Assembly approves ACA 7 after heated debate over government preferences

Assemblymember Jackson presented ACA 7 (Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7) as a Black Caucus priority to clarify Section 31A of the California Constitution. Jackson asked for an aye vote, framing the amendment as necessary to address disparities and improve outcomes.

Opponents, including Assemblymember De Maio and Assemblymember Tanya Pah, strongly objected. De Maio said the amendment would waste taxpayer money and represented an attempt to allow discrimination, urging a no vote. Tanya Pah characterized ACA 7 as an authorization to "racially discriminate" and asked colleagues to consider whether they wanted to place such a measure before voters.

Jackson closed by rejecting what he described as lies about the amendment's intent and asked for a yes vote. The Clerk closed the roll and announced the tally as Ayes 54, Noes 14; the measure passed the Assembly.

Why it matters: ACA 7 would put a constitutional amendment on the ballot (if approved through the constitutional amendment process) and raises fundamental questions about government preferences and anti‑discrimination policy. The floor debate focused on whether the change would permit or protect preferential treatment by government.

Next steps: ACA 7 passed the Assembly and will proceed through the constitutional amendment process as required by law; the exact ballot timing and subsequent steps were not specified on the floor.