Although not surprised, it is definitely disappointing that NW Asian Weekly added another biased assaulting piece towards Asian Americans who refused to obey and follow the state’s Asian political establishment. Ms. Ng’s opinion piece was both biased and misleading.

1. Political differences aside, Reject R-88 campaign was the first in Washington history that Asian Americans played a significant role in Washington politics. Instead of recognizing the significance of Asian Americans’ political participation, Ms. Ng chose to attack those who stood on the other side of her political friends.
2. Referendum 88 is not a partisan issue. Ms. Ng’s attempt to link Reject R-88 to the Republican party was desperate and pathetic. Washington state has long been a blue state. R-88 won statewide election. Without supports from Democrats, Independents, R-88 would not be able to carry 34 out of 39 counties, 30 out of 49 Legislative Districts.
3. Reject R-88 raised most funds from individual donors, many of them were first time political donors. Ms. Ng did not tell her readers that R-88 supporters, on the other hand, got funds from political establishments: Unions, secret moneys funneled through foundation such as Group Health Community Foundation where Martha Choe serves as a board member.
4. R-88 campaign, and their spokesperson, Gary Locke, claimed our existing law prohibits outreach, and used that as their excuse to promote R-88. Yet, after R-88 failed, Crosscut came out with an article, and government agencies quickly claimed that our existing law allows outreach programs.  R-88 was a big fat lie.
5. And lastly, let me make it clear, Washington voters voted to enact the principle of Equality for All in 1998, and voters reaffirmed the same principle again in 2019. Race has no place in American life or law. Let everyone who dreams big to have an American Dream.

The post In Response to NW Asian Weekly’s Blog appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

National Association of Scholars (NAS) has been a strong supporter of Reject R-88 campaign. Not only they worked to bring national attention to the fight to protect equality for all in Washington, but also they called on their members to provide much needed financial support in October. We are grateful to have such a national ally on our side.

Mr. Peter Wood, president of NAS, sent below congratulation letter after we defeated R-88 this month.

Congratulations on the successful effort to stop Referendum 88. You voted against this effort to restore racial preferences in Washington. I couldn’t vote because I live and work in New York City. But I did the next best thing. My organization, the National Association of Scholars (NAS), worked to bring national attention and financial support to the Stop 88 campaign. NAS can’t take credit for the campaign’s success—that credit belongs to you and other sensible voters. But we did our part.
The campaign succeeded despite the intentionally confusing language of the bill and despite what looks like a substantial number of suspicious ballots that were counted. That makes the victory even sweeter.
The NAS isn’t new to this fight. We were the folks who originally proposed what became California’s Proposition 209, the successful ballot proposition in 1996 that ended racial preferences in that state and that became the model for what Washington did two years later. We have helped to carry the fight to other states as well, most recently Michigan. We believe that college admissions, jobs, public contracts, and all public decisions should be based on merit, not on race or ethnicity.
And we know this fight isn’t over. The Pro Referendum 88 crowd in Washington will sooner or later try again, and the fight will continue in other states and nationally. Please consider joining us. We welcome all who support us in this important struggle for genuine civil rights, and against race-based favoritism.
Yours,
Peter Wood
President
National Association of Scholars

The post A Letter from NAS appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Crosscut published Glenn Nelson’s racist op-ed towards Chinese Americans on October 8th, 2019.

Glenn’s op-ed was crazy and insulting. After our protest through social media and email, Mason Bryan of Crosscut offered below:

“I also want to offer you the opportunity to share your own thoughts on the affirmative action debate, either in our comment section or through a letter to the editor. We don’t always publish letters to the editor, but if it speaks to the issues and arguments you support, we would be happy to consider it. We ask that it be no more than 500 words. Let me know if this is of interest to you, or if you have any questions.”

We sent below op-ed to Mason Bryan.

     All people of Asian decent should be shocked by your recent opinion piece on Chinese immigrants.   In response to the Op-ed by Glenn Nelson in Crosscut on October 8th, we must respectfully disagree with the basic premise that Asians who oppose I-1000 are somehow uninformed, racist and/or disloyal to “leaders” who represent Asians as a whole.  Additionally, we also reject the premise that Asians cannot actually understand racism because, as your op-ed states,  “Asians have escaped centuries of slavery” a statement which is grossly offensive.

     Your concept that any person of Asian descent who is not in lock step as an unthinking supporter of I-1000 is deeply offensive as well.  You go on to state that this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from opposition to I-1000, yet any objective analysis of the construction of I-1000 itself would actually shine a light on the deep flaws in this measure that have given rise to such strong opposition by many groups, including ours.  We do not oppose I-1000 because we are uninformed, we oppose it because we have read and understand it. 

     I-1000 will fail at the ballot box in November when people find out what it does and how it works.  The proponents clearly knew this when they wrote it, so they put in language that seeks to misinform voters.  Stating that it will accomplish its goals without quotas, does not make it so.  A careful analysis of the mechanics of how it will be implemented leads any thinking person to see that quotas are the only possible outcome.  The proponents know how dangerous and divisive this would be, so they just keep saying that quotas do not exist, but there are no “alternative facts” in this case, I-1000 will create quotas at a time our society can least afford to be more divided on racial lines.

     Another nonsensical fiction in I-1000 is how the creators included veterans.  Veterans already have significant benefits in employment and education by both state and federal law, far beyond anything that they could possibly receive under I-1000.  The writers of I-1000 knew that their measure would be defeated unless they tricked voters into believing that it helps someone they generally support, like veterans.  So in I-1000 they seek to make veterans a class of citizens that are equated with race, sex or sexual orientation, as if that makes any sense, just so they can say that they are offering them benefits that they already do not receive under current law.  But veterans would lose existing benefits and have to compete against these other groups for benefits that they already have today.  This was done to trick voters. 

     The failure of I-1000 will not occur because Asians of Chinese descent are unformed, racist or disloyal.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We come from all political beliefs and are united because we are informed and see the dangers of this ill-conceived and deceptive measure that would divide us on racial lines.     

Then we received below response from Mason Bryan:

“Thank you for sending this to us. Unfortunately, as I said in my initial note, we do not publish direct rebuttals to Op-Eds.
 
We do occasionally publish letters to the editor in support of an initiative or candidate. If you are willing to amend the response you sent me so that it lays out a positive case for your cause, we would consider it. I’m sorry to say that we cannot publish the response you sent as it currently reads.”

     Total B.S. ! Yes. Luckily, we are living in 21st Century. Crosscut can’t silence us.

Crosscut thinks it is totally OK to publish Glenn Nelson’s racist piece, but refuse to publish a much more polite and calm piece from us. Why? Crosscut has a Chinese American problem. In particular, Chinese Americans who think independently and refuse to be a puppet.

As Yvonne Ward summed up in her brilliant commentary piece

“Those groups have dismissed us in the past, and now they expect us to support discrimination against our children. To this we must say no. In honor of those who came before us who sacrificed so much, and on behalf of our children who have done nothing wrong to warrant discrimination, we must stand our ground and fight this prejudice. We must take our stand at the ballot box because there, the anti-Asian Establishment cannot ignore us. With your ballot in hand, focus on our children’s future, their right to dignity, their right to fairness, and their fundamental right to respect. Reject racism. Reject I-1000.”

The post A Response to Crosscut and Glenn Nelson’s Racist Op-Ed Towards Chinese Americans appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

“The other side has tried to portray this extraordinarily successful campaign as a group of Asian Americans worried about losing spots at UW.  This is clearly about a much larger issue.  This is about a basic fundamental American value:  Individual rights for every person!  Race has no place in American life or law,” Yang continued.

The campaign raised nearly $1 million dollar, mostly from individual donors.  “Close to 2,000 people donated to this Referendum.  This is a true grassroots campaign,” said Yang.  “The other side is dishonest.  They owed signature collectors $1.3 million dollar in pay and launched a new PAC to avoid paying down the debt.”

“Senator Bob Hasegawa arrogantly challenged us to collect 200,000 signatures to make a statement that the people actually wanted a referendum on I-1000, “said Yang.  “Our campaign did even better than that.  We obtained more than 200,000 signatures in this campaign.  The voters of Washington State have spoken:  We want to reconsider this vote of the legislature and put it in front of all the people.”

R-88 sponsors have already launched phase 2 campaign.  A new campaign website, RejectI1000.org, is up and running.

####

The post THE SECRETARY OF STATE CERTIFIED REFERENDUM MEASURE 88, NEW CAMPAIGN SITE LAUNCHED TO DEFEAT I-1000 IN THE FALL appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

Thank you!

The post R-88 Signature Collection Feedback Form appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

“The other side have tried to paint this as a group of Asian Americans worry about losing spots at UW. This is a much broad issue. This is about the fundamental American value: Liberty and Justice for All! Race has no place in American life or law.” Yang continued.

The campaign raised more than $900K mostly from individual donors. “Close to 2,000 people donated to the campaign. This is a true grassroots campaign.” Said Yang.

Nearly 60 supporters gathered at Olympia Center on Saturday, 7/27, afternoon to celebrate this historical achievement. Mr. Ward Connerly, John Carlson, and John Alberti, all were actively involved in I-200 back in 1998, attended the event. Mr. Connerly said “I regret that we have to do this all over again… I-1000 is one of the worst bills…It will make you want to throw up almost… Poorly written, poorly designed, fundamentally at odds with the most cherish value of America, which is individual rights for every person.”

At the end of the event, the campaign announced its phase two website: RejectI1000.org. ‘Now, we’ve sent R-88 to the ballot, let’s Reject I-1000 in November.” Said Yang.

####

The post R-88 SPONSORS SUBMITTED A RECORD NUMBER OF SIGNATURES AND KICKED OFF REJECT I-1000 CAMPAIGN appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

The secretary of state certified Referendum Measure 88 (R-88) for the November ballot on August 7, 2019, after finding through a random sample verification that R-88 sponsors had submitted 184,239 valid signatures. To qualify for the ballot, 129,811 valid signatures were required.

R-88, the vote on I-1000, is on the November ballot as a veto referendum.

An approve vote supports allowing Initiative 1000 to go into effect, thereby allowing the state to bring back racial preferences.
A reject vote supports blocking divisive I-1000 from going into effect, thereby continuing to ban racial preferences in Washington.

What’s next? Reject R-88 and Stop Divisive I-1000 in November!

Initiative 1000 seeks to repeal Washington Civil Rights Act (I-200) and was enacted by the Legislature on the last day of the session in order to deny a public vote on the matter. Senator Bob Hasegawa arrogantly challenged opponents of I-1000 to collect 200,000 signatures to make a statement that the people actually want a referendum on I-1000. Well, R-88 campaign did even better than that. The campaign obtained 213,268 signatures. And voters of Washington State have spoken: “We want to reconsider this vote of the legislature and put it in front of all the people.” Senator Bob Hasegawa, and all the legislators who voted for I-1000 are out of touch with voters！

I-1000 can be summed up in one sentence: It would abolish the standard of equality for all, regardless of race, as required by I-200, and replace it with a system that uses different rules for people of different races. There is too much division in our society today.  We should minimize, not magnify our racial differences. That’s why all of us need to Reject Referendum 88 in the Fall.

The passage of Initiative 1000 is a slap in the face to veterans. One of I-1000’s unintentional consequences is that I-1000 would actually eliminates veterans’ preference in public employment that has been provided in Washington State since 1895. See RCW 41.04.010 and 73.16.010. At the April 18th public hearing on I-1000, non-partisan staff said “The initiative (I-1000) will now prohibit the use of preferential treatment with respect to veterans” .

The I-1000 proponents have no moral compass. They lied, and will continue to lie. We need your help to educate general public why I-1000 is a bad policy, and needs to be rejected in November. Please sign up below to help us win the battle to Reject I-1000 in November.

You can donate to support rejecting R-88 in November at Reject88.com .

The post Reject Referendum Measure 88 (R-88), Stop Divisive I-1000 appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

The passage of Initiative 1000 is a slap in the face to Veterans, their survivors and partners because it eliminates veterans preference in public employment that has been provided in Washington State since 1895. See RCW 41.04.010 and 73.16.010. Before the passage of this initiative by the legislature, honorably discharged veterans, their survivors, and partners of 100% disabled veterans were entitled to veterans preference in public employment in the following ways.

• 1. In competitive exams, veterans are entitled to a 10% bonus added to their passing score on employment examination;
• 2.Current public employees, who deployed to war and returned to public service, are entitled to 5% bonus on promotional examination;
• 3. Veterans, their widow/er/s and the partners of 100% disabled veterans, are entitled to a general preference in employment or appointment
  that does not involve a competitive examination.

That’s all ELIMINATED by I – 1000, and those statutes will be stricken from state law once the initiative takes effect. The proponents of I – 1000, will argue that is not how the law will work. That is not true.

The new law is clear, it REMOVES veteran preference from existing state law.

Here is how the Initiative will work.
First, the I – 1000 specifically adds “honorably discharged veteran or military status” to RCW 49.60.400 (Discrimination, preferential treatment prohibited) where it never existed before. Why add veteran or military status to the affirmative action prohibitions in RCW 49.60.400 (i.e. Initiative No. 200), that the proponents want to reveres? Because veterans preference was already part of state law at the time, yet it was excluded from the I – 200 prohibitions on affirmative action. The new law purports to help veterans because it includes veteran or military status part of affirmative action. But, the trade off is not worth it for veterans.

Second, Section 3(1) of I – 1000 plainly states, “(1) The state shall not […] grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of […] honorably discharged veteran or military status in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” If that becomes the new state law, the existing veterans preference statutes will go away, i.e. RCW 41.04.010 (Veterans’ scoring criteria in examinations) and RCW 73.16.010 (Preference in public employment). Under the law, a conflict exists if one statute allows what another prohibits or prohibits what another allows. Here this means that where I – 1000 conflicts with existing laws that provide preferential treatment for veterans in employment, one of those laws has to give way to the other. How to fix that? Don’t worry, they thought of that too, see the next insidious step.

Step Three, Section 6 of I – 1000, directs that within 3 months, “the office of program research and senate committee services shall prepare a joint memorandum and draft legislation to present to the appropriate committees of the legislature regarding any necessary changes to the Revised Code of Washington to bring nomenclature and processes in line with this act so as to fully effectuate and not interfere in any way with its intent.” What does all that mean? Simple, it means to rewrite the existing RCWs (veterans preference statutes) to eliminate veterans preference so there is no conflict with I – 1000.

Don’t be fooled by people with good intentions.

Proponents of I – 1000 argue that it simply supplies a new definition for “preferential treatment” and the existing veterans preference statutes do not constitute a preferential treatment under that new definition. First, try to wrap you head around the notion that “veterans preference” is not “preferential treatment.” That makes no sense; of course, a preference in employment is preferential treatment. What else can it be?

Further, the new definition does nothing but eliminate veterans preference. The sole qualifying factor to award veterans preference points at entry and promotional testing is that person’s veteran status, a consideration which I – 1000 prohibits. Veterans preference works by adding points to a veteran’s passing score. In public employment the higher scoring candidates are hired (or promoted) before lower scoring candidates. That means the act of awarding a veteran 10 percent or 5 percent to on top of their passing score is a preference, which I – 1000 prohibits.

In sum, if I -1000 becomes effective, there is no more veterans preference in Washington. Veterans preference has been part of public employment in WA law since 1895. It was implemented to make up for the loss of experience, opportunity and the time the veteran was away while they were serving, or for those disabled and their spouses to assist in overcoming those disadvantages. While the proponents of I – 1000 desire to reverse the I – 200 prohibitions on affirmative actions, they can accomplish that without eliminating veterans preference. If you’d like to help veterans get involved with Referendum Measure 88 and help us bring this issue before a vote of the people of the State of Washington, visit:

Please sign R-88 petition and send I-1000 to the November ballot to be decided by the people.

The post The passage of Initiative 1000 is a slap in the face to veterans appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

“Let People Vote” PAC has been formed to drive the Referendum Measure 88 campaign. You can donate online

The post Poll appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.

I-1000 can be summed up in one sentence: It would abolish the standard of equality for all, regardless of race, as required by I-200, and replace it with a system that uses different rules for people of different races.

We have till July 27th, to collect 170K signatures (129,811 valid, non-duplicated signature required) and qualify Referendum Measure 88 for the ballot. We need all the help we can get. If you are willing to participate in the fight to give voters the chance to vote on I-1000, please sign up using the form below and we’ll contact you with details.  Thanks!

If you have not registered to vote in WA, please register now so that your voice will be heard.

The post Join Referendum Measure 88 Signature Drive and Put I-1000 on the Ballot appeared first on WA Asians For Equality.