Arizona

  • 2008: Proposition 104 – Arizona Civil Rights Initiative
    • “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.”
    • Citizen initiative that failed to qualify for a spot on the November 4, 2008 ballot
    • To qualify for the ballot, the initiative needed the signature of at least 230,047 supporters. While it managed to get 334,658 signatures, 140,00 ended up being invalidated by the Arizona Secretary of State, Jan Brewer.
    • Supporters appealed this decision, but later withdrew their lawsuit because they claimed there was insufficient time to prove their case
    • Thus, the initiative failed to reach the ballots[1]
  • 2010: Proposition 107 – Ariz. Const. art. II, § 36
    • “This state shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against 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”
    • Amended Arizona Constitution via ballot initiative:
      • Yes – 59.5%
      • No – 40.5%

California

  • 1996: Proposition 209 – Cal. Const. art. I, § 31
    • “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.”
    • Amended the California Constitution via ballot initiative:
      • Yes – 54.55%
      • No – 45.45
  • 2012: Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5
    • Does two things:
      • Deletes specific provisions (i.e. the words “public education”) to allow affirmative action initiatives in public education
      • Deletes the UC and public-school system from the definition of “state” so that Proposition 209 no longer applies to those entities
    • Initially passed Senate vote on January 30, 2014. However, when it went to the Assembly for vote, it was referred back to the Senate where it put on hold and then “Died at Desk.”
  • 2020: Proposition 16
    • Ballot initiative to repeal Proposition 209:
      • Yes – 42.9%
      • No – 57.1%

Colorado

  • 2008: Colorado Initiative 46, the Affirmative Action Amendment
    • “Prohibiting the state from discriminating against or granting 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”
    • Initiative to ban race and gender preferences by public entities
    • Would have amended the Colorado Constitution via ballot initiative, but was rejected by voters:
      • Yes – 49.19%
      • No – 50.81%

Florida

  • 1999: One Florida Initiative – Executive order 99-281
    • Prohibits discrimination in government employment and contracting, and in higher education because of race, gender, creed, color, or national origin
    • Florida is the only state to ban affirmative action via executive order
    • Race is not considered at any of public four-year universities in Florida regarding admission
    • Created the Talented Twenty Program[2], which guaranteed that students in Florida graduating in the top 20% of their class admission to at least one of Florida’s public colleges.
    • Reaffirmed by Governor DeSantis on January 8, 2019

Idaho

  • 2020: House Bill 440
    • A bill to outlaw any preferences for women or minorities in state or local government hiring, contracting or public education in Idaho
    • Introduced and passed the house, passed the senate, and signed into law by governor
    • Currently an enacted Session Law, Chapter 331

Michigan

  • 2006: Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (Proposal 2) – M.C.L.A. Const. Art. 1, § 26
    • “The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district 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.”
    • “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.”
    • Amended the Michigan Constitution via ballot initiative:
      • Yes – 58%
      • No – 42%
    • “A report issued by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission detailing a 3 month investigation of the impact of the initiative concluded that it “does not eliminate all affirmative action and affirmative action programs but only those that grant preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting.”
    • Upheld as constitutional by Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014)
  • 2020: Detroit City Council directed the city’s Legislative Policy Division to draft a resolution requesting state legislature to move toward reinstating affirmative action in higher education and “all industries where educational, contractual and employment opportunities are available.”

Missouri

  • 2008: Attempt to get ballot initiative banning affirmative action on the ballots failed when it did not get enough signatures in time
    • Attempts to get signatures were delay by a court battle over the summary of the initiative
    • Initially, the Secretary of State, sympathetic to the opponents of the measure, prepared the summary; which stated the measure would:
      • “ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities
    • When challenged in court, the court changed the summary to:
      • “ban state and local government affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment in public contracting, employment or education based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin unless such programs are necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for federal funding or to comply with a court order.”
    • Though a favorable result for the proponents, they only had about four months to collect 150,000 signatures
    • Thus, the initiative failed to reach the ballots[3]

Nebraska

  • 2008: Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative 424
    • prohibit the state from discriminating against, or granting 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.”
    • Amended the Nebraska Constitution via ballot initiative:
      • Yes – 58%
      • No – 42%
  • 2020: Omaha City Council and County Board passed resolutions asking the Nebraska legislature to put an initiative on the November ballot. However, the submission was past the July 2 deadline.[4]

New Hampshire

  • 2003: House Bill 55
    • An act to prohibit preferences in recruiting, hiring, promotion, or admission by state agencies, the university system, the regional community-technical colleges, and the postsecondary education system
    • Deemed “inexpedient to legislate” in the house – which means it died in the house[5]
  • 2012: House Bill 623 – N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-I:52, 187-A:16-a, 188-F:3-a
    • This was enacted legislation
    • 21-I:52
      • “No person shall be appointed or promoted to, or demoted or dismissed from, any position in the classified service, or in any way favored or discriminated against with respect to employment in the classified service because of the person’s political opinions, religion, religious beliefs or affiliations, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or race. Additionally, except as provided in paragraph I-a, there shall be no preferential treatment or discrimination in recruiting, hiring, or promotion based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, or religious beliefs. “
    • 187-A:16-a
      • (a) Within the state college and university system, there shall be no preferential treatment or discrimination in recruiting, hiring, promotion, or admission based on race, sex, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.
      • (b) Within the state college and university system, there shall be no discrimination based on an applicant’s or employee’s law enforcement, military, or veteran status.
    • 188-F:3-a
      • (a) Within the state’s community college system, there shall be no preferential treatment or discrimination in recruiting, hiring, promotion, or admission based on race, sex, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.
      • (b) Within the state’s community college system, there shall be no discrimination based on an applicant’s or employee’s law enforcement, military, or veteran status.

Oklahoma

  • 2008: Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative
    • A ballot measure to ban affirmative action was being considered
    • Proponents of the measure obtained signatures to have it placed on the ballot
    • Opponents sued challenging these signatures, alleging irregularities and questionable practices in obtaining signature
    • Recognizing their own deficiencies, the proponents of the measure withdrew it from consideration[6]
  • 2012: State Question 759 – Okla. Const. art. II, § 36A
    • “The state shall not grant preferential treatment to, or discriminate against, any individual or group on the basis of race, color, sex, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.”
    • Legislatively referred to ballot initiative to amend the Oklahoma Constitution:
      • Yes – 59.2%
      • No – 40.8%

Washington

  • 1998: Initiative 200 – Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 49.60.400
    • “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.”
    • State Law enacted via ballot initiative:
      • Yes – 58.22%
      • No – 41.78%
    • This was limited by the Washington Supreme Court to only apply to situations where “a less qualified applicant is given an advantage over a more qualified applicant.” Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle Sch. Dist., No. 1, 72 P.3d 151, 164 (Wash. 2003)
  • 2018: Senate Bill 6406
    • Proposed legislation to repeal initiative 200
    • On Feb 22, 2018, Senate Rules Committee “X” file – which means it will be put on hold until the end of the biennium
  • 2019: Referendum 88
    • Ballot initiative to repeal Initiative 200:
      • Yes – 49.6%
      • No – 50.4%
    • Began as legislation that was blocked with a referendum. Let People Vote, a political action committee, collected over 200k signatures to place the issue on the Election Day ballot
  • 2020: Washington Anti-Discrimination Act
    • Proposal to amend certain provisions Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 49.60.400 (Initiative 200)
      • Adds prohibition of discriminating against or giving preferential treatment on the basis of “age, income, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship or immigration status, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or veteran status”
      • Allows using the enumerated protected classes as a factor –
        • adds “solely” after “The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group” and before “on the basis of”
      • The statute would read as follows:
        • The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group solely on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, income, sexual orientation, gender identity, citizenship or immigration status, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or veteran status in the operation of public employment, public education, public contracting, or public health and safety.

[1] Matthew Benson & Glen Creno, Affirmative-action Initiative Fails to Make Ballot, AZCentral.com, http://archive.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2008/08/22/20080822affirmative0822.html; https://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Proposition_104_(2008)

[2] Talented Twenty Program, Florida Department of Education, http://www.fldoe.org/schools/family-community/activities-programs/talented-twenty-program/index.stml

[3] Peter Schmidt, Campaign to Limit Affirmative Action in Missouri Wins a Legal Victory, The Chronicle of Higher Education (Jan. 8, 2008), https://www.chronicle.com/article/campaign-to-limit-affirmative-action-in-missouri-wins-a-legal-victory-114405/

[4] Chris Burbach, No Vote This Year, But Efforts to Repeal Nebraska’s Affirmative Action Ban Will Continue (Jul. 27, 2020), https://omaha.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/no-vote-this-year-but-efforts-to-repeal-nebraskas-affirmative-action-ban-will-continue/article_769c597a-63b9-5126-978e-82316c957064.html

[5] http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_Status/

[6] Carolyn M. Brown, Connerly Initiative Fails in Oklahoma, Black Enterprise (Apr. 10, 2008), https://www.blackenterprise.com/ward-connerly-initiative-fails-in-oklahoma/; BAMN/AWAKE Efforts Succeed in Oklahoma, The AAAED Blog (Apr. 5, 2008), https://affirmact.blogspot.com/2008/04/bamnawake-efforts-succeed-in-oklahoma.html