这与最近震惊全美的大学入学丑闻有什么不同？在这个全球经济时代，这样做就是挥刀自宫美国的竞争力。奥巴马总统很早就认识到，我们美国人并非只生活在自己的圈子里。早在2013年5月19日，他在对历史悠久的黑人学校莫尔豪斯学院学生的致辞中，就对有抱负的毕业生说：“…在当今这个高度互联，竞争激烈的世界中，来自中国，印度和巴西的十亿年轻人与你们一起进入全球劳动力市场，如果你没有本事，你就会被淘汰。别整天为你们由于种族因素而经历的种种困难而叫苦。你们经历的困难与前几代人所曾经忍受和并且已经克服的困难相比，根本算不上啥。”

Judging people by their skin color is morally repugnant. Equal opportunity is referenced to individual merits, it never guarantees equal results.  To the contrary, enforcing equal outcomes regardless of qualification and effort bears the hallmark of Communism.  Racial preference fosters victimhood, removing any incentive to excel.  It also stigmatizes the “beneficiaries”, degrading the perceived worth of their qualifications in the eyes of others.  Even the leading liberal Justice of the 1970s, Justice William O. Douglas, admonished that “All races can compete fairly at all professional levels.  So far as race is concerned, any state-sponsored preference to one race over another in that competition is in my view ‘invidious’ and violative of the Equal Protection Clause.”

以肤色取人在道德上令人不齿。机会均等是以个人能力为标准而不是以结果相同为标准。相反，若无论资历和努力如何，结果都是一样的，则是搞共产主义。“种族优先”会滋生被害臆想，磨灭追求卓越的动力。它也给所谓的“受益人”蒙上污名，使其资历价值被别人看低。就连70年代的自由主义者先驱大法官威廉·道格拉斯（William O. Douglas）法官也告诫道：“所有种族都可以靠自己在所有职业中公平竞争。就种族而言，在我看来，任何被国家和州政府优先对待的种族，都会因“享受特权”而被人憎恶，因为这违反了 （宪法十四条修正案）《平等保护条款》。”

True diversity is the diversity of ideas, the celebration of our differences; it is not clumsy attempts to equalize everything. If the United States is a melting pot, why is it necessary to identify each ingredient?  More than half a century ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously proclaimed, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  He must be rolling in his grave!

真正的多样性是思想的多样性，是尊重并拥抱我们的差异；而非盲目肤浅地追求大同社会。如果美国是一个大熔炉，为什么必须天天识别大熔炉里的每种成分来区别对待？早在半个多世纪以前，马丁·路德·金博士就在著名的演讲中说：“我梦想有一天，我的四个孩子将生活在一个不是以他们的肤色，而是以他们的品格优劣来评判他们的国度里。” 看到ACA-5披着“平等公义”的羊皮，干着种族优先的勾当，还挂上他的招牌， 估计金博士急得要从棺材里蹦出来了。

I have a dream. Do you?  

我有一个梦想。你有吗？

Dr. Haibo Huang

黄海波 博士

Co-founder, SDAAFE

SDAAFE 联合创始人之一

For Immediate Release

June 14, 2020

Fremont, San Diego & Irving, California: Representing a diverse and broad-based coalition of concerned organizations to oppose Assembly Constitutional Amendment ACA 5, the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF), San Diego Asian Americans for Equality (SDAAFE), TOC Foundation and Asian American Coalition for Education (AACE) issued the following statement denouncing several members of Californian Asian & Pacific Islander (API) Legislative Caucus. 

During a recent Assembly floor held on June 10th, San Francisco API Caucus Chair Assemblymember David Chiu and members of the API caucus turned a blind eye to fierce opposition of ACA 5 from their constituency, including a large majority of the Asian-American community. They passed ACA 5 on a majority party-line vote – 60 to 14.  Members of the API Legislative Caucus who voted to pass ACA 5 included: David Chiu (17 D), Al Muratsuchi (66 D), Ash Kalra (27 D), Rob Bonta (18 D), Todd Gloria (78 D), Evan Low (28 D), Adrin Nazarian (46 D), and Phil Ting (19 D).

Lacking transparency and using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse, Assembly Democrats only held one committee hearing for ACA-5 which was heard in the Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee. Assembly Democrats purposely ignored holding policy hearing for ACA 5 in the Assembly Higher Education Committee.

In addition, Chiu, Muratsuchi, Bonta, Gloria and Low delivered floor remarks to tout their support of ACA 5, endorsing the blatant lies that are perpetuated in the language of the legislation. ACA 5 would not advance the interests of hard-working Asian Americans in California.

Adding insult to the situation, Chiu and Low slandered the strong grass-root outreach efforts to legislators. Instead of embracing their constituency’s high level of civic engagement, both members ignored their constituents’ deep concerns of ACA 5. Chiu egregiously insinuated that the voters’ anti-discrimination movement is anti-civil rights and misquoted a debunked survey on Asian Americans’ attitudes toward affirmative action, an over-loaded and often misused concept. Low took one step further to disparage first-generation Asian Americans as ignorant to our nation’s history on race relations. In essence, their remarks were slanderous and xenophobic. 

ACA 5 has triggered growing resentment and opposition within the community, including Asian-American parents and families. Proponents are blatantly claiming that ACA 5 would offer “government preference” of contracts to women and minorities. Rather, the true intent of ACA 5 is to repeal Proposition 209 which prohibits the state from “discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin”. 

ACA 5 is a divisive and discriminatory legislation and will only perpetuate the blatant practices of racial balancing against Asian American students in California. Proponents of ACA 5 like Chiu and Low are advocating for de facto quotas, stereotypes, and higher standards. ACA 5’s proposal to legalize racial preferences erodes America’s fundamental principles of equal opportunity, merit and individual liberty. It further hurts the unity of our society, at a particularly vulnerable moment facing our nation and California.

“Assembly Democrats in Sacramento who voted to pass ACA 5 sold us out. They caved to identify politics and betrayed public trust. They shamelessly stomped on our interests and virtues of the Asian-American community with blatant disregard for the future of our younger generation to pursue the American Dream. Their political pandering and misrepresentation of Asian American’ voices will be accountable,” said members of the Asian American Coalition working to defeat ACA 5.”  said members of the coalition working to defeat ACA 5.

Click here to review the growing and diverse list of organizations working to defeat ACA 5.

San Diego Asian Americans for Equality

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation

TOC Foundation

Asian American Coalition for Education

**MEDIA CONTACT: **Dr. Wenyuan Wu, wenyuan.wu@californiansforequalrights.org; (760) 705-8262.

About SDAAFE: http://www.sdaafe.org/.

About SVCAF: /. 

About TOC Foundation: https://www.tocfoundation.org/.

About AACE: http://asianamericanforeducation.org/en/home/.

June 8, 2020

**FREMONT, Calif. — **On behalf of a growing civil rights campaign against state government-sponsored racial discrimination, the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) denounces the insidious attempts of American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) to incite racial tension. Under the pretense of racial justice, ADOS operatives have relentlessly denigrated the Asian-American community and its grassroot representatives who have been courageously fighting against discrimination since 2014.

ADOS’s deliberate tactics of defamation and intimidation were intended to silence SVCAF’s opposition to a controversial bill ACA-5, which would reinstitute government preferences in California’s public programs. 

On June 3, 2020, a Zoom townhall meeting regarding ACA-5 was organized by June Yang Cutter, a candidate for California’s Assembly District 77. The townhall was hijacked by a group of ADOS members who rudely interrupted all featured speakers and chanted inflammatory rhetoric. Afterwards, ADOS started trolling the “#NoOnACA5” twitter account and circulating racist comments against Asian Americans. It even made death threats at civil rights leader Ward Connerly who champions the racial equality campaign. In several social media posts, ADOS labels Chinese Americans as  “bat-eating” “white supremacists,” and insulted Asians’ cultural heritage.

“SVCAF strongly protests ADOS’s malicious attacks on our fight against government discrimination based on race and gender. During the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing social unrest, racist and xenophic actions such as ADOS’s only serve to incite hate crimes against Asian-American communities,” states SVCAF President Crystal Lu. 

She continues, “Reviving racial preferences in government programs, as intended by ACA-5, does nothing to solve structural issues impacting disadvantaged or underserved communities in California. ACA-5 supporters are at best offering a political bandage decorated with toxic identity politics and tribalism.”

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation

MEDIA CONTACT: info@svcaf.org **

About SVCAF: /.

To alleviate the extreme shortage of personal protective equipment for healthcare professionals and public service workers, Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation has successfully secured the first batch of masks including N95 respirators! More shipments are coming in.

We welcome our supporters to donate toward the purchasing of more PPE. These equipment will go to healthcare providers, first responders, postal workers as well as senior citizens to protect them from coronavirus.

Please consider donating (see below) and share on your social media with following messages:

Project #StrongerTogether — SVCAF Calls for Donation to Supply N95 Respirators and Other Protective Gears for the need of Bay Area communities.

/pages/strongertogether/ Community4Community! #StrongerTogether #Masks4All #ProjectStrongerTogether

**Note: **To indicate the purpose of your donation is for Project #StrongerTogether, your donation amount should end with $.19. And your donation is tax deductible.

Our EIN is 47-3798752 .

For hospitals or essential businesses to accept our PPE donations, please refer to: /pages/pperequests/

[callout size=”col-8″ last_column=”false” title=”Paypal” description=”donations@svcaf.org via Paypal” button_title=”Donate $xx.19 for Project #StrongerTogether” button_icon=”cloud icon” button_link=”https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=Z2GA5GS3DKGRA” button_size=”large” button_rounded=”true” button_color=”blue”]

[callout size=”col-8″ last_column=”false” title=”Check Payable to: SVCAF” description=”Mail to: 39510 Paseo Padre Pkwy, Suite 310, Fremont, CA 94538″]

[callout size=”col-8″ last_column=”true” title=”Zelle to info@svcaf.org” description=”Recipient: SVCAF You have to send us an email or put your email in the description, to receive a receipt, since Zelle does not provide us sender info.”]

More updates on Social Media:

1. Twitter Updates: @tonyguan2010

2. LinkedIn Post: Project #StrongerTogether

3. Project #StrongerTogether Kickoff (03/31/2020)

4. Facebook: Project #StrongerTogether Kickoff (04/04/2020)

5. Facebook Pager: Project #StrongerTogether

6. Update on Project #StrongerTogether (4/10/2020)

7. Mask4Seniors Open for Online Reservation and Delivery! (5/27/2020)

Contact us: projectstronger2020@gmail.com

AB 1356, if passed, would mandate those jurisdictions to issue cannabis licenses if more than 50 percent of the voters in that jurisdiction voted positively for Proposition 64 in 2016. That is in direct contradiction to Section 26200 of the Business and Professions Code (“BPC”), part of MAUCRSA as adopted in Proposition 64. More specifically, subsection 26200 (a) of BPC provides, “[n]othing in this division shall be interpreted to supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division, including, but not limited to, local zoning and land use requirements, business license requirements, and requirements related to reducing exposure to second hand smoke, or to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of businesses licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction.” Now, AB 1356 wants to take back the very authority the state legislators had guaranteed to the local jurisdictions as Proposition 64 became law. We are deeply disturbed by a flipflop that is this thorough and this abrupt.

Further, just because the majority of the voters in a particular jurisdiction are in favor of Proposition 64 doesn’t mean they agree that their local government should license cannabis retails stores in that jurisdiction. While legal access to cannabis should be protected, health and safety concern of the general public should also be protected at no less level. Local governments know their people best and should be afforded full authority to determine how they handle matters with regard to their own constituents.

California prides itself as the most inclusive state in the United States by accommodating people with varied backgrounds. That is only possible by letting people build their local communities and exercise control over their daily lives traditionally reserved to them and not delegated this control to the state or federal government. AB 1356, if passed, would undermine this very foundation. 

By blatantly contradicting the law of MAUCRSA, in which state legislators promised to preserve self-governance, AB 1356 would destroy the credibility of these legislators. This would result in a total loss of faith in our state lawmakers, a price tag too high to pay.

For the reasons above, SVCAF, with love of our great state of California, strongly opposes AB 1356 (Ting).

The Historical Rally of Thousands of Asian Americans at the Boston Copley Square Supporting SFFA’s legal fight against Harvard   The link will be posted at round 11:45 am ET / 8:45 am PT Sunday, October 14, 2018.  

For decades, Harvard and many other elite universities have been discriminating against Asian American students, just as they did to Jewish students in the 1920s and 30s. Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA), a not-for-profit organization led by Mr. Edward Blum, sued Harvard in 2014 for its discriminatory practice in admissions. Last week, documents detailing Harvard’s admissions processes were made public. Discrimination evidenced in these documents is so overwhelming that SFFA moved for a summary judgment, “a request that the judge rule against Harvard without a trial, based on facts not in dispute.” Media coverage has been extensive, appearing in numerous major outlets.

• *Wall Street Journal: *Harvard Is Too Discriminating
• *USA Today: *Why is Harvard discriminating against Asian Americans? ‘Diversity’ is no excuse for racial bias
• *New York Times: *Harvard Rated Asian-American Applicants Lower on Personality Traits, Suit Says
• *Reuters: *Harvard records show discrimination against Asian-Americans: group
• *CNN: *Lawsuit: Harvard ranks Asian-Americans lower on personality traits
• *National Review: *Discrimination and Deceit at Harvard
• *Washington Post: *Harvard can’t have it all

The trial of this Harvard lawsuit is most likely to take place this October. The stakes are high for Asian Americans, and the impact would last for generations. In order to win this battle, SFFA needs help on two fronts. First, they need to find more Asian American students who were recently rejected by Harvard. The students’ privacy will be protected, and their time of involvement will be minimized. If you know any courageous students or parents who are interested, willing to step up, please contact:

Edward Blum, Founder and President, SFFA (EBlum@aei.org); or

Alex Chen, Board Member, SFFA (alexchen@svca.me)

Second, SFFA needs your financial support. Since 2015, Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) has been actively involved in SFFA’s causes. We have being helping to promote membership, raise funds, increase awareness and search for potential victims. The Harvard lawsuit is expensive. We call for each of you to donate to SFFA to fight for the battle.

In two swift motions, SVCAF sent SFFA $5,000 up front, and then matched $10,000 to the donations flooded in from our network of thousands of Asian Americans. Within 48 hours, aside from SVCAF’s seed of $15,000, a whopping $20,000 has been raised as a result of our Tuesday’s call for donation.

We still need more generous support! To donate, please visit studentsforfairadmissions.org/donate/.

Donations to SFFA are tax deductible. If your employer has a donation matching program, now is a good time to take advantage of it.

We thank you for standing with us to end racial discrimination!

Regards,

Crystal Lu

President, SVCAF

Dear Prof. Chemerinsky:

I am writing in response to your op-ed, “Don’t use Asian Americans to justify anti-affirmative action politics,” published by Washington Post on 8/3/2017. “Use”?? As first-generation Asian Americans, many of my friends and I are deeply offended by your politically motivated article that shows zero ounce of scholarship but is fraught with factual deficiency and logical flaws.

I really hate to use such strong words, because you just became the new dean of my alma mater, Berkeley Law. I still want to congratulate you—you deserve it, as there are only so many T-14 deanships. When I received from Boalt the news that you were being interviewed for the job, I joked with others: “Should I feel excited or not. He is a terrific con law scholar, but so liberal. I probably would vote for him because Boalt only chooses liberal deans anyway.” Yet, it was the last thing in my mind that I would be disappointed so quickly, and so profoundly that now I have to write something so emotionally charged.

I will rebut your article in a point-by-point fashion shortly, but want to first explain why I am so disturbed. I also want to tell you that, agitated and motivated by your article, my Asian American friends and I will launch new campaigns to support Mr. Ed Blum and his “white” and “conservative” anti-(race-based)-affirmative action mission.

The central thesis of your article is that white conservative opponents of affirmative action, represented by Mr. Blum, or perhaps the whole Sessions DOJ, want to “use” and “deploy” us Asian Americans as some tools in their anti-affirmative action campaign. Your assertion is beyond being condescending, ignorant, and ridiculous. It is hypocritically discriminating at its worst.

No, we are neither fancy napkins to be easily “used” nor cheap weapons to be readily “deployed.” Today Asian Americans are among the best educated ethnical groups with the highest incomes in America, but you elite liberals still need to “suspect that Asian Americans will see through this clumsy and cynical attempt to deploy them in service of dismantling affirmative action,” as if we are so dumb that we are clueless about who we are or what we are doing.

You have lived in California for almost the last decade. But the sheer ignorance in your article does not suggest you knew what happened in the last four years in California as to Asian/Chinese Americans on the AA issue. Having been involved at every single turn, I will chronicle some major events here:

• In mid-February, 2014, Chinese Americans in California learned of a pending state constitutional amendment bill, SCA-5, that would repeal Prop. 209 (1996)’s ban on race-based AA in California. We immediately realized that this bill would harm us badly. The bill had already passed in the Senate and must be stopped in the Assembly.
• Within a month, we across the whole California worked nonstop in trying to stop this bill, all as political newbies. Thousands of people joined the movement. In the Bay Area, we founded Silicon Valley Chinese Association (SVCA) to lead the effort. On March 17, 2014, California democrats shelved SCA-5, obviously because of our efforts. This was an amazing achievement given that California democrats had super majority in both houses while we had zero political experience/connection before. All of our volunteers worked very hard and contributed tremendously. It was largely a grassroots movement with just a little help from California republicans, but without any outside “white conservative” help. We knew neither Mr. Blum nor his Supreme Court litigations then. We did not even know what AEI was. And all these happened within just one month. Personally, I built a website, launched a snail mail campaign lobbying all 80 members of the California Assembly, and wrote to California legislature leaders an open letter summarizing the movement. Here is a nice video documenting our collective efforts.
• Being keenly aware of the AA issue, SVCA campaigned very hard in the 2014 election for Catharine Baker (who happens to be a Boalt alum and bravely objected to race-based AA on PBS in the fall of 1997 as a Boalt 1L) and helped elect her into the first republican state legislator in the whole northern California in eight years. Here is a nice video on the story.
• In early 2015, SVCA heard of Mr. Ed Blum’s Supreme Court litigation efforts, and immediately wanted to partner with his organization. SVCA reached out to Mr. Blum and invited him to visit Silicon Valley for a forum discussing race-based AA and his Supreme Court cases. The forum event was fully video-recorded. Shortly thereafter, SVCA launched a national campaign and helped Mr. Blum’s organization, Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA), recruit many thousands of new members and raise money. To this day, the majority of SFFA’s 20,000+ members have been those recruited by SVCA.
• In November 2015, SVCA learned that Governor Jerry Brown had vetoed a bill, AB 176, that contained a covert agenda for race-based AA. SVCA reached out to Assemblywoman Catharine Baker to discuss the bill, and issued a statement condemning it.
• In 2016, SVCA learned that a new bill, AB 1726, which was essentially identical to AB 176, had been re-introduced. SVCA organized numerous lobbying efforts, including a well-publicized protest in front of the California legislature, and ultimately defeated AB 1726 with respect to its race-based AA agenda. Afterwards, Daily Journal invited me to publish with them an op-ed on AB 1726.

As you can see, we are nobody’s “convenient tool.” And we are just a single local group in Silicon Valley, while there are many similar Asian American advocacy groups across the nation. In fact, SVCA is just one of 64 Asian American groups that joined an administrative complaint filed with both the DOJ and the DOE in 2015 against Ivy schools for their race-based AA practices. The administrative cases were initiated completely within the Asian American groups, and not driven by any outside “white conservative” influence.

Now, as promised, here come my point-by-point rebuttals to your article.

• –   “Yet affirmative action opponents are trying hard to argue that they are concerned about more than just white people.”

What is wrong with this? Besides a conspiracy theory, are you arguing those opponents should be concerned about just white people? I am surprised that you have quickly deployed a double standard to drop political correctness.

• –   “Anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum has specifically attempted to recruit Asian American plaintiffs, using ads with photographs of Asian American students to do so. (A Blum-backed lawsuit against Harvard University currently features a highly qualified Asian American plaintiff…)”

Are you serious? Again, what is wrong with this? It is law school 101 that to build a strong case, you want to choose the best (strongest) plaintiff whenever you can. In any case, when Mr. Blum did this, we had defeated SCA-5 in California and made headlines for a long time, so don’t you see this was something just natural?

• –   “The argument that affirmative action harms Asian American people is simply inaccurate.”

What did you mean by “simply inaccurate”? And what would be “accurate”? Many other fellow Asian Americans and I can testify that affirmative action does harm us—isn’t that enough? Or, you meant affirmative action does not harm us enough?

• –   “And worse, the argument is strategic rather than motivated by real concern for the well-being of Asian Americans.”

This is purely a conspiracy theory without any evidence.

• –   “Legal precedent, extensive research and experience support the idea that affirmative action has benefits for all students, including Asian American students. The Supreme Court has accepted since 1978, and reaffirmed just last year, that race-conscious admissions policies comply with the Constitution when they promote diversity and include a holistic evaluation of all students. Research supports this view, finding that diverse learning environments improve learning, increase interracial understanding and better prepare students for careers in a diverse society.”

First and foremost, “legal precedent,” by itself, cannot “support the idea that affirmative action has benefits for all students, including Asian American students.” A legal precedent is nothing but an opinion or ruling from a court; it may contain some reasoning or arguments, but it cannot serve as evidence. Besides, I am unaware of any 9-0 Supreme Court case on affirmative action—nothing was undisputed.

Further, “has benefits”—even putting your “for all students, including Asian American students” assertion aside—does not mean “has no costs/harms.” Have you performed any cost/benefit analysis? You cited some research results arguably in your favor, but did you cite any research results not in your favor? There are many of them. I understand your article is advocacy, not research, but your total lack of balance of views simply made your advocacy pathetically weak.

• –   “As professional educators, we can attest firsthand to the benefits of affirmative action.”

So your firsthand attestation only applies to benefits, but not costs/harms at all? Quite amazing. It has been well publicized that AA had made Justice Thomas miserable, not only during his years at Yale Law, but also during his job interviews.

• –   “Diverse classrooms promote discussions that would not occur in racially homogeneous learning environments.”

Wait, are you suggesting that we live in a binary world, and without affirmative action, we would necessarily have no diverse classrooms but only racially homogenous learning environments? Really? Logically, the only way this can happen is, without affirmative action, none of those needy minority students is capable of getting admitted on merits. I have no idea why you had such a condescending idea.

• –   “Moreover, affirmative action programs benefit Asian American students in specific and concrete ways. Historically, such programs were critical in making public higher education available to Asian Americans in the 1960s and 1970s, before which Asian Americans had suffered exclusion and de jure segregation in public education like other people of color. So Asian Americans are already the beneficiaries of affirmative action in education, both firsthand and as the children of people who benefited firsthand and who consequently had improved professional opportunities and greater economic security.”

This is perhaps the most interesting point in your whole article, so I will take it seriously.

This link nicely summarizes the history of AA. When President Kennedy coined the term in his Executive Order 10925 on March 6, 1961, his message and intent were clearly against racial discrimination towards minorities (“take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”). At that time in history, African Americans, for example, were racially discriminated against in many situations, including in college admission processes. Like it or not, over the past decades this “prevention-of-racial-discrimination” has evolved into “doing-racial-favors”—under the same name of AA—towards the very same minorities (except, Asian American minorities, in at least the case of college admission) contemplated by President Kennedy.

So, from then to now, there was mathematically a turning point in time. Before that point, AA was to prevent discrimination against some minorities. After that point, AA was to give preferential treatments towards those minorities. Today, nobody challenges the virtue of the former—it is only the latter that is in controversy.

But you did not elaborate on “benefit Asian American students in specific and concrete ways.” Did you mean Asian American students got the benefits of “prevention-of-racial-discrimination,” or “doing-racial-favors,” or both? Regardless, let me tell you the truth, on half of my own ethnicity (Chinese Americans) or perhaps some other Asian ethnicities (such as Indian Americans, Korean Americans, to name a few) with whom we share some key values:

We only need “prevention-of-racial-discrimination,” but not “doing-racial-favors.” It is deeply rooted in our culture that we believe in education and hardworking like religious zealots. Then and now, even the poorest Chinese immigrant parents want to invest all their savings into their children’s education, which they believe will bring a bright future to those children. A fair chance without being discriminated against is all that we need—nothing more.

As a new Chinese immigrant, I don’t really know whether the generations before me had received the benefits of “doing-racial-favors.” I cannot speak for them. But I can speak for our culture—no, we did not really need such a windfall, if there was one. We did not need it then, and we do not need it now. And any windfall in the past does not justify that we must stay indebted forever.

• –   “Affirmative policies continue to benefit Asian American students and communities today. While not every Asian American subgroup remains underrepresented, many are for at least some schools, including Vietnamese, Thai, Lao, Burmese, Filipino, Hmong, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander students. Race-conscious admissions policies give school officials the latitude to take into account the unique experiences of these individuals.”

This is a naked footnote to why the California legislature has tried a series of legislation that would divide API (Asians & Pacific Islanders)—and API only—into many racial groups for the purpose of collecting college admission data:

• –   AB 1088 (Mike Eng and Ted Lieu, 2011, adding additional API racial groups for governmental data collection, but language related to public education was deleted after its first draft; passed)

• –   AB 176 (Rob Bonta, 2015, containing language related to public education; passed and vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown) (see our statement here)

• –   AB 1726 (Rob Bonta, 2016, essentially identically to AB 176 of 2015; passed after deletion of language related to public education) (see my op-ed here)

Essentially, legislation like AB 1726 would divide and identify API groups into two camps: one that has been over-represented in college education and one that has been under-represented. Equipped with such data, SCA-5 supporters will be able to argue that not all API groups support Prop. 209—those under-represented API groups actually oppose it as they covertly want to obtain racially preferential treatments. Your assertion above has explained precisely what such legislation is truly about.

• –   “Given the many ways that affirmative action benefits Asian American students and their communities, we should see conservative solicitude for Asian Americans ‘harmed’ by affirmative action as strategic rather than genuine.”

No, you have not given any good example of “the many ways.” You only listed a few Asian ethnicities that might benefit from a continuing race-based AA practice, but conveniently ignored what would happen to the other Asian ethnicities, only because you knew the latter would be harmed by affirmative action.

• –   “Conservative opponents of affirmative action have not, generally speaking, taken an interest in other issues that affect Asian American welfare in unique ways, ranging from employment discrimination to health care to immigration.”

While your accusation here is highly disputable, it is in any case a straw man argument since we are only in a debate on public policies for college admission.

• –   “So why the conservative concern when it comes to affirmative action? The answer is that Asian Americans provide a convenient tool for opponents of affirmative action. By framing opposition to affirmative action as concern for Asian Americans, opponents of affirmative action can protect the existing racial hierarchy — with white people at the top — while disguising their efforts as race-neutral rather than racially motivated.”

This fancy conspiracy theory is an outright insult on our intelligence. “A convenient tool”?? In Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 (2007), Chief Justice Roberts concludes his opinion eloquently: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” But you think we do not have any independent thinking, and we do not even know it when AA harms us in fact?

• –   “We suspect that Asian Americans will see through this clumsy and cynical attempt to deploy them in service of dismantling affirmative action.”

So you still have a little confidence in our intelligence, as you still “suspect that [we] will see through this clumsy and cynical attempt to deploy [us]”? Actually, we prefer being “deployed” over being discriminated against.

• –   “And at least for the time being, the Supreme Court has been clear that affirmative action policies are constitutional.”

This is really interesting—“for the time being.” It sounds like, as a noted constitutional law scholar, you are not very confident that Grutter can actually survive a new Court after Justice Kennedy’s (expected) upcoming retirement? And you know better than anyone that, but for Justice Kennedy’s inexplicable reversal of himself, Fisher II probably would have overturned Grutter, right?

• –   “But if anything, anti-affirmative action efforts demonstrate the need for racial diversity. One way to improve upon the shallow racial understanding of affirmative action opponents is to ensure diverse educational environments that promote clear thinking and honest conversation about racial issues.”

The empty logic and circular reasoning here are beyond my intelligence. Honestly, I don’t know what you are talking about.

It is quite hard to believe that I just wrote such a long open letter with this much emotion to the new dean of my own law school. I still greatly admire you both as a scholar and as a teacher (although the only class I ever took from you was a BarBri class of constitutional law). I wish you had not co-authored the article. I really do.

Last but not least, as mentioned earlier, thanks to your article, SVCA will launch new campaigns to support Mr. Blum and SFFA. The goal is to recruit at least 10,000 new members and raise money for SFFA.

Sincerely,

Kai Zhu, Ph.D, Boalt ’08

Committee Member, Silicon Valley Chinese Association