I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of this legislation.... But while I agree with this legislation, I must return the bill without my signature. Our constitutional system of separation of powers requires that the courts -- not the Legislature -- determine the limits of Proposition 209.... Signing this bill is unlikely to impact how Proposition 209 is ultimately interpreted by the courts; it will just encourage the 209 advocates to file more costly and confusing lawsuits.

Affirmative action continues to be a controversial issue. Last month, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] agreed to a rehearing en banc [JURIST report] to determine the constitutionality of an amendment to the Michigan Constitution banning affirmative action. In January, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] unanimously ruled to uphold the affirmative action [JURIST report] policy of considering race in student admissions at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) [academic website]. In August of 2010, the Supreme Court of California [official website] held that a state ban on preferential hiring practices for minorities and women does not violate [JURIST report] the federal Constitution [text]. In November 2008, Colorado voters narrowly rejected [JURIST report] a ballot measure [Amendment 46 text and materials] to prohibit governmental agencies from discriminating or granting preferences on the basis of race and sex. While, a nearly identical measure passed [JURIST report] in Nebraska.