READ OUR BLOG

Supporters and opponents of this Fall’s ballot measure, Initiative 200, share the same goal:  fair and equal treatment for every person in our diverse society, regardless of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.  Thirty years ago, Washington State embarked on an official policy of granting preferential treatment based on race and gender.  Today, after more than a generation of government-run preferences, tensions over perceived racial and gender inequality continue and in fact have taken new forms, forcing a reassessment of these long-established policies.

The Washington Institute Foundation recently published, A Citizen’s Guide to Initiative 200: The Washington State Civil Rights Initiative, which analyzed the principal Washington State programs which would be affected by Initiative 200. Presented here are some of that study’s findings:

A. What Initiative 200 Says

Initiative 200 provides:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

With certain exceptions (separate sex sports teams, theater casting, any existing court order and, most importantly, any preferences required for eligibility for federal funds), the broad non-discrimination principle of Initiative 200 would apply to every “political subdivision” or “governmental instrumentality” in Washington state but would not restrict private preferential actions.

B. Affirmative Action or Race-based Preferences?

Neither the text of the Initiative nor the formal Ballot Title prepared by the state’s Attorney General refer to “Affirmative Action.” While many continue to use the term “affirmative action” in its original meaning of general recruiting and outreach efforts to traditionally underrepresented groups, others use it to describe specific policy decisions based on the race or sex of citizens. Recently, in rejecting a ballot challenge to I-200 from the ACLU, the court declared that the term “affirmative action” is “an amorphous, value-laden term” which could cause confusion.    

C. Washington’s Demographics.

According to Washington’s 1995 census estimates, there are 3,758,637 adults in the state below retirement age (65). Of those, 49.5% are women and 50.5% men. The ethnic composition is as follows:

Of the total population, 57.6% qualify, either as women or minorities, for preferential treatment under the state’s hiring and contracting programs.

D. The “Plus 3” Hiring Process

Each state agency’s goal is “parity” in its work force, which is reached when the number of “protected” group employees equals the number available in the general job pool.  Seven finalists for any open position among the 374 covered job groups are “certified” as eligible based on test scores and three more “protected” group members are added to the list. Of the six “protected” groups,  (women; racial and ethnic minorities; disabled people; Vietnam-era veterans; disabled veterans; and people over 40 years old) those which apply to the population at large based on past conduct, age or disability would not be affected by Initiative 200.  If a member of a “protected” group is not selected, the supervisor responsible must explain in writing why no “protected” group member was chosen.

E. The “OMWBE” program for contracting.

In a similar manner, the Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises (OMBWE) administers preferences for businesses owned by minorities in the purchase of goods and services. An annual target set each year amounts to about 17% of the amount the state spends on procurement.  In 1995, $205,294,023 in state contracts were awarded among the 3,876 OMWBE-certified companies, representing 11.3 % of the total purchasing contracts issued that year.

F.  How Have These Programs Worked?

According to the state’s analysis, after a generation of preferences in hiring, nearly two-thirds of all job groups covered by “Plus 3” fail to reach the established goal of “parity.”  The results in the contracting program are similarly below the state’s goal: While $205 million in OMWBE contracts were issued in 1995, that was $107 million short of the goal.

G.  Conclusion:

Initiative 200 presents the voters with a clear choice.  If the measure is defeated, the state’s race- and gender-based programs will continue on the path they have followed over three decades.  If Initiative 200 passes, the structure of the current race- and gender-based programs will be redesigned to eliminate discrimination against, or preferences to, citizens based on their color, ethnicity or gender.  If this is the voters’ choice, the people of Washington will have reaffirmed the fundamental principle of equal treatment for all citizens before the law.