Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated committee debate as ACA 7 moves forward; proponents seek tools to close racial achievement gaps, critics warn of legal risk
Summary
ACA 7, a proposed constitutional amendment to clarify Prop 209's reach for K–12 education, advanced from committee after extensive testimony. Supporters said the measure restores narrowly tailored race‑conscious tools to close achievement gaps; opponents warned it would undercut Prop 209 and invite litigation.
Assemblymember Jackson presented ACA 7 to the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments as a measure intended to clarify Section 31(a) of the California Constitution and allow educators to use narrowly tailored, evidence‑based interventions to address racial achievement gaps.
Dr. Christopher Nellam of Ed Trust West testified the bill would allow the state to use data to identify underserved students and target resources where they are most needed. "ACA 7 is about following the data," he said, arguing that targeted supports can narrow persistent gaps in outcomes.
Supporters including Assemblymember Dr. Lashay Sharp Collins and a coalition of advocacy groups emphasized the measure is designed to restore tools that proponents say Prop 209 prevented, particularly in K–12 settings. "When you look at the data, African Americans are at the bottom for math," one coauthor said, urging the committee to consider targeted approaches to raise achievement.
Opponents included law professors and members of civic groups who warned the amendment would effectively exempt public education from Prop 209's prohibition on race‑based state action and could authorize preferential financial aid or admissions policies they described as constitutionally vulnerable. A University of San Diego law professor told the committee ACA 7 "is not a clarification of Proposition 209; it rips the heart out of Prop 209" and said actions under ACA 7 would likely face court challenges.
Committee members pressed witnesses on specific effects, including whether ACA 7 would permit race‑based admissions or scholarships and how it would fare under recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Supporters said the amendment is narrowly crafted to enable targeted remedies that are data‑driven and legally defensible; opponents said the measure's effects on financial aid, admissions and potential litigation risk remain unresolved.
A roll call proceeded after extended discussion; the committee recorded votes and left the item open for absent members before later closing the roll. The committee ultimately advanced ACA 7 (committee vote recorded as 4–1) for referral to the appropriations process.
What happens next: With committee approval, ACA 7 moves to the next step in the legislative process where cost, ballot timing and legal analyses will be further scrutinized.
