ACA 7
CFC OpposesGovernment preferences
CFC Says
CFC opposes ACA 7.
This proposed change to the California Constitution would roll back parts of Proposition 209, which voters passed in 1996 to ban race- and sex-based preferences in government hiring, education, and contracts. If passed, it would allow the state to once again consider race, sex, ethnicity, and national origin when making decisions in those areas.
Currently at 2nd Committee, having cleared 3 stages.
Legislative Progress
CFC's Position Letter
February 10, 2026
Assembly Member Jackson
1021 O Street, Suite 6120
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Support for AB 1667
Dear Assembly Member Jackson:
On behalf of tens of thousands of constituents, allied organizations, and more than 2,000 churches across California, the California Family Council respectfully opposes ACA 7, which would narrow the equal-protection safeguards established in 1996 by Proposition 209 and open the door to renewed race- and sex-based preferences in state government.
Proposition 209 was clear and broad: The state shall not discriminate or grant preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. It applied to public education broadly. This bill narrows that to only higher education admissions and enrollment. That means K–12 policy, grant programs, state benefits, scholarship programs, and other government actions would no longer be constitutionally barred from race- or sex-based preferences.
In 2023, the United States Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard held that race-based admissions programs in higher education violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court emphasized that government classifications based on race are inherently suspect and subject to the strictest scrutiny. Public policies that distribute benefits or burdens based on race must meet extraordinarily high constitutional standards, and most fail to do so.
ACA 7 invites renewed constitutional conflict. By narrowing the scope of Proposition 209’s protections, the amendment creates ambiguity and potential litigation over which programs may now incorporate race- or sex-based considerations. Rather than providing clarity, it weakens the constitutional guardrails that voters deliberately put in place.
California’s civil rights tradition should be rooted in equal treatment, individual dignity, and merit-based opportunity. Expanding the government’s authority to treat citizens differently based on immutable characteristics undermines those principles and disregards the expressed will of voters on two separate statewide ballots.
For these reasons, the California Family Council respectfully urges you to oppose ACA 7.
Sincerely,
Greg Burt
Vice President
California Family Council
Official Description
The California Constitution, pursuant to provisions enacted by the Proposition 209, an initiative measure adopted by the voters at the November 5, 1996, statewide general election, prohibits 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, as specified. This measure would, instead, limit the above prohibition to the operation of public employment, higher education admissions and enrollment, and public contracting. The measure would require that it appear on the ballot at the November 7, 2028, statewide general election.