Connerly

Connerly v. State Personnel Board

Good Law
112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 5·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 701·2001 Daily Journal DAR 9541·92 Cal. App. 4th 16·86 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1048
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 4, 2001C032042California18,801 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scotland, J.

In this case, we consider whether five statutory programs that fall within the general rubric of “affirmative action” violate state and federal principles of equal protection and are contrary to article I, section 31, of our state Constitution, added by the adoption of Proposition 209 at the November 1996 General Election (hereafter Proposition 209).

The litigation, commenced by Governor Pete Wilson in his official capacity as Governor, challenges the statutory schemes on the ground that they impermissibly establish classifications and preferences based on race, ethnicity, and gender. The statutes at issue are Government Code section 8880.56, applicable to the State Lottery Commission; Government Code sections 16850 through 16857, applicable to the sale of state bonds; Government Code sections 19790 through 19799, applicable to the state civil service; Education Code sections 87100 through 87107, applicable to the California Community Colleges; and Public Contract Code sections 10115 through 10115.15, applicable to state contracting.

Plaintiff Ward Connerly (hereafter plaintiff) was later permitted to join the lawsuit as a taxpayer litigant, and he continued the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.