This really isn't a very surprising outcome -- and not just because there was a similar ruling on the other "diverse boards" law.
U.S. const. amend. XIV:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
C.A. const. article I §7(b):
A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.
C.A. const. article I §31(a):
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.
Reading through the verdict and the references to testimony and other evidence submitted, that this law was discriminatory in nature was barely at issue. The was as close to an open-and-shut anti-discrimination case as you're likely to find.
In particular, the California constitution explicitly states something that is only implied at the federal level which all but guarantees this outcome in anything remotely resembling an impartial court: It specifies explicitly not just that the State can't discriminate against, but also explicitly that the State can't grant preferential treatment to any group on the basis of [the protected characteristics which include sex].
This law explicitly is about granting preferential treatment (in this case, dedicated board seats at every public company) to a group (women) on the basis of sex.
We need a way to the governor/head of state to immediately punt something up for judicial review, as an additional option aside from signing or vetoing. The most inspired things I've seen from activists in the US is "line item veto", but I'm thinking of direct constitutional court review without waiting for someone with deep pockets/connections to be hurt by the law.
Some developed countries have this. Seems like a better check and balance than the one from 1792. Passing a law can potentially involve all three branches of the government.
I meant they can actively veto it and say it seems unconstitutional. Although there is a "pocket veto" at the US presidential level. If the President doesn't sign it in 10 working days, it's considered vetoed as if he had actively done so.
in that case, I would want another additional path for judicial review without waiting for someone to be hurt. I wonder how other countries do this efficiently (without reviewing the same law a bunch of times from all angles)
You'll have to find some Brits to tell you how effective it is, but the UK has the House of Lords whose basic role at this point is to review and offer legal commentary on bills that come out of the Commons before they get Royal Assent and become law.
The Commons generally can overrule the Lords, but in theory it produces a version of this result.
It's reasonably effective, at least in my opinion. The HoL is definitely constitutionally weaker than the HoC, but because of (a) their influence (many are former politicians or other important figures) and (b) the delaying effect that repeatedly ping-ponging legislation between the houses has, if the House of Lords blocks something, then it often had a good chance of being amended at least partially to find a compromise.
In addition, the HoL gives people a place to criticize Government decisions with some authority - a lord complaining about a decision generally has more political influence than many other people (although in practice less political power).
There are some "loopholes" as it were - if a particular piece of legislation was part of the governing party's manifesto when they were elected (say, a government gets elected promising four day work weeks), then by convention, that legislation is passed through the HoL unchanged, on the basis that it has a clear democratic mandate. (It will still get discussed in both houses, and in the House of Commons, it'll get sent through a couple of rounds of cross-party committees to scrutinise the wording, so there are still some checks in place there.)
There are some flaws with the system. Firstly and most prominently, I suspect, in the eyes of the American observer: the House of Lords are unelected representatives. The word "Lords" in the name literally means what it says on the tin, and historically, many of the people sitting there were nobility who inherited their titles, and therefore were granted the right to sit there simply by birth. The New Labour reforms decreased the number of these peers to 92 (about an eighth of the around 750 peers currently active) and also added rules as to which people with hereditary titles would be able to claim those seats. In addition, the "Lords Spiritual" are a group of 25 seats set aside for bishops of the Church of England. The rest of the HoL operates more like the Supreme Court in the US, where someone will be given a lifetime peerage, generally as a reward for services to the country in some way. Many major former politicians therefore end up in the HoL, as do some campaigners or community organisers, as well as significant business leaders. Generally the government is and to choose who gets made a lord, although other parties are traditionally able to make suggestions to ensure that the makeup of the HoL stays reasonably fair, and isn't weighted too heavily to one party or another.
(As an aside, the non-bishop lords are known as the Lords Temporal, and if you enjoyed that fact, look up Black Rod, and the weird traditions that are associated with him.)
The other big criticism of the HoL is the size - the UK is I believe the only bicameral parliamentary system with an upper house larger than the lower house. This is because it's in every party's interest to stuff the House with more representatives for their party (or at least neutral representatives who can water down the opposition's strength). There are limits on how many new lords can be created, but I do not believe there's any limit on how big the HoL can become.
There are regularly discussions about how to "fix" the House of Lords - Labour fairly consistently have it as a manifesto promise, although how exactly they plan to reform the institution tends to change. A common suggestion is an elected house, but this has the effect that the upper house would look suspiciously like the lower house in terms of political makeup - most people who vote for one party in the House of Commons are unlikely to want a different party in the House of Lords. Alternatively, abolishing the Lords Spiritual and the hereditary peers is often proposed, but many Christians (or at least, people who see themselves as ethnically/culturally Christian) are opposed. In addition, the Lords Spiritual tends to lean left wing in the UK, regularly criticising the Government for failures in social policy such as food bank usage or lack of access to Universal Credit and other social security programs.
Personally, I'd like to see the Lords appointment process cleaned up - rather than being mainly a political decision, it would be good to have it entirely removed to either a cross-party group, or a separate group altogether. They would then be tasked with finding representatives from a wider range of candidates from the charity sector, arts, business, technology, and other places. The idea should be that the Lords represents more of a council of experts in a variety of fields. However, the principle of an unelected upper house that is strictly weaker than the lower house is not necessarily a bad one, and I think in recent years it has done a lot of good for the country.
law explicitly about granting preferential treatment to
sex are against california constitution?
what about law giving preferential treatment to race? i’m sure california already have diversity hiring quotas for race!
If you look above, I've provided the specific citations to the sub-sections of the California Constitution's Article I which codify the prohibition of preferential treatment based upon race.
Indeed, there was a nearly-successful attempt in 2020 to amend the California Constitution to eliminate those clauses, because the state wished to engage in "positive" discrimination which is prohibited by the Constitution. A narrow majority defeated that amendment.
As to whether the (very clear) Constitutional prohibitions are applied universally and equally, I will leave that as an exercise to the reader.
Why are you sure? Do you have some evidence or sources on this? What about the proposed constitutional amendment/proposition to permit certain types of affirmative action currently prohibited, which was rejected by California voters?
My apologies, I was not referring to that post but rather to the (inferred on my part) concept that popular vote on something should be the deciding factor for something becoming law. If I misinterpreted, my bad.
> the defense offered the testimony of stereotypical virtues of women such as ‘consensus builders’ and ‘less risky behavior in investments,” the judge wrote in the 23-page opinion. “The court is unpersuaded by this offer of stereotypes for a justification” of the law.
amusing problematic behavior from the defense
> a conservative legal advocacy group that challenged the measure as reverse discrimination.
amusing phrasing from the challenger. conversatives: its just discrimination. don't worry about how academics redefine words to rationalize their own prejudiced behavior, you won't be cancelled for just calling it discrimination
Seems like a pretty straightforward reason under equal protection.
Unless someone successfully changes the definition of equal protection to only apply to some groups (ie forcing non-male) then it’s going to be stuck here for a while, I think.
So I think there will need to be some sort of push for a constitutional amendment. But I can’t imagine proponents actually arguing and convincing enough states to agree.
basically at its core its about paths of upwards mobility, so people have agreed that women should be exploiting themselves for corporations as well. specifically now the more influential and lucrative roles in those corporations.
this is why other trades with heavy sex imbalances are ignored.
solve the core of additional paths to upwards mobility and all of these contrived abstractions dissipate. since of course, many men don't want to be exploiting themselves for corporations either but nobody will subsidize their life as there's no market of people willing to do that (well, the market of anyone willing to do that is men). if there was, the sex representation remaining within corporations would probably equalize itself - since the men would drop out - the distribution of choices that people are willing to take probably are close to evenly distributed across all sexes. one sex just lacks a choice therefore corralling them into the corporate sphere at all levels, while the other sex has mass dilution of representation in the corporate sphere due to their variety of choices (not suggesting any of those choices are structured perfectly, but there is dilution).
> argued that the use of taxpayer funds to enforce diversity quotas is illegal under California’s constitution
always a sure fire bet to find a public funding angle, it makes any action inherit the whole constitution, even if only private sector participants are involved
another way to pass this law would be to create incentives, benefits as opposed to penalties
U.S. const. amend. XIV: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
C.A. const. article I §7(b): A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.
C.A. const. article I §31(a): 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.
Reading through the verdict and the references to testimony and other evidence submitted, that this law was discriminatory in nature was barely at issue. The was as close to an open-and-shut anti-discrimination case as you're likely to find.
In particular, the California constitution explicitly states something that is only implied at the federal level which all but guarantees this outcome in anything remotely resembling an impartial court: It specifies explicitly not just that the State can't discriminate against, but also explicitly that the State can't grant preferential treatment to any group on the basis of [the protected characteristics which include sex].
This law explicitly is about granting preferential treatment (in this case, dedicated board seats at every public company) to a group (women) on the basis of sex.