The early version of I-1000 petition form resembled wordings of failed I-1644. The ballot title reads “Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerns affirmative action and preferential treatment .” Obviously, they could not get enough people to sign the petition. After all, who would agree to bring back preferential treatment given that majority of people in Washington State rejected the idea more than 20 years ago.

Realized that they could not get people on board, they changed their wordings in below revised petition form. The ballot title now reads:”Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerns remedying discrimination and affirmative action .”  The measure remains the same. Only now, they want to mislead voters into believing that they are signing for the noble cause of anti-discrimination! I-200 is for anti-discrimination. I-1000 is for discrimination! 

When good intended voters signed the petition, they signed away their civil rights protected by the Washington State Civil Rights Act, and those signature collectors get paid $1 for each signature they collect. That works out to be $300,000 for signatures alone if they reach their goal of collecting 300,000 signatures. Who are the deep pocket sponsors behind I-1000? Labor unions, special interest groups.

As people often say that the devil is in the details, let’s peel into the fine prints of I-1000. Initiative 1000’s Concise Description states: “This measure would allow the state to remedy discrimination for certain groups and to implement affirmative action, without the use of quotas or preferential treatment (as defined), in public education, employment, and contracting.”

• Since several court decisions have made clear that quotas are illegal. State law RCW 43.43.015 also clearly bans quota. I-1000 simply confirms that the state is prohibited from using quotas, and makes no change in existing law in term of banning quotas. They tried this deceptive tactic back in 1997 by introducing SB 6689 without success. When the intention of SB 6689 was questioned, then NO! 200 Campaign treasurer Edsonya Charles responded, “confusion does not hurt us.” Clearly, they are trying to confuse voters again! 

The post Initiative 1000 Wants to Bring Back Preferential Treatment appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

This narrowly defined preferential treatment opens gate for all kinds of discriminations based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. A perfect example is the Smith vs. UW lawsuit. Katuria Smith grew up in poverty, with an alcoholic father and step-father, and struggled through high school. In spite of this, she was able to pull her life together and submit an impressive application to UW’s law school. However, because she was not a member of a preferred race, Smith’s application was denied. Nath Hentoff at The Washington Post wrote “I asked them what would have happened if she had not revealed her race on her application. If, considering her first name, she had been taken for black, would she – given her academic record and character – have been admitted? The dean said she would have been.” If we allow I-1644 to pass, there will be many hard working students like Katuria Smith been rejected because of her race. As a matter of fact, according to UW’s website, “For thirty years UW admissions decisions have taken race and ethnicity into account (prior to I-200, which banned discrimination and preferential treatment based on race and ethnicity in public education, public contracting and public employment ) ). In the fall 1998 freshman class, about two-thirds of the class-those with the strongest academic records-gained entry on the basis of grades and test scores alone. The remaining third was reviewed and admitted on the basis of several additional factors, of which race or ethnicity was one.”  As our article pointed out, abolishing preferential treatment at UW did not hurt minority students as many proponents of I-1644 claimed.

When I-200 passed in 1998, the initiative was outspent 5 to 1, opposed by big labor and won with almost 59 percent of the vote. It won a majority of men and women. The support was because voters believed that all Americans should be protected from race and sex discrimination when applying for a college education, government job, or public contract. That is the principle that drove I-200 to victory. People and organizations behind I-1644 know that they do not stand a chance if they reveal their true discrimination intend. They packaged the measure as “Equality for Jobs, Schools, and Business”. There will NOT be equality if Initiative 1644 passes. There will be discriminations of all kinds. Hard working man and women, people of all colors, students will be denied equal opportunities to seek prosperity in our wonderful state.

STOP Initiative 1644. I-1644 is for discrimination! Voters deserve to know the truth.

The post Initiative 1644 Is All About Preferential Treatment appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.