R-88’s ballot title claims that it does not allow “quotas”. The truth is that racial quotas would be implemented under R-88 Sections 3(8), 3(9), and 3(11), with a “disparity” study to count by race, goals to enroll and hire by race, and timetables enforced by bureaucrats.
Our courts have repeatedly ruled that “goals” are “quotas”:
“The semantic distinction between “goal” and “quota” is beside the point. Whether this limitation is described as a quota or a goal, it is a line drawn on the base of race and ethnic status” (Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 289 (1978) );
“the difference between the two, as requested by the government in its proposed decree, is semantic” ( U.S.v.County of Fairfax,Va.,1981WL214 (E.D.Va.1981) ;
“The strict scrutiny standard of review does not depend on semantic distinctions, such as “goal” rather than “quota.” What is constitutionally significant is that the government has drawn a line on the basis of race or has engaged in a purposeful use of racial criteria.” (Connerly v.State Personnel Bd., 92 Cal. App. 4th 16, 22 (2001)).
R-88 would not only allow “quotas”, but also empower a governor appointed commission to plan, direct, monitor and enforce each state agency’s compliance with R-88.
To understand how quotas would be implemented under R-88, let’s play out the following scenario:
A state agency is given a goal of having the racial and ethnic makeup of its employees mirror the statewide population. The governor’s commission ordered a disparity study, and the study shows that white males are overrepresented. In order to be quickly in compliance by a given deadline, the state agency will have to not only hire by the state population, but also let go white male employees. This is quota. This is NOT fair!