Connect with us

Culture

California Voters Resoundingly Reject Affirmative Action

Published

on

To many people’s surprise, California delivered great news on November 3, 2020.

Voters went to the polls and rejected Proposition 16, which would have enacted affirmative action in California.

If passed, Proposition 16 would give public universities the power to create admissions quotas based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. The Los Angeles Times reported that state and local governments would have also been permitted to use these factors during the hiring process of government employees and when government contracts are awarded. Voters rejected this initiative by a 56 percent to 44 percent margin.

Trending: 74-Year Old Phoenix Asian Man Killed in Unprovoked Parking Lot Assault

This initiative was brought before the voters by the California Legislature, which is under firm Democrat control. It’s purpose was to repeal Proposition 209, a ballot initiative that voters approved in 1996 that prohibited affirmative action policies in the Golden State.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Would you vote for Donald Trump in 2024?

  • POLL: Would you vote for Donald Trump in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Proposition 16 backers were able raise over $20 million. On the other hand, opponents only raised about $1.5 million. However, money was not the deciding factor with regards to this vote due to the fact that there was a strong bloc of opposition to the measure as reflected in recent polls.

Ward Connerly, a former University of California regent who supported Proposition 209,  believed that California voters viewed Proposition 16 as an assault on fairness.

“[Proponents] still have not persuaded the people that it is OK to discriminate against one group of people in the interest of trying to benefit another,” Connerly declared on the night of November 3.

Even a blue state such as California has voters that know there are limits to social engineering. Americans, no matter how radical some aspects of their politics may be, still have a residual sense of respect for the concept of fairness. In addition, they understand the divisive nature of using racial criteria to give people job opportunities.

It’s unfortunate that there are not strong partisan forces willing to take on such policies. However, referenda do offer opportunities for citizens to have their voices heard when the political class is not willing to take on issues that concern them most. Californian voters should be congratulated for coming to their senses on the question of affirmative action.

 

Free Speech

Texas Governor Greg Abbott Pledges to Outlaw Big Tech Censorship

Texas has had enough.

Published

on

Texas Governor Greg Abbott is pledging to outlaw Big Tech’s left-wing censorship, announcing his support of a bill in the Texas State Senate that would open social media monopolies to lawsuits from users at a state level.

State Senator Bryan Hughes Senate Bill 12 would provide legal recourse for users of Big Tech platforms who are banned from the services to return, designating Big Tech monopolies such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook as common carriers.

“They are common carriers and they cannot discriminate against people … it’s a violation of the first amendment,” Hughes said. “This is going to protect Texas’ free speech and get them back online.

These are the areas that used to be the courthouse square where people would come and talk,” said Abbott of the legislation. “Now, people are going to Facebook and Twitter to talk about their political ideas, and what Facebook and Twitter are doing — they are controlling the flow of information, and sometimes denying the flow of information.

Texas is taking a stand against big tech political censorship. We are not going to allow it in the Lone Star state.

The law establishing legal recourse against online censorship may prove legally durable enough to avoid breaching Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That law provides immunity for user-created content on internet platforms, and doesn’t give social media platforms a right to discriminate against active or potential users on the basis of political ideology.

The future for fighting Big Tech censorship lies at a state level. While some state Republican officials have proven reluctant to separate themselves from the lucrative business lobbies of Big Tech oligarchs, Hughes’ approach seems legally innovative enough to give free speech defenders a fighting shot at free expression online.


Follow me on Gab @WildmanAZ, Twitter @Wildman_AZ, and on Parler @Moorhead.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending