Current Events > Prop 16 - End Diversity Ban failed in California

(+) Yeah! (+)

A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby keeping Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

Currently at 56.1% No but it's been confirmed to fail.

---

There's so much confusing bullshit here lol

So if no wins it means California..................... does not have affimative action?

LMAO at 45% voting yes. What a racist state.

yeah this one made no sense. doesn't help that people dont understand what affirmative action is in the first place

---

Imagine living in a country where almost half the people support bringing back discrimination

---

This is good. No decision should ever be based off the color of someone's skin.

---

Background_Guy posted...

There's so much confusing bullshit here lol

So if no wins it means California..................... does not have affimative action?

In the 90s California outlawed affirmative action. This ballot sought to remove the restriction so it could allow it.

A yes vote means you want affirmative action to be allowed in California.

It failed so it is not allowed

There have been a few topics on this board about this and some of y'all still don't get it

Wtf

---

Monolith1676 posted...

This is good. No decision should ever be based off the color of someone's skin.

Not how it works

Annihilated posted...

LMAO at 45% voting yes. What a racist state.

And that is Cali. This country is racist as fuck

---

This bill and marketing was written incredibly confusingly.
Just look at this letter I got in the mail. I can see why people were confused and had to look into it. I had to look into it because when I saw this letter I did a double take.


---

Monolith1676 posted...

This is good. No decision should ever be based off the color of someone's skin.

and yet

---

Pretty sure it was proposed by liberals in CA so that they could discriminate based on race under the guise of wokeness.

---

Man, I had to read that twice to see what it was actually saying >_> I hate when they put double negatives in that shit

---

Washington has a similar law banning preferential treatment based on race / gender. It was passed in the 90s and last year they tried to repeal it. It failed and the state is going about still trying to over turn the will of the people of the state via long term court battles.

---

Annihilated posted...

LMAO at 45% voting yes. What a racist state.

seriously? No one should get preferential treatment based on race or color every one should be treated equally and the same

---

skermac posted...

seriously? No one should get preferential treatment based on race or color every one should be treated equally and the same

The "yes" was to repeal the amendment.