TL;DR

SVCAF hosted a community info session with the Children’s Educational Opportunity (CEO) Act team about a proposed Education Savings Account (ESA) program that would provide $17,000 per TK–12 student annually in California. Funds could follow the student to approved providers (private, faith-based, homeschool, online) and unused funds roll over, earn interest, and are usable for college or trade school. The team aims to qualify the measure for the November 2026 ballot through a statewide signature drive. Volunteers—including SVCAF members—can help with outreach and signature collection.

This Summary is Generated by AI. It may contain errors.

What the CEO Act Proposes

• $17,000 per TK–12 student placed in an Education Savings Account (ESA) each year.

• Eligible uses include tuition, curriculum, tutoring, textbooks, and online courses.

• Rollover + Interest: Unused funds carry forward, accrue interest, and remain available for college or trade school.

• Goal: “Equal funding and real educational choice for all families,” ensuring funds follow the student across approved educational pathways.

Highlights from the Discussion

Why ESAs, why now?

Speakers emphasized growing interest among families in diversified education paths (private, faith-based, home, online) and the desire for funding mechanisms that follow student needs. The Act’s proponents argue that the policy can expand access, particularly for families who can’t afford alternatives to their assigned public schools.

Implementation & timelines

• The initiative text is with state offices for review.

• After receiving Title & Summary (expected late October), the team will launch a statewide signature drive to qualify the measure for the Nov 2026 ballot.

• If passed, the CEO Act would take effect without a long phase-in, with a vision that new and existing schools (including smaller private/faith-based and homeschool pods) could serve students as early as January 1, 2027.

Signature-gathering strategy

• Target: 1.0–1.2 million signatures to comfortably exceed the requirement of 874,000 valid.

• Distribution to private and faith-based schools, churches, mosques, synagogues, and broader community networks.

• Digital outreach plans include email, SMS, and targeted social campaigns to reach likely supporters, drive downloads/printing of petitions, and coordinate local volunteers.

Digital tools & outreach

• Discussion included data-driven outreach and modern campaign tooling to communicate with registered supporters.

• The team plans to utilize digital marketing and analytics to optimize volunteer efforts and signature collection, bolstered by established media/data partners.

Perspectives from the community

• Participants shared experiences with public school pathways and acceleration options, citing interest in more individualized instruction and alternative models.

• The Act’s supporters believe competition and choice can encourage improvements across the system while expanding opportunities for families currently priced out of alternatives.

Action Items & Next Steps

Children’s Educational Opportunity (CEO Act) Team

• Continue the initiative process and finalize materials following Title & Summary issuance.

• Distribute the petition to statewide supporters and print vendors; coordinate signature-collection teams across California.

• Provide a full initiative overview deck to SVCAF and community partners for local briefings.

Salem Media / Digital Support

• Offer digital marketing and data analytics services to support volunteer recruitment and petition circulation.

• Share information on tools that can help with audience targeting and campaign reporting.

SVCAF & Community Volunteers

• Organize volunteers to help with signature collection for the 2026 ballot.

• Coordinate local informational briefings and help connect parents, educators, and community leaders to initiative resources.

• Interested in helping? Email info@svcaf.org to join the SVCAF volunteer group.

Frequently Asked Questions (from the session)

Q: Is the ESA limited to private or faith-based schools? A: ESAs can be used with approved providers, which may include private, faith-based, homeschool, or online programs that meet eligibility and compliance standards.

Q: Do funds roll over year to year? A: Yes. Unused ESA funds roll over, accrue interest, and remain available for post-secondary education.

Q: What about accountability and oversight? A: The program includes provider eligibility requirements, auditing, and consequences for misuse, including removal from eligibility lists.

Q: How soon could families use ESAs if the measure passes? A: The initiative’s backers expect immediate effect upon passage, with a target to begin serving students starting January 1, 2027.

Q: How can I help with qualification for the 2026 ballot? A: Volunteer to gather signatures, host an info session, or help with outreach. See Get Involved below.

Get Involved

• Visit EducationOpportunity.org to learn more about the CEO Act.

About SVCAF

Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation (SVCAF) is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation focused on civic education, engagement, and recognition of community contributions in Silicon Valley and surrounding areas. Learn more at svcaf.org.

（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.

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。

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。

209号法案：加州的平权行动之战暴露了直接民主制的深层缺陷

Claremont Journal of Law and Public Policy / March 23, 2018

By** Wesley Whitaker (CMC ’18)**

译者按：加州是否修改宪法取消209法案的争议越演越烈。本文作者可以看出是反对209的，因为文章有明显的倾向性。不过写的209法案从开始的一个想法到最后公投成功后面的历史背景和过程，对今天的现实也很有参考价值。强烈推荐关心按肤色搞特殊照顾政策的朋友读读。

90年代的209法案成败的核心基于一个深度的民意调查。发起者密切注意围绕平权行动的用词和公众观点的民意调查数据。他们的发现非常惊人：对平权行动计划的支持根据问题的措辞有大幅度的波动。一项民意调查发现：当在不使用配额系统的情况下询问是否会支持平权行动时，75%的调查对象表示支持，其中包括白人中的71%。然而当问到他们是否会支持比起同等资格的白人对少数族裔候选人给予基于种族的优待的系统时，72%的白人调查对象和42%的黑人调查对象给出了负面答案。

所以大概结论是：公投关键看双方用哪种措辞来赢得选民的选票。

Introduction

介绍

While discussions of affirmative action typically revolve around the decisions of the Supreme Court, the battle for affirmative action in California played out over the airways and door to door, rather than in a courtroom. The first major piece of civil rights legislation to be voted on by the public, Proposition 209 was approved by a majority of California voters in 1996 after a long, tumultuous campaign. Proposition 209 amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment and university admissions. Curiously though, public opinion polling showed overall support among Californians for policies that took race into consideration during hiring for example. The framing of the issue, then, as a preference for minority candidates over whites was the driving factor in the campaign’s success. As an amendment to the state constitution, only by passing another constitutional amendment through the initiative process can Proposition 209 be repealed. Thus, affirmative action policies are extremely unlikely to return to public institutions in California.

尽管关于平权行动的讨论通常围绕着最高法院的裁决进行，加州的平权行动之战是在空中以及门对门进行的，而不是在法庭上进行的。作为待公众投票的民权立法里的首个主要项，209号法案在漫长、动荡的运动后于1996年被加州大多数选民批准。209号法案修正了州宪法，禁止州政府机构考虑种族、性别或族群，特别是在公务雇用和大学录取方面。不过令人好奇的是，公众观点民意调查显示了加州人总体上对在例如招聘期间考虑种族因素的政策予以支持。当时该问题被定为相比于白人，给少数族裔族裔群体候选人特殊优待，这是运动获得成功的驱动因素。作为州宪法的修正案，只有通过发起过程通过另一项宪法修正案，才能废除209号法案。因此，平权行动政策几乎不可能返回到加州的公共机构了【译者按：本文写于2018，作者没有想到2020会再次同一话题进行公投】。

Turbulent Economic Conditions Bring Tense Political Climate

动荡的经济形势带来紧张的政治气氛

The first half of the 1990s was marked by extreme economic volatility and uncertainty in California. While California’s economy had been outpacing the national economy, highlighted by stellar personal income and employment growth, the early 1990s recession hit California harder than the rest of the nation and the recovery was much slower.[1] For example, personal income growth in California from 1990 to 1994 was about half of the national rate — 12 percent compared to 22 percent. In 1994, there were actually less jobs than in 1990 and unemployment peaked at nearly 10 percent in October of 1992.[2] One of the driving factors of the lagging recovery was the loss of manufacturing jobs in the aerospace industry due to a decline in federal defense spending. The housing sector was hit hard by the recession as well. The number of new residential building permits fell to only 85,000 in 1993, the lowest in over 25 years on a per capita basis, compared to an average of 210,000 new residential building permits during the 1970s and 1980s.[3]

20世纪90年代上半叶加州的表现为极端的经济动荡和不确定性。虽然加州的经济一直领先于全国经济，亮点尤为一流的个人收入和就业增长，90年代早期的经济衰退对加州的打击比对全国其它各地的打击都要大，而恢复却缓慢许多。[1] 例如，加州的个人收入增长在1990年到1994年里大概是全国增长率的一半——其增长率为12%，相比之下全国增长率为22%。1994年的工作岗位实际上比1990年的少，而失业率在1992年10月达到顶峰，接近10%。[2] 滞后的经济恢复的驱动因素之一是联邦防御支出减少导致的航空航天领域里的制造业工作岗位丢失。住房业也受到经济衰退的重击。新居民建筑许可证数在1993年跌至仅为85000个，与70年代和80年代平均有210000个新居民建筑许可证相比，这是25年来人均数最低的一次。[3]

On top of a struggling economy, California’s population grew rapidly in preceding decades and showed little signs of slowing down. Since 1970, the state’s population grew by over 10 million, bringing the total population in 1990 to just under 30 million.[4] The population boom had also significantly changed the demographic makeup of the state as international immigration accounted for most of the new residents in the states after 1970, primarily from Latin American and Asian countries. This demographic shift was reflected across the state as those relying on public services became more diverse. In 1993, white students accounted for just 42 percent of total K-12 enrollment, compared to 37 percent of Hispanic or Latino descent, 8 percent Asian, and 9 percent African American.[5]

除了饱受挣扎的经济之外，加州人口在之前几十年里飞速增长并几乎没有显示出放缓的迹象。自1970年以来，州内的人口增长了1千多万，使得1990年的总人口数达到将近3000万。[4] 由于1970年后主要来自拉丁美洲和亚洲国家的国际移民占据了州内新居民的大多数，人口潮也显著地改变了州内的人口结构组成。随着那些依靠公共服务的人口变得更多样化，该人口结构改变在全州都反映了出来。在1993年，白人学生只占了12年级注册学生中的42%，相比之下西班牙或拉丁后裔的比率为37%，亚洲裔为8%，而非裔美国人为9%。[5]

The combination of a slow economic recovery, especially for middle-class white males, and the perception that the state was being overrun by immigrants contributed to the drafting of the so-called “Save Our State” initiative, which would become Proposition 187 and placed on the 1994 ballot. Its provisions denied illegal alien children access to public schools and excluded illegal aliens from receiving virtually any other kind of public service or aid.[6] Having lagged in the polls for reelection due to poor economic conditions, Governor Pete Wilson championed of the lightning-rod issue, which enjoyed strong public support from the still mostly white electorate. He surged ahead to beat his democratic challenger Kathleen Brown with a convincing 55 to 40 percent defeat and Proposition 187 was approved by voters 59 to 41 percent.[7] Republicans across the state also performed well, picking up eight seats in the Assembly and three statewide office seats from the Democrats. The remarkable performance of conservative politicians and conservative ballot measures in the 1994 elections is often attributed to their success at tapping into the growing anxiety of white voters that their way of life was under threat by the massive influx of immigrants and changing demographics.[8] Many of the jobs lost in the manufacturing and housing sectors during the recession were occupied by middle-class white workers, and were thus less insulated from economic hardship than in previous economic contractions.[9]

缓慢的经济恢复（尤其对中产阶级白人男性而言），以及关于加州移民泛滥的看法两者组合促成了所谓的“拯救我们的州”发起草案，它成为187号法案并被放进了1994年的投票选举里。其条款否定了非法移民儿童进入公立学校的资格，并让非法移民几乎无法接受任何其它类型的公共服务或救助。[6] 因为差劲的经济形势而在连任的民意调查里处于落后位置，州长Pete Wilson倡导了这个易受攻击的问题，该问题得到了当时大多数仍是白人选民的大力支持。他取得了领先，以55%对40%确凿的优势击败了民主党挑战者Kathleen Brown，而187号法案由选民以59%对41%批准。[7] 全州共和党人的表现也不错，在议会里获得了8席并从民主党那里夺取了3个州级政府办公室席位。保守派政客和保守的选票措施在1994年大选中的出色表现通常被归因为他们成功地利用了白人选民日益增长的焦虑感，即他们的生活方式受到了大量涌入的移民和人口结构变化的威胁。[8] 经济衰退期间制造业和住房业里失去的许多工作都由中产阶级白人工人把持，因此和以前的经济紧缩相比，他们更容易受到经济困难的困扰。[9]

From the Ivory Tower to the Ballot

从常青藤象牙塔到投票选举

While racial politics dominated the political sphere of the early to mid-1990s, Glynn Custred and Thomas Wood, two Bay Area academics, were confronted with the state’s growing diversity firsthand. A professor of anthropology at the Hayward campus of California State University since 1970, Custred witnessed the demographic shifts on campus as Hayward began its push to become one of the most multicultural college campuses in America. In 1989, Hayward adopted policies that allowed minority and women candidates to apply directly for positions on the faculty without requiring a vacancy in the department. Custred saw the new policy as essentially adopting a quota for minority faculty, which he called racist.[10] He argued for his department to not take part, objecting that faculty should be hired solely on their competency and qualifications aside from minority status. Citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he concluded that there was nothing wrong with the law, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion or national origin; it was simply not being enforced. He eventually joined and later become Executive Director of the California Association of Scholars, the state chapter of the National Association of Scholars, which is a coalition of other academics who shared his views towards multiculturalism and affirmative action.

当种族政治主导了90年代早期至中期的政治界时，Glynn Custred和Thomas Wood这两位湾区的学者亲身面对了加州日益增长的多样性。Custred自1970年起就是加州州立大学海沃德分校的人类学教授，随着海沃德开始推进成为美国最多元文化的大学校区之一，他目睹了校园里的人口结构变化。在1989年，海沃德采用了政策，允许少数族裔族裔群体和女性候选人无需部门里有空缺就可以直接申请系里的职位。Custred认为新政策实质上对少数族裔族裔群体教职员采用配额，他称其为种族歧视。[10] 他争辩说他的部门不应参与其中，反对除了少数族裔族裔群体身份外仅凭能力和资格聘用教师。他引用了1964年民权法案，得出结论说法律没有问题，该法律宣布基于种族、肤色、性别、宗教或民族血统的歧视是非法的，只不过该法律没有得到执行。他最终加入了并日后成为加州学者协会的执行理事，该协会是全国学者协会在加州的分会，它是其他同意他在多元文化和平权行动上的观点的学者联盟。

Unlike Custred, Wood became interested in the topic of affirmative action policy as an applicant struggling to land a job with the philosophy department at San Francisco State University. He claims to have ran into a member of the search committee before he applied for the job, and was told that he would have been hired instead of a woman of color had it not been for the school’s affirmative action policy.[11]

和Custred不同，Wood在作为一名努力在旧金山州立大学哲学系里找工作的申请者时对平权行动政策话题产生了兴趣。他宣称在申请工作前曾遇到招聘委员会的一名成员，并被告知如果不是学校有平权行动政策，其实会聘用他而不是一位有肤色女性。[11]

Wood continued to take on research jobs while pursuing a permanent position until he came across the Supreme Court’s Bakke decision. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Justice Powell, writing for the Court, concluded that the UC Davis Medical School’s policy of setting aside seats for minority students during the application process amounted to a racial quota and violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because students were split into two pools and considered separately.[12] Powell also said, however, that the university’s goal of creating a diverse student body was constitutionally permissible, and that race could be considered as a “plus factor” for an applicant. Wood disagreed entirely. He believed that including race in the decision process amounted to discrimination against those not of minority status and concluded that his inability to land a job in academia was a result of affirmative action.[12] He called the National Association of Scholars to see if they had a local chapter, and by the end of 1991 had become friends with Custred.

Wood在努力追求永久职位的同时继续从事研究工作直到他得知了最高法院的Bakke裁决。在加州大学董事会诉Bakke案（1978年）里，为法院裁决执笔的大法官Powell做出结论，加州大学Davis医学院在申请过程中为少数族裔族裔群体学生留出席位的政策造成了种族配额并违反了第14条宪法修正案的平等保护条款，因为学生被划分成两组并被分别对待。[12]  Powell还说，不过大学产生多样化学生族裔族裔群体的目标在宪法上是被允许的，并且种族可以被看作是申请者的“加分因素”。Wood对此完全不同意。他相信把种族因素包括进作决定过程里是针对那些非少数族裔群体的歧视，并下结论他无法在学院里找到工作是平权行动的结果。[12] 他打电话问全国学者协会是否有本地分会，而到1991年底已经和 Custred成为朋友。

Inspired by the success of recent ballot initiatives, the two began drafting a constitutional amendment of their own in 1992, which they titled the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). According to Custred and Wood, the purpose was simply to reaffirm the principle in the Civil Rights Act of 1964: non-discrimination means your race or gender cannot factor into how you are treated when it comes to contract, employment, and admissions decisions — even if you are white.[13] Drawing on their backgrounds in research, the two began to investigate the issue in depth, paying close attention to the language surrounding affirmative action and public opinion polling data. Their findings were striking. Support for affirmative action programs fluctuated massively depending on the wording of the question. One poll found that when asked if they would support affirmative action, provided no quota system was used, 75 percent of respondents were in favor, including 71 percent among whites. However, when asked if they would support a system of racial preference for minorities over equally qualified white candidates, 72 percent of white respondents and 42 percent of black respondents answered negatively.[14] This discovery was a breakthrough for Custred and Wood. First, it suggested that many Americans may actually be less supportive of affirmative action than previously thought because not everyone actually knew that it entailed preferential treatment based on race. Second, knowing that support plummeted when affirmative action was presented as a racial preference provided the perfect blueprint for how to frame the issue for the initiative and the campaign. Instead of attacking affirmative action head on, Custred and Wood could attack the much less attractive concept of racial preference for minorities.

受到最近投票选举动议成功的启发，他们两人在1992年开始起草自己的宪法修正案，他们将其冠名为加州民权动议（CCRI）。据Custred和Wood称，其目的只不过是重申1964年民权法案的原则：不歧视意味着你在合同、雇佣和录取决定方面受到的待遇不能把你的种族或性别考虑进去——即使你是白人也不行。[13] 利用他们的研究背景，两人开始深度调查该问题，密切注意围绕平权行动的用词和公众观点民意调查数据。他们的发现非常惊人。对平权行动计划的支持根据问题的措辞有大幅度的波动。一项民意调查发现当在不使用配额系统的情况下询问是否会支持平权行动时，75%的调查对象表示支持，其中包括白人中的71%。然而当问到他们是否会支持比起同等资格的白人对少数族裔候选人给予种族优待的系统时，72%的白人调查对象和42%的黑人调查对象给出了负面答案。[14] 这个发现对Custred和Wood来说是个突破。首先，这表明和之前的看法相比许多美国人可能实际上不那么支持平权行动，因为不是所有人都真的知道它包含了基于种族的优先待遇。其次，知道把平权行动作为种族偏向时支持率暴跌了，这为如何为倡议和运动定义该问题提供了理想的蓝图。与其正面攻击平权行动，Custred和Wood可以攻击对少数族裔群体的种族偏向这个吸引力低得多的概念。

Without the support of either political party, and still lacking key connections to fundraising, the initiative failed to gather enough signatures to qualify for the 1994 ballot. However, the issue caught fire in the wake of the November election, in large part due to Custred and Wood’s capitalizing on the divisive language surrounding Proposition 187 driven by Governor Wilson.[15] They formed a committee with Larry Arnn, the President of the Claremont Institute, as Chairman. Other well-connected conservatives flocked to the cause, including Los Angeles based Republican pollster Arnold Steinberg, who would later lead the campaign, and William Rusher, the founder and Publisher of the National Review. With campaign staff assembled, the group began work on drumming up sources of funding.[16]

没有两党中任何一方的支持以及仍然缺少取得筹款所需的关键关系，倡议未能收集到足够的签名以获得进入1994投票选举的资格。然而，紧随着11月大选，这个问题引起了关注，很大程度上是因为Custred和Wood利用了围绕由州长Wilson推动的187号法案的分歧性用语。[15] 他们和克莱蒙研究所的所长Larry Arnn成立了一个委员会，由Larry Arnn任主席。其他人脉广泛的保守派蜂拥至该事业上，其中包括位于洛杉矶的共和党民意调查专家Arnold Steinberg，他日后将领导该运动，以及国家评论的创始人以及出版商William Rusher。组建好了运动工作人员，这个小组开始竭力争取资金来源。[16]

Gaining Momentum

势头增强

While Custred and Wood had been engaged in laying the theoretical framework for the fight against affirmative action, Governor Wilson had enlisted the help of a longtime friend, Ward Connerly, to lead the charge. Connerly became friends with Wilson in the late 1960s and was asked by Wilson to join the Assembly Committee on Urban Affairs and Housing.[16] Wilson eventually convinced him to join the private sector, where his firm was successful consulting on public development projects. In 1993, Wilson appointed Connerly to the UC Board of Regents where he quickly gained a reputation of an active and thoughtful member. Through Wilson, Connerly met with Jerry and Ellen Cook, whose son had been rejected from medical school, where Cook presented evidence that white and Asian students were being denied admission to California schools despite having better grades and test scores than Latino and black students who were admitted.[17] Connerly concluded that the affirmative action policies of the state schools amounted to racial discrimination, and began his campaign as regent to stop the process.

在Custred和Wood忙于为反对平权行动之战铺好理论框架时，州长Wilson谋取了旧交Ward Connerly的帮助来带头冲锋。Connerly在60年代晚期和Wilson成为朋友，并且Wilson让他加入城市事务及住房议会委员会。[16]  Wilson最终说服了他加入私企，他的公司在为公共开发项目提供咨询上做得很成功。在1993年，Wilson任命Connerly加入加州大学董事会，作为一名活跃而有思想的成员，他很快赢得了声望。通过Wilson，Connerly遇到了Jerry和Ellen Cook，这两人的儿子被医学院拒绝了，Cook拿出了证据说尽管白人和亚裔学生的成绩和考试得分比被录取的拉丁裔和黑人学生好，但是他们被加州的学校拒绝录取。[17] Connerly得出结论，州立学校的平权行动政策构成了种族歧视，并以委员的身份开始他的运动以制止这一过程。

Wilson, who had selected affirmative action as the next issue divisive enough to attract white voters to his campaign and rally public support, encouraged Connerly’s efforts. His mission attracted special attention due to his being African American, which some suggest was why Wilson had selected him for the position.17 Connerly admitted that even though it was never explicitly mentioned, the presence of a charismatic and intelligent black man leading the charge against affirmative action neutralized potential attacks from opponents that animus towards minorities motivated the campaign.[18]

Wilson选择了平权行动作为分歧足够严重的下一个问题以吸引白人选民到他的运动并争取公众支持，他对Connerly的努力加以鼓励。因为是非裔美国人，他的行动吸引了特别关注，一些人认为这是Wilson为什么选他担任这个职位的原因。17  Connerly承认尽管从未明确提及，一位有超凡魅力和聪明才智的、带领反抗平权行动的黑人的存在抵消了反对派的潜在攻击，即发起者因为对少数族裔群体的敌意激发了该运动。[18]

On July 20th, 1995, Connerly and Wilson took their campaign against affirmative action to the UC Board of Regents meeting where they were met by Rev. Jesse Jackson and civil rights organizers protesting. Wilson played hardball, ensuring the protesters had minimal effect and allowing Connerly to forcefully present his case calling for the end of affirmative action in the UC system which was first approved by the board in 1975.20 Connerly and Wilson were successful and the regents voted 15-10 to end affirmative action in hiring and 14-10 to end affirmative action in admissions decisions. Despite the UC Academic Senate voting 124-2 to ask Regents to rescind their votes, the policy was upheld and Wilson’s polling soared, especially among white voters. [19]

1995年7月20日，Connerly和Wilson把他们反对平权行动之运动带到了加州大学董事会会议上，在那里他们遇到Jesse Jackson牧师和民权组织者抗议。Wilson采取了强硬手段，确保抗议者影响在最小程度，并允许Connerly强有力地陈述自己的案例，要求终止加州大学系统里的由董事会于1975年首次批准的平权行动。20 Connerly和Wilson取得了成功，委员们以15对10的投票通过终止了招聘过程中的平权行动，以及14对10的投票通过终止了录取决定里的平权行动。尽管加州大学学术评议会以124对2投票通过要求董事会撤销他们的投票，该政策继续维持，而Wilson在民意调查中的位置急剧上升，尤其是在白人选民当中。[19]

Just over one month later, CCRI filed for a spot on the 1996 ballot. The campaign immediately benefitted from the heightened publicity stirred up by Connerly and Wilson as it raced to meet the signature requirement of nearly 700,000 signatures.[20]

仅仅过了一个月后，CCRI申请在1996投票中占有一席之位。该运动立即得益于Connerly和 Wilson作出的大力宣传，同时它竭力争取达到将近700,000个签名的要求。[20]

Filing for the second time, Custred and Wood were eager to keep the phrase “affirmative action” out of the ballot title and summary due to its higher favorability among voters. They met with Chief Deputy Attorney General David Stirling to ensure that no mistakes were made the summary reflected the language of the measure.[21] In December of 1995, Connerly was asked to join the campaign as the Chairman. Shortly after, Wilson’s fundraising with the California Republican party provided a much-needed donation of $500k to resume collecting signatures to qualify the measure. Just two months later in February of 1996, the campaign turned in over a million signatures and qualified for the 1996 ballot as Proposition 209.[21]

第二次申请时，Custred和Wood渴望将“平权行动”这个词组排除在投票选举标题和摘要之外，这是因为其在选民中有更高的支持。他们和首席副司法部长David Stirling会面以确保没有犯错误，即摘要反映了措施的语言。[21] 1995年12月，Connerly被要求以主席的身份加入运动。不久之后，Wilson从加州共和党那里获取的筹款提供了急需的50万美元捐赠来恢复收集签名以使该措施取得资格。就在两个月后的1996年2月，运动提交了超过1百万个签名并作为209号法案取得资格进入1996年投票选举。[21]

Republican Attorney General Dan Lungren was in charge of preparing the ballot summaries, which are crucial to informing voters as they are likely the only non-partisan information they will see before voting. [21] State law requires that summaries be impartial, but Lungren was outspoken about supporting the proposition and even signed one of the rebuttals in favor in the voter’s guide.[22] Titled Proposition 209: “Prohibition Against Discrimination or Preferential Treatment by State and Other Public Entities”, the summary text read:

共和党派司法部长Dan Lungren负责准备投票摘要，它们对告知选民至关重要，因为它们很可能是投票前选民能看到的唯一非偏党派信息。[21] 州法律要求摘要公正中立，但Lungren公开宣布了支持该法案，甚至在选民指南中签署了一项反对声明，以表示支持。[22] 209号法案标题为：“禁止州级和其他公共机构实施的歧视或优先待遇”，摘要文字是这样写的：

“Prohibits the state, local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, and schools, and other government instrumentalities from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, public education or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”[23]

“禁止州、地方政府、区、公立大学、学院和学校以及其他政府机构在公务雇用、公共教育或公共承包方面基于种族、性别、肤色、族群或民族血统歧视或提供优先待遇给任何个人或族裔群体。”[23]

When the summary was published in July, the opposition campaign was furious that the summary made no mention of affirmative action and took Lungren to court. [22] Sacramento Superior Court Judge James Ford sided with the opposition and made Lungren rewrite the summary as it was clearly biased. Nevertheless, Lungren appealed and the Third District Court in Sacramento overturned Ford’s decision, stating: “The title and summary inform the public of the general purpose of the measure.”[24] This marked a monumental win for the campaign as, according to an LA Times poll in September, 59 percent of voters did not understand that Prop. 209 would effectively end affirmative action.[25] Read without qualification, the measure enjoyed 70 percent support.[26]

当摘要于7月公布时，反对派运动对摘要没提及平权运动感到十分愤怒，并把Lungren告上法庭。[22] 萨克拉门托高等法院法官James Ford站在反对派一边，让Lungren重写了摘要，因为它明显有偏见。然而Lungren进行了上诉，而萨卡拉门托的第三地区法院撤销了Ford的判决，表示：“该标题和摘要告知了公众该措施的一般用途。”[24] 这对运动来说标志着巨大的成功，据9月的洛杉矶时报民意调查显示，59%的选民不明白209号法案实际上会终止平权行动。[25]  无条件地阅读后，该措施获得了70%的支持。[26]

The 209 campaign continued to lead in the polls until Election Day, bolstered by their advertising that emphasized equal opportunity and color-blindness. Featuring Connerly in a soft, moral and unifying tone, the first radio ad highlighted his support for the issue as an African American and ended with the wholesome catchphrase: “Equal opportunity without quotas. Yes! Proposition 209. Bring us together.”[27] Another ad featured a young white woman who claimed to be the victim of reverse discrimination after being removed from a remedial English class intended for minority students.[28] Instead of adopting the severe language surrounding the Proposition 187 campaign, the emphasis of an inclusive campaign predicated on fairness and equal opportunity resonated with voters, particularly white voters. Proposition 209 ultimately passed with 55.5 percent of the vote.[29] According to the LA Times exit polls, 63 percent of white voters supported the measure while 74 percent of African Americans, 76 percent of Latinos and 61 percent of Asians voted against.[30]

209运动继续在民意调查中领先直到大选日，由其强调平等机会和不看肤色的宣传加以增强。首个电台广告以柔和、道德和统一的语气表现了Connerly，强调了他作为非裔美国人对这个问题的支持并以有良好影响的口号结尾：“没有配额的平等机会。是的！209号法案。把我们汇聚在一起。”[27] 另一个广告展示了一位年轻的白人女性，她宣称在被专门面向少数族裔群体学生的英语补习班移除后成为反向歧视的受害者。[28] 与其采用围绕187号法案运动的严厉措辞，强调公平和平等机会的包容性运动引起了选民的共鸣，尤其是白人选民。209号法案最终以55.5%的选票得以通过。[29] 据洛杉矶时报投票后民意调查显示，63%的白人选民支持了该措施，而74%的非裔美国人、76%的拉丁裔和61%的亚裔投票反对。[30]

A Better Path for the Opposition

反对的更好途径

A ragtag coalition of civil rights groups, women’s advocacy organizations, and grassroots organizers, the opposition campaign faced a long, uphill battle to defeating Prop. 209. Unlike their adversaries, the opposition did not enjoy the support of the political party that closely aligns with their interests and constituents. Outmatched in terms of fundraising, the proponents were able to conduct an ad campaign that dominated the radio waves and television stations without a proper response from the opponents. Opponents also did not benefit from sympathetic elected officials in positions capable of shaping the outcome in the way that Governor Wilson and Attorney General Lungren assisted the proponents. Nevertheless, despite all of these hurdles, the most significant obstacle was the simple and deceiving language of the measure that confused many voters. According to exit polls, a majority — 54 percent — of voters supported affirmative action programs, yet nearly the same number also voted in favor of Prop. 209, ending programs that they likely supported.[31]

反对运动是民权族裔群体、妇女倡导组织和草根组织者的散漫联盟，它在击败209号法案上面临着漫长而艰难的斗争。不像其对手，反对派没有受到与他们的利益和选民密切相一致的政党的支持。支持者在筹款上胜出，他们能够开展一场主导电台和电视台的宣传活动，而没有收到反对派的适当回应。反对派也没有从有同情心的当选官员那里受益，这些官员能够像州长Wilson和司法部长Lungren协助支持者那样有能力改变结果。然而，尽管有着所有这些障碍，最大的障碍是该措施的简单且具有欺骗性语言，它使很多选民感到疑惑。据投票后民意调查显示，大多数选民——其中的54%——支持了平权行动计划，但几乎相同数目的选民也投票支持了209号法案，终止了他们很可能支持的计划。[31]

To successfully defeat Prop. 209 would require a campaign that effectively combated the ambiguity surrounding the issue of affirmative action while still providing enough of impetus to mobilize minority voter support. The best way to achieve this would be through an alternative ballot initiative, a tactic that the opposition attempted but failed to capitalize on.[32] Over nearly six months, activists in the Bay Area organized a group of lawyers to draft an alternative amendment, eventually settling on the Equal Opportunities Without Quotas initiative after producing hundreds of drafts. The amendment explicitly prohibited racial quotas, the hiring of unqualified applicants, and threatened fines for anyone who fraudulently benefited from affirmative action programs. [33] Essentially, the initiative reaffirmed the current standards of acceptable affirmative action practices as decided by the Supreme Court. The same length as Prop. 209 and with broadly appealing language, it was sent in to the Legislative Analyst’s Office for review as their best hope. Nine months of hard work were immediately dashed, however, when the analyst concluded that the state’s enrichment programs targeted at minority students qualified as a racial quota. Dismantling these programs as a result would alienate far too many voters and potential donors, but it was too late to appeal the decision and the campaign had to quickly change direction to defeating Prop. 209 flat out. [33] If there had been less infighting between members of the coalition and it was decided earlier to pursue an alternative amendment, there would have been time to petition the analyst for reconsideration or to revise the measure until it did not produce the same unintended consequences.

要想成功地击败209号法案需要一个有效地与围绕平权行动问题的歧义搏斗同时仍然提供足够动力调动少数族裔群体选民支持的运动。达成这一目的的最好方法是通过替代投票选举倡议，反对派尝试过这个策略但未能从中获利。[32] 在接下来的将近6个月里，湾区的积极分子组织了一群律师起草替代修正案，在写出了数百份草稿后最终定为“没有配额的平等机会”倡议。该修正案明确禁止种族配额、雇用不合格的申请者，并且威胁对以欺诈性质从平权运动计划中得益的任何人进行罚款。[33] 实质上，该倡议重申了由最高法院裁决的被大家认可的平权运动做法的现行标准。它和209号法案长度相同，并有着有广泛吸引力的用语，作为他们最大的希望，它被送到立法分析办公室进行复审。然而，当分析员得出结论说州里针对少数族裔群体学生的强化项目算作种族配额时，9个月的辛勤工作立即破灭了。由此解散这些项目会疏远太多的选民和潜在捐款人，然而申诉该决定已为时过晚，运动需要迅速改变方向以击败209号法案。[33] 如果联盟成员间没有那么多内斗，并且早做决定寻求替代修正案，原本会有时间请求分析员重新考虑或修改该措施直到它不造成同样的意料之外的后果。

The alternative ballot initiative competing directly with Prop. 209 would force voters to choose between two pitches for fairness and equal opportunity. Instead of being presented with a single initiative condemning racial preference and promising to restore fairness to employment and admission decisions, the voter would be presented with an alternative that appeals to the same sensibilities but would be able to invoke the language of affirmative action, which had a significantly higher favorability rating according to the polls. It could even capitalize on the aversion of voters towards quotas by prohibiting them. Likewise, it could assuage the fears of white voters that unqualified candidates could take positions they did not deserve by explicitly prohibiting that practice as well. The biggest underlying problem with Prop. 209, which was illustrated by the number of voters who say they supported affirmative action but nevertheless voted against it, is that voters did not have a clear picture of what affirmative action actually entailed.[33] The opposition campaign fought to explain the history of prejudice, which pushed economic and academic opportunities out of reach for many people of color and women, and described how affirmative action works to correct these patterns of discrimination. This nuanced argument, however, does not fit neatly into a 30 second radio or television ad. The opposition needed a shorter, more palatable appeal for fairness.

与209号法案直接竞争的替代投票选举倡议会强迫选民从两个公平和平等机会的点子中选一个。与其提出一个谴责种族偏向并承诺恢复雇用和录取决定上的公平的单一倡议，不如向选民提出一个诉诸相同感性但能够援引平权行动语言的替代方案，据民意调查显示平权行动有显著的更高支持率。它甚至还能通过禁止配额而充分利用选民对其的厌恶。同样的，它还能通过明确禁止不合格的申请者能得到他们不配得到的职位这一做法而减轻白人选民的担忧。209号法案最大的底层问题，即由表示他们支持平权行动但还是投票反对它的选民数表明了出来，是选民不清楚平权行动究竟包含了什么。[33] 反对运动费了很大劲解释了偏见的历史，这段历史使得许多有色人群和女性无法触及经济和学术上的机会，它还描述了平权行动如何能改正这些歧视方式。然而这个微妙的争辩没有很好地放入30秒的电台或电视广告。反对派需要较短的、更可接受的呼吁以求公平。

On top of cutting through some of the confusion surrounding the issue, an alternative initiative would have shaped the down the road campaign greatly. The language and substance of the initiative aligned closely with President Bill Clinton’s “mend it, don’t end it” stance towards affirmative action, and would likely have engaged the Democratic Party and the President himself in the campaign. Instead, Clinton kept the issue at arms-length, as he did not want to alienate too many white voters by staunchly supporting affirmative action.[34] Likewise, the priorities of the Democratic Party were clear. They were not going to jeopardize Clinton’s reelection for the sake of a state proposition, even if it did align closely with their policy positions and constituents. However, if the campaign offered a positive account that both the Democratic Party and President could get behind, they would have enjoyed significantly larger contributions to their war chest, which could then be used to wage a proper media campaign. Proponents of the alternative measure could then match Connerly’s soft-spoken testimony with countless cases of minorities and women who have benefited from affirmative action. Simultaneously, these ads would appeal to white voters by reaffirming the prohibition on quotas and unqualified applicants benefiting from the program. Ultimately, a competing initiative offered the best chance of success in defeating Prop. 209, as it would broaden the coalition of support to include more donors and high profile voices, as well as enable the opposition to frame the issue in their own terms.

在澄清围绕该问题的一些疑惑之外，替代倡议本可以极大地塑造运动的未来之路。倡议的用语和实质与Bill Clinton总统对于平权行动的”修补它，不要终止它“的立场密切相一致，本来很有可能吸引民主党和总统本人参与运动。但是Clinton和该问题保持了距离，因为他不想因坚定地支持平权行动而疏远太多白人选民。[34] 同样的，民主党的首要事项是很明确的。他们不会为了一项州级法案而损害Clinton的连任，即使它的确与他们的政治立场和选民密切相一致。然而如果运动提供了民主党和总统都可以支持的积极口号，那么他们本来可以添加多得多的资金到竞选运动基金里，这之后能被用于开展一次像样的媒体运动。替代措施的支持者就能用无数从平权运动中得益的少数族裔群体和女性的案例匹配Connerly柔和的证词。与此同时，这些广告能通过重申禁止配额以及从计划中得益的不合格申请者而吸引白人选民。最终，一个有竞争力的倡议提供击败209号法案的最佳成功机会，因为它能扩大支持联盟，包括进更多捐款者和知名度高的声音，还能使反对派以自己的方式定义该问题。

Conclusion

结论

In his first Inaugural Address in 1911, Governor of California Hiram Johnson extolled the virtues of direct democracy and its unique ability to return the power of governance back to the people from the hands of corrupt political parties and special interests.[35] Nevertheless, the creation of the initiative process also opened the door to popular referendums on key civil rights policy, including affirmative action. The events of 1996 attest to Johnson’s claim that average citizens, if sufficiently driven and politically minded, can impose their will over objections in the political establishment by using direct democracy. At the same time, however, the campaign raised new questions about the role of popular consensus in the domain of civil rights. Throughout the campaign, average voters lacked information about the issues, specifically about what affirmative policies actually entail when choosing candidates for a limited number of vacancies. This issue was further compounded by the use of deceptive and ambiguous language by proponent’s campaign. Ultimately, California’s battle over affirmative action highlights the inadequacies of direct democracy when dealing with complex policy issues that intersect with civil rights. Further, the campaign orchestrated by Wood and Custred, and led by Connelly, demonstrated the importance of controlling the narrative surrounding a political issue. By tapping into economic and racial anxieties at the right time, the campaign exposed the dire need for an informed and engaged citizenry for a system of direct democracy to function.

在其1911年的首次就职演说里，加州州长Hiram Johnson赞美了直接民主制的长处和其独特能力，即能把监管力量从腐败的政党和特别利益的手中还给人民。[35] 然而，倡议过程的产生也打开了通向在关键民权政策（包括平权行动）上进行全民公投的大门。1996年的事件证明了Johnson的断言，即普通公民，即使受到了足够的驱动并有政治头脑，可以通过使用直接民主把自己的意愿强加于政治体制里的反对之上。不过在此同时，运动提出了关于民权领域里全民意识的角色的新问题。在整个运动期间，在为有限的空缺职位选择候选人时普通选民缺少关于问题的信息，特别是关于平权政策究竟包含了什么的信息。支持者的运动对欺骗性和有歧义的语言的使用使问题进一步恶化。最终，加州的平权行动之战突出了直接民主制在处理和民权有交叉的复杂政治问题时的不足性。更进一步，由Wood和Custred策划并由Connelly领导的运动显示了控制围绕政治问题的叙述的重要性。通过在正确时刻利用了经济和种族方面的焦虑感，运动暴露了对有见识以及有参与性的公民的迫切需要，以使直接民主制系统能发挥职能。

备注

[1] The California economy in 1990s. Legislative Analyst’s Office.

[2] Bureau of Labor Statistics. Local area unemployment statistics: Statewide, California. 1990-1998.

[3] The California economy in 1990s. Legislative Analyst’s Office.

[4] Jack Citrin. 2013. State of change: Immigration politics and the new demography of California. 31-33.

[5] Educational Demographics Unit. Statewide enrollment by ethnicity, 1993-1994.

[6] Peter Schrag. 1998. Paradise lost: California’s experience, America’s future. 228-231.

[7] Summary of votes cast for state offices: November 8, 1994.

[8] Peter Schrag, 230-234.

[9] Lydia Chávez. 1998. The color bind: California’s battle to end affirmative action. Berkeley: University of California Press. 31.

[10] Lydia Chávez. 9-13.

[11] Lydia Chávez. 13-16.

[12] Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 US 265 (1978).

[13] Lydia Chávez. 18-20.

[14] John Brennan. “Key words influence stands on minorities.”

[15] Cathleen Decker. “Affirmative action: Why battle erupted”.

[16] Lydia Chávez. 25-29.

[17] Lydia Chávez. 32-33.

[18] Ward Connerly. “Affirmative action and proposition 209”. The California Republic. 258.

[19] Lydia Chávez. 61-67.

[20] Lydia Chávez. 67-69.

[21] Lydia Chávez. 144-145.

[22] Daniel Lungren, Quentin Kopp, and Gail Heriot. 1996. Rebuttal to argument against of proposition 209.

[23] Proposition 209: Text of proposed law. 1996.

[24] Lydia Chávez. 145.

[25] Bettina Boxall. “A political battle grinds on as a war of wording”.

[26] Lydia Chávez. 154.

[27] Lydia Chávez. 188.

[28] Lydia Chávez. 215.

[29] Statement of vote: Votes for and against November 5, 1996 statewide ballot measures

[30] State propositions: A snapshot of voters.

[31] Lydia Chávez. 237.

[32] Lydia Chávez. 105-108.

[33] Bettina Boxall. “A political battle grinds on as a war of wording”.

[34] Lydia Chávez. 223.

[35] Hiram Johnson. First Inaugural Address.

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/.

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).