**2026 marks the 30th anniversary of Proposition 209.**  Prop 209’s historic passage in California codified the state’s constitutional guarantee of equal protection and spurred a civil rights movement leading to the successes of similar initiatives in nine other states. But Prop. 209 is under attack again in the California Legislature, with fast progress made by ACA 7—a partial repeal of Prop. 209’s education provisions. This hyper-partisan and ideologically motivated proposal stands in stark contrast to a growing public consensus for equality as well as federal policy reforms. At our fourth annual conference,  **CFER will bring together experts, reformers, elected officials, and advocates to celebrate 30 years of Prop. 209 and raise awareness about the attacks against it.**  We will unpack different layers of policies, narratives, and reforms pertaining to legislative challenges to Prop. 209 and equality. We will also discuss strategies in voter education, advocacy, media, and grassroots organizing.

Currently, many of the assaults on Prop. 209 are framed in the language of reparations. Ever since the creation of a statewide  [taskforce](https://oag.ca.gov/ab3121/members)  “to study and develop reparation proposals for African Americans,” the Golden State has led a national movement on reparations. In this most recent legislative session, the  **California Legislature Black Caucus has promoted its “Road to Repair” package of 16 reparations-themed bills**, some of which were codified in 2025 and some were vetoed by the Governor. Now, before the State Legislature enters its summer recess, progressive lawmakers are pushing through the rest of the package:

· [AB 801](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB801), proposing for the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to identity and address “ongoing mortgage lending discrimination,” will be  [decided](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB801)  in the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 30th.
· [ACA 7](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260ACA7), the partial repeal of Prop. 209 in its education-related provisions, has been amended to appear on the 2028 state ballot, which allows the State Senate more time to vote on the proposal.

While proponents of reparations often justify their position as a “just” and “moral” one to “right historic wrongs,”  **everything about reparations in reality is about handing out government favors based on race and color**! As Senator Akilah Weber-Pierson  [stated](https://youtu.be/k0msOROhKEk?si=anhFy7cCizUbTsOV)  on the record during a committee hearing,

_Race neutral is not working for everyone.  This [ACA 7] allows California, as was stated, to have more tools in their tool belt, which was snatched away after Prop. 209…_Brown v. Board of Education_ was not about letting us all get together. It was about resources. It was about the fact that schools black and poor people went to should not get second- or third-hand materials._

Or in the words of Assemblymember Corey Jackson, “If there are groups that are falling through the cracks, we need the ability to rescued them. That’s all the Black Caucus is asking for us to do.”

If you find such rhetoric overtly politicized and divisive, you are not alone.  **CFER has been** [**fighting**](https://californiaglobe.com/articles/twitter-hate-trolls-attack-calif-for-equal-rights-foundation-exec-dir-over-reparations/)**against race-based reparations since 2022**, which is why we are so encouraged by the  [participation](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-justice-department-moves-intervene-race-discrimination-lawsuit-challenging-reparations)  of the U.S. Department of Justice in a lawsuit against housing reparations in the Evanston, Illinois. We will  **proactively seek collaboration and support from the Federal Government to help expose and challenge various reparations schemes in California**.

As we continue to raise awareness on the importance of Prop. 209 and the attacks against it, notably ACA 7,  **CFER will host a panel discussion on reparations at our upcoming** [**conference**](https://www.cferfoundation.org/conference/2026) **on July 24-25 in Orange County**. CFER Executive Vice President Gail Professor will lead the discussion. If you have not signed up to attend, please  [RSVP](https://members.cferfoundation.org/tickets/conference-2026)  today (one-day passes available).

See you next month!

large_Screenshot 2026-06-24 at 4.46.58 PM.png

medium_Screenshot 2026-06-24 at 4.46.58 PM.png

small_Screenshot 2026-06-24 at 4.46.58 PM.png

thumbnail_Screenshot 2026-06-24 at 4.46.58 PM.png

Screenshot 2026-06-24 at 4.46.58 PM.png

You are invited! Join CFER‘s conference to celebrate 30 years of Prop. 209

**On June 3rd, the Senate Education Committee approved ACA 7 – partial repeal of Proposition 209 in education – on a partisan** [**vote**](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260ACA7)**.** In spite of a strong showing of opposition from our side, Democratic state senators on the committee decided to side with racial favors and corrosive identity politics. If ACA 7 gets out of the State Legislature this year, Californians will have to decide on the 2028 state ballot whether or not we want to gut Prop. 209, once again.  
  
At the Senate Education Committee [hearing](https://www.senate.ca.gov/media-archive), ACA 7 supporters, including many on the committee, gave the public a litany of false characterizations of Prop. 209. Assemblymember Corey Jackson – the bill author- went so far to attack **Prop. 209 as an “existential threat to African Americans in California.”** Jackson called race-based treatment as “a scientific fact.” Instead of confronting such absurdity to perpetuate racism, his senate colleagues simply regurgitated these claims and reaffirmed an ideological commitment to dismantle Prop. 209.  
  
So, where do we go from here?  
  
**Alas, the task at hand is to drive up public awareness on what is at stake if our state’s constitutional guarantee of equal protection is compromised**. More discussions and deliberations need to happen to more proactively engage the public on topics related to equal rights, racial discrimination v.s. disparity, education outcome and merit. False research, frequently weaponized by proponents for racial preferences, must be unpacked and debunked.  
  
In light of ACA 7’s development in the State Senate, **CFER is now restructuring this year’s conference program to incorporate much-needed discussions on pertinent topics in our agenda.** In addition to our previously scheduled panels on federal policy reforms and local organizing, **our conference will focus heavily on the state-level policy and legislative landscape surrounding Prop. 209**. We will explore answers to relevant questions such as:  
  
_**1.** **Why does California’s political establishment keep attacking Prop. 209?**  
**2.** **What does it mean to be equal? What is the definition of racism vs. anti-racism?**  
**3.** **Are race/group-based interventions effective in reversing negative education outcomes?**  
**4.** **Can racial favors be handed out without racial discrimination?**  
**5.** **Have higher education institutions in California, particularly the University of California system, followed Prop. 209? What would ACA 7 accomplish in areas of financial aid and education access?**  
**6.** **Can a repeal of Prop. 209 survive federal anti-discrimination laws and the Fourteenth Amendment?**_  
  
The smooth progress made by yet another attack on equal rights demonstrates again the importance of our work. CFER has answered the grave call to action by standing at the forefront of defending Prop. 209. We look forward to giving you more detailed reports and presentations at our upcoming conference on July 24-25 in Irvine, California. If you have not registered to attend, please do it today!  
  
See you next month!

large_Screenshot 2026-05-07 at 12.45.21 PM.png

medium_Screenshot 2026-05-07 at 12.45.21 PM.png

small_Screenshot 2026-05-07 at 12.45.21 PM.png

thumbnail_Screenshot 2026-05-07 at 12.45.21 PM.png

Screenshot 2026-05-07 at 12.45.21 PM.png

Another attack on Prop. 209 moves forward. Come to CFER’s July 24-25 conference to hear more!

We have an urgent matter to call your attention to! ACA 7 – California’s latest attempt at repealing Prop. 209 (with its education provisions) is now at the State Senate Education Committee. **The committee will hear and** [**vote on ACA 7**](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=0e675201a0&e=0111f1f5cd) **on Wednesday, June 3rd. It is crucial that we voice our opposition against reenacting government preferences in education NOW**!  
  
On June 3rd, CFER Executive Vice President Gail Heriot will appear in front of the Senate Education Committee to testify against the bill. You can read more on our arguments against ACA 7 through Professor Heriot’s writing [here](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=5cecd7af93&e=0111f1f5cd) and Wenyuan Wu's analysis [here](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=96ea75cceb&e=0111f1f5cd). We need your support to let the committee members know **the disregard for racial preferences is broad-based**. You can help by doing the following:  
  
1. Attend the hearing in person at **9am on Wednesday, June 3rd  at  1021 O Street, Room 2100, Sacramento, CA 95814.** You can queue up to testify against bill after CFER gives our testimony.  
  
2. **Call members of the Senate Education Committee between now and June 3rd  to register your opposition**. Simply say your name and state your position against ACA 7.

-   Senator Sasha Renée Pérez (SD 25): (916) 651-4025
-   Senator Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (SD 19): (916) 651-4019
-   Senator Christopher Cabaldon (SD 3): (916) 651-4003
-   Senator Steven "Steve" Choi (SD 37): (916) 651-4037
-   Senator Dave Cortese (SD 15): (916) 651-4015
-   Senator Lena Gonzalez (SD 33): (916) 651-4033
-   Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes (SD 29): (916) 651-4029

With enough pushback from the public, the State Senate may hesitate to move such a controversial bill out of the legislature to the general ballot. Please take actions promptly to show the elected offices our unwavering support for equal protection!  
  
Thank you in advance!

medium_Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

small_Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

thumbnail_Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

Blue Minimal Action Word Definition Quote Facebook Post.png

Call the Senate Education Committee to oppose ACA 7!

CFER’s 2026 annual conference [registration](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=29e492f710&e=419c6d2e60) is open! Between now and **July 7th, you can enjoy an early bird special** for our two-day conference program, which will be hosted on July 24th and July 25th in Irvine.  
  
For our fourth annual conference, CFER will bring together experts, reformers, elected officials and advocates in deep dives into important policy issues on education, race relations, governance and more. So far, we have confirmed **a prestigious lineup of speakers and panelists**, to include:

-   Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Agriculture Devon Westhill
-   CFER Executive Vice President Gail Heriot
-   Pacific Research Institute Senior Director of Education Studies Lance Izumi
-   Pacific Legal Foundation Attorney Andrew Quinio
-   UCLA Professor of Law Richard Sander
-   PUSD Community Watch Cofounder Lenice Sechris
-   California Policy Center President Jackson Reese
-   College Fix Editor-in-Chief Jennifer Kabbany
-   Parents Defending Education Research Director Rhyen Staley
-   Orange County Board of Education President Mari Barke
-   CFER Advisor Joe Nalven
-   Equal Rights Advocate Nan Zhong
-   Equal Rights for All PAC Vice President Tony Guan

While we are nearly two years into a new federal administration that is willing to take on the ideological swamp, many pro-education, pro-common-sense and pro-equality policy developments are yet to become meaningfully impactful to course correct the former trajectory of race- and gender-based identity politics. For the conference’s keynote address, we will be joined by **USDA Assistant Secretary  [Devon Westhill](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=697d82705e&e=419c6d2e60)  who will unpack for us the series of federal policy changes pertaining to civil rights and equal justice**. Secretary Westhill has a long tenure in civil rights advocacy, as the former president of the Center for Equal Opportunity. He also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the USDA in President Trump’s first term. Following the keynote speech, **Professor Gail Heriot and Dr. Lance Izumi will engage in a panel discussion on federal policies**, with a focus on developments in reforming college accreditation and defunding minority serving institutions.  
  
Federal-level redress to combat discrimination and indoctrination, however encouraging, may seem out of reach for Californian parents, residents and voters who continue to contend with state and local attempts to defy the redress. A recent Department of Justice investigation [found](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=ab66692b3d&e=419c6d2e60) that UCLA engaged in racial discrimination in its medical school admissions. The investigation dovetails two federal lawsuits against the entire UC system regarding its racially balancing undergraduate admissions. To bridge the federal-level developments and state-level realities, our conference program will feature a panel discussion between **Mr. Andrew Quinio and Professor Richard Sander**, who will **explore relevant state policies and the resistance against federal reforms from major players such as the University of California system**.  
  
We understand that politics is downstream from culture and intend to bring our discussions to the local level. CFER President Frank Xu will be joined by **Mr. Jackson Reese and Ms. Lenice Sechrist** in **a panel on local organizing, sharing insights and success stories on how parents and community advocates have proactively promoted excellence and accountability.** Our program will also delve into the issues of **curriculum and public opinions with a discussion by Ms. Jennifer Kabbany, Mr. Rhyen Staley and Hon. Mari Barke**. Last but not least, **Dr. Joe Nalven, Mr. Tony Guan and Mr. Nan Zhong will have a conversation on the role of AI in changing the landscape of civil rights advocacy**.  
  
We hope this succinct program overview gives you a good preview of our upcoming annual event. Again, please take advantage **of our early bird special to  [sign up](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=6f356beae1&e=419c6d2e60)  to attend the conference**. The special expires on July 6th. If you are a CFER member (“stakeholder” level and above), you may also qualify for a discount ticket at $20. You can [log in](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=88cc8ff42c&e=419c6d2e60) to your member portal to check your membership pricing.  
  
ICYMI, **CFER and allies are doing a Capitol Tour on Monday (May 11th) in Sacramento to raise awareness on ACA 7**. Please see our flyer below. If you are interested and available, we would love for you to join us! [Sign up](https://cferfoundation.us10.list-manage.com/track/click?u=b78c84756813bc7a3a38500a0&id=9f03f154a0&e=419c6d2e60) to join here.  
  
Thank you for your support and trust, as always!

![campaign endorsements (4).png](https://strapi-cfer.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/38427d18c51b0631394dc323005dd774.png)

Early bird registration now open for CFER 2026 conference


On Wednesday (04/28), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3  [ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf)  on  _Louisiana v. Callais_, effectively outlawing race-based redistricting practices. The decision, directly invalidating a second Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana, considerably limits the scope of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by restricting states’ use of race as a factor in drawing congressional maps.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing the majority opinion, argues: “**the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race**.” Justice Alito’s opinion echoes Chief Justice John Roberts in the court’s 2023 ruling on  _SFFA v. Harvard_: “**Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it**.” This decisive interpretation of the Constitution and case law  **validates the letter and spirit of the Civil Rights Act of 1964**.

Unsurprisingly, proponents of race-based government action are  [smearing](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-ruling_n_69611055e4b0120ab25d13aa/amp)  the decision as a major blow to civil rights, racial justice and minority representation.  **Such inflammatory reasoning can only be true if we as a nation hold on to the debunked notion that Americans of different racial backgrounds are best represented by elected officials who look like them**. This essentially racial-pairing argument is similar to the pervasive “rationale” in education policy-making that students of certain demographics should be taught by teachers who look them.  **Different areas of focus, same tactic of racial segregation**.

We believe that America, as naturally diverse as it has been since its founding, has long traveled past the point of having to use group-based, positive, affirmative action to remedy historical wrongs. As Justice Alito wrote in the ruling, “Although  _any_  use of race in government decision-making generally triggers strict scrutiny, in gerrymandering cases a challenger must show that race was the government’s predominant consideration.”

In fact, Wednesday’s landmark ruling **comports with the guiding principle of non-discrimination behind the Fifteenth Amendment**, that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” It reassures America’s cardinal principle of equality, which is, albeit once temporarily tagged to group representation,  **fundamentally and unambiguously about the equal rights of all Americans, from educational access to political participation, on the basis of the individual**.

Once again, the nation’s highest court interprets the law in faithful observation of our constitutional guarantee of equal protection, a cause that CFER has dedicated to in the last six years. We applaud this step and pledge to keep up our work in the same direction.


large_9d4f0db9d14e51a889d364d38d40ea92.png

medium_9d4f0db9d14e51a889d364d38d40ea92.png

small_9d4f0db9d14e51a889d364d38d40ea92.png

thumbnail_9d4f0db9d14e51a889d364d38d40ea92.png

9d4f0db9d14e51a889d364d38d40ea92.png

Landmark ruling on Voting Rights Act reaffirms the spirit of civil rights

On April 21, CFER, member co-plaintiffs and the American Civil Rights Project (ACR Project)  **filed a** [**lawsuit**](https://www.americancivilrightsproject.org/blog/acr-project-for-cfer-and-its-members-challenges-californias-black-infant-health-program/) **in Sacramento to challenge the state’s Black Infant Health (BIH) program**. In the legal action, we argue that the State of California has engaged in racial discrimination through BIH, violating the U.S. and California Constitutions, as well as Title VI in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Since 1989, the California Department of Public Health has maintained this program, handing out favorable treatment to pregnant women and newborns on the basis of race. At the beginning, BIH was promoted as an initiative to equalize health outcomes for Black mothers and children as compared to those from other groups. It has been 37 years since the program’s inception and the state has no plan to transition the program from a racially exclusionary premise to a race-neutral one. Dispensing this public benefit based on race violates:

· The Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution

· Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

· Provisions of the California Constitution, including its Equal Protection Clause (Article I, Section 7) and—to the extent BIH operates through contracts—Prop. 209(Article I, Section 31)

Answering CFER’s  [call for plaintiffs](https://www.cferfoundation.org/posts/post-BIH-action-alert)  , three courageous CFER members agreed to join the lawsuit as representative taxpayers. Our lawsuit also compliments a parallel class-action  [challenge](https://pacificlegal.org/case/jimenez-california-bih-program-race/)  in the launched by another CFER member in federal court with the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation.

There is no question that protecting the health of all pregnant women and newborns—of all races—is a worthy social goal.  When governments go beyond that kind of laudable commitment to advance the health and safety of  _only_  pregnant women and newborns of a single race to the exclusion of others, that’s something else entirely.

We are asking that the Sacramento Superior Court declare the BIH program unconstitutional and illegal, issue a writ of mandamus commanding the state to cease using state resources or funds to support it so long as it continues to discriminate on the basis of race, and for related preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.

Once again, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine. We have seen the fruitful outcomes of CFER’s legal advocacy in many past cases and we believe we will prevail again. If you have any information on potentially unconstitutional public programs throughout California, can you please let us know?

medium_cover0823.jpeg

small_cover0823.jpeg

thumbnail_cover0823.jpeg

cover0823.jpeg

We just sued the California Department of Public Health to stop the unconstitutional “Black Infant Health” program

State Policies

Local School District Policies

CRT in School Districts

Defund DEI

Research by CFER Allies

CFER Research & More

Alliance Building

Endorsement

CFER Membership

CFER Foundation

Policies

Research

Alliance

Posts