facing race: 2009 legislative report card on racial equity, california

2009 LegisLative RepoRt CaRd on RaCiaL equity

facing race

california

Cover Photo: istockphoto/Aldo Murillo

Facing Race: 2009 Legislative Report Card is a project of the applied Research Center and the Community development institute (Cdi). aRC is a public policy institute advancing racial justice through media, research and activism. the applied Research Center publishes the award-winning ColorLines magazine and has offices in oakland, Chicago and new york City.

Cdi’s mission is to develop well-trained leaders and to support and nurture community-based organizations, public agencies, and businesses to promote community self-determination and sustainability.

2 | the APPlied reseArCh Center • 2009 legislAtive rePort CArd on rACiAl equity

During the writing of this fifth edition of the Legislative Report Card on Racial Equity, the State of California suffers from a crisis of leadership, vision and moral fortitude. In 2009, the economic downturn that gripped the nation nearly ravaged the coffers of the Golden State. Publically-funded programs and services that serve low-income Californians—who are disproportionately people of color—became the target of a Governor and state legislature desperate for a fiscal scapegoat. As the general population moved into an officially recognized recession, many communities of color had already been there for some time.

Employment indicators reflect the recessionary impacts on communities of color. As of August 2009, California’s unemployment rate was 14.6 percent for African Americans and 12.0 percent for Latinos, compared to 8.4 percent for whites. In 2009, California had the second-highest rate in the nation at 19.6 percent of the workforce classified as unem-ployed, underemployed or discouraged worker.1 The Center for Social Inclusion found that states with larger people of color populations were the most affected by the economic stagnation. The report, which produced a multivariable index of quality of life components such as housing affordability, foreclosure rates, healthcare coverage, wages, income sus-tainability and poverty, and gross domestic product, ranked California in the top quartile (number 8) of states negatively impacted by the economy’s decline.2

At the end of the third quarter of 2008, African Americans and Latinos had significantly higher poverty rates than whites. The Latino poverty rate was 29.2 percent, followed by the African American rate of 27.2 percent. In comparison, the white poverty rate was 11.3 percent.

Beyond these numbers and statistics, the recession disproportionately touches the lives of people of color. They are more likely to have no economic safety net, like savings. Undocumented residents do not receive unemployment insurance. Job loss also means the loss of health insurance. Finally, there is greater difficulty paying for basic necessities like housing and food. In fact, the median financial wealth of African Americans nationally, as defined by liquid and semi-liquid assets such as funds, retirement and pensions, was $300.3 The Pew Hispanic Center found that “large segments of Hispanic and Black house-holds are extremely vulnerable to economic downturns since over one-quarter of them have zero or negative net worth.”4

race MaTTerS eVen More in a receSSion


% Change POC 2000-2008

0-10%

11-20%

21-70%

During the period 2000 to 2008, people of color populations increased in all California counties except one.5 The proportion of Californians that were of color increased from 51 percent in 2000 to close to 58 percent in 2008.

Latinos made the largest gains in population count between 2000 and 2008, increasing by 2.5 million to over 13.2 million. Between 2000 and 2007, Californians self-identifying as multiracial had the largest percentage increase (53 percent), adding almost 336,000 persons and reaching nearly one million total (979,000).6

Pacific Islanders surpassed their 2000 population by 24 percent, and they now have a population of 194,000. Native Americans gained 15 percent with a population of 212,000.

According to the 2008 Current Population Survey, Asians actually lost one percent of their population, decreasing from 4.25 million

to 4.22 million. Similarly, the number of white Californians decreased by seven percent during the same period.

Over 27 percent of Californians were foreign-born in 2008. The immigrant population grew by

13 percent from 2000 to 2008 to over 9.9 million. Fifty-seven percent of

immigrants are from Latin America and 27 percent from Asia.7

california: a MaJoriTY of PeoPle of color

Figure 1: Population of Color Increases by California County

The 2009-2010 California state budget is one of the most unjust in our history. Facing a revenue shortfall of $26.2 billion, legislators agreed to massive cuts in every social, educational and health program that supports those already bearing the brunt of economic and social margin-alization. The rich are, in fact, getting richer, and therefore the poor are getting poorer, among whom people of color are greatly overrepresented. The bipartisan, bicameral agreement to eliminate services that people depend on to survive was a singular act of racial injustice.

Health and Human Services is approximately 28% of the annual budget, with education at a voter-determined minimum of 40%. Neither was immune from the Gover-nor’s blue pencil or the legislature’s deals.

Budget “deal” to cut careIn February, budget bill ABX3 16 created a budget “deal” that gained the temporary tax increases advocated for by Democrats at the cost of allowing Republicans to achieve drastic cuts in support to California’s most vulnerable populations. Neither side of the legislative aisle proposed any equitable, substantive solutions. Instead, the bill includes permanent elimination of Medi-Cal “optional” benefits such as dental and psychological care, reductions to In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), cuts to Cost of Living Allowances (COLA) and severe reductions in ser-vices for those with developmental disabilities. “Optional” benefits are essential for those without means. For people with disabilities, incontinence creams and washes are basic hygiene; podiatry is imperative for those with acute diabe-tes, who can lose limbs from improper footcare leading to gangrene. The 440,000 living independently with help from IHSS face being institutionalized at much higher cost, and losing the COLA means less money to meet rising costs. None of these services is a “frill.”

As the national economy worsened and budget rev-enues fell, the Governor’s May revision of the budget called for deeper cuts. He proposed the total elimination of CalWORKs, the program that helps 1.4 million adults

and children move from welfare to work. He proposed the elimination of the federally supported Healthy Families program providing subsidized health insurance to 900,000 children of working families. Those two programs would have impacted over two million Californians left without any income or healthcare for their children.

Regulating poor people rather than revising poor planningBuilding on old but still effective racist stereotypes of the “welfare queen,” the Governor’s public message on IHSS cutbacks was that he was rooting out fraud and abuse that he declared equaled 25% of the program. Examina-tion by the Legislative Analyst’s Office found only 5%.8

Two budget trailer bills, ABX4 4 and ABX4 8, further evidenced the Governor’s contempt for the poor and the racial injustice inherent in his proposed cuts. His key target, CalWORKs, survived, but the Legislature passed radical measures such as fingerprinting all 300,000-plus IHSS providers and then made more drastic cuts in CalWORKs, which the Governor called “too lenient and too generous,” saying only 22% of CalWORKs adult recipients worked. Frank Mecca, director of the County Welfare Directors Association, noted that two-thirds of adults had jobs, but the Governor’s view prevailed.9 As with the damage done to families from invoking Reagan’s “welfare queen,” mainstream media were again complicit by not challenging the racist rhetoric with the facts.

CalWORKs serves those with poor education, among whom communities of color are, of course, overrepresented. Nearly 70% of recipients are Latino, Asian and African American.10 In the face of the state’s unemployment rate of 12.2%, CalWORKs adults not yet working now must find jobs. CalWORKs’ time allotment of 60 months was reduced to 48, forcing families to “sit out” for 12 months. Self-sufficiency reviews to retain eligibility will occur every six months instead of annually. The budget imposed full-family sanctions, cutting off children if their parents did

race and The BudgeT Former President George W. Bush once said of a document: “It must be a budget. It has numbers in it.” Advocates of racial equity say: “It must be a budget. It has people affected by it.”


the popular notion of racism—defined narrowly as intentional, blatant and malicious prejudice or bigotry between individu-als of different races—leads to limited remedies focused on individual punishment and change, while ignoring systemic in-equities and disparate impacts. the associationof the “Welfare queen” with social benefits is one example of this.

Millions who are out of work, losing homes and struggling to stay afloat are nevertheless denied access to temporary assistance for needy Families (tanF). the punitive rules established after twenty years of racially coded frenzy to “end welfare as we know it” have left americans with no safety net during this deepening economic crisis. tanF replaces the aid to Families with dependent Children program and its creation relied on mythologized images of the “welfare queen” driving Cadillacs conjured by Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign. this kind of racial scapegoating, the politics many believe we outgrew with obama’s election, vilified welfare recipients (who were initially mostly white) and led to rules that are so complicated and punitive that many struggling families cannot get the help they need. now that all of us—not just people of color—are in recession free fall, there is nothing available to catch us. to fix tanF, we will have to put aside racial stereo-types to do what is best for the largest number of people.

When Welfare Reform passed in 1996, our macro economic outlook was optimistic and the rhetoric of “personal respon-sibility” was ubiquitous. the welfare rolls plummeted and

conservative and liberals alike declared success. But unknown numbers of families were left underemployed, underpaid and unable to comply with punitive regulations. according to Robert Wharton, the president and chief executive officer of the Community economic development administration, “ten years into welfare reform, caseloads may have decreased, but the number of people living in poverty has not.”

a society cannot survive without a safety net and we don’t have one during the worst economic crisis in decades. tanF needs serious reconsideration including a rescinding of punitive work requirements and an end to the time limits that cut people off af-ter 5 years total enrollment. We need to ensure that families have access to supplementary benefits like food stamps, fully subsi-dized child care, transportation and housing assistance and we need to remove debilitating eligibility requirements that exclude many documented immigrants and people with past involvement with the criminal justice system. to do these things americans have to be willing to move past their racial stereotypes about people of color and welfare. the country recently came together in a proud moment to inaugurate our first president of color. We did so by putting our racial divisions aside in the name of col-lective economic self-interest. now we need to do the same by rebuilding a system of support for everyone.

taken from It’s Time to Rethink Our Welfare Policy, by applied Research Center senior Researcher seth Wessler

The TruTh aBouT welfare PolicY: Making law froM lieS

not work—regardless of reasons such as poor health, lack of transportation or childcare, etc.—and those sanctions would be included in the number of months families would be on CalWORKs. Legally present children of undocu-mented parents would be limited to 24 months of support. Finally, monthly cash grants from which all recipients pay for rent, toiletries, clothes and school supplies, fell again from $694 to $651.

Further cuts included a $20.4 million reduction to do-mestic violence shelters, $82 million reduction in AIDS/HIV services that virtually eliminated screening and treatment, $80 million reduction to Child Welfare Services protecting abused and neglected kids, and closed centers for those with developmental disabilities. In an 11th-hour bipartisan move, Healthy Families was restored via a federally subsidized tax on health insurance policies, but all other cuts remain.

A $5.3 billon cut in public K-12 education—about $3,000 per child—placed many schools serving communi-ties of color on the edge of insolvency. Higher education was denied its cost-of-living increase, forcing tuition hikes for middle- and low-income students. Cal Grants, the support many students use to obtain higher education, were cut, leaving 118,000 college-bound students without financial support. One good outcome for education in ABX4 8 was greater empowerment of parents and students over spending in categorical funds with greater school district accountability and transparency. Overall, however, education cuts were accomplished with little

regard for low-income communities of color whose students are already struggling against great structurally created odds to get a decent education.

Unilateral sacrificesWhat could have changed much of this outcome? Greater revenue. But the Governor and legislature failed to in-crease taxes significantly. This cuts-only budget was hailed as “living within our means.” However, corporate handouts continues unaffected—several significant tax breaks were given to large corporations, one permanently costing the state $2.5 billion annually. Millions for Hollywood were also doled out, and the long-sought oil severance tax was defeated, making California the only oil-producing state giv-ing away its resources without any compensation from oil producers. While legislators and the Governor claimed a commitment to assuring tax money was being wisely spent on only the “deserving” poor in communities of color, they included no method of verification that tax relief for corpo-rations was being used for its purported ends.

It is instructive that the Governor and the legislature report all cuts to social programs in terms of dollars, not the numbers of people affected. When the Governor was campaigning in 2003, he said he would come to Sacramen-to and “blow up the boxes” to fix the fiscal mess. Those boxes represent the wellbeing of poor communities of color and others across the state whose futures hang in the balance with every vote and swipe of the veto pen.



WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF GREAT ECONOMIC CHALLENGES, BOTH THE GOVERNOR AND THE SENATE EARNED “F” RATINGS ON THEIR SUPPORT OF RACIAL EqUITy LEGISLATION; THE ASSEMBLy RECEIVED A “D.” By far the Governor’s rating was the lowest at 35 percent, followed by the Senate’s 54 percent and the House’s 65 percent. Most of the progressive racial equity bills were authored in the Assembly. The composite rating for the Senate dropped five percent, and the Assembly lost four percent compared to their ratings in 2007.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger scored well on criminal justice bills, especially those that supported juveniles. Similarly, he correctly vetoed a bill that would have expanded the correctional-industrial complex in California. Nonetheless, his score was 24 percent lower than the last rating of 59 percent awarded in 2007.

Assembly members authored 22 of the 25 progressive bills that were reviewed in this edition of the Racial Equity Report Card. Leaders of note include: Speaker Bass and Assembly Members de Leon, De La Torre, Ammiano and Solorio, who each proposed two or more bills supporting racial equity.

The composite rating data shows that the grades received by legislators were directly proportional to the percentage of people of color in their districts; in other words, the average rating of legislators increased based on the percent of people of color in their districts in both the Senate and the Assembly.

Assembly members who received an “A” rating include Tom Ammiano, Speaker Karen Bass, Julia Brownley, Joe Coto, Hector De La Torre, Mike Eng, Paul Fong, Edward P. Hernandez, Kevin de Leon, Sandre R. Swanson and Norma Torres. Senate leaders received the following grades: President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg “B,” Assistant President pro Tem Leland yee “C” and Senate Majority Leader Dean Flores “D.” Both houses scored poorly on bills related to legislative racism.

ToTal Score grade criMinal

JuSTicehouSing

econoMichealTh equiTY

green equiTY

educaTion equiTY

ciVil righTS

leg. raciSM

aSSeMBlY ToTal 65% d 62% 59% 51% 59% 80% 71% 9%

districts 50-100% white 55% f 62% 59% 51% 59% 80% 71% 9%

district 50-75% People of color 73% c 82% 80% 78% 76% 93% 88% 0%

district 75-100% People of color 83% B 92% 93% 91% 91% 92% 96% 0%

SenaTe ToTal 54% f 73% 67% 60% 61% 75% 75% 5%

districts 50-100% white 43% f 60% 50% 42% 42% 65% 64% 8%

district 50-75% People of color 64% d 87% 80% 72% 73% 87% 85% 3%

district 75-100% People of color 66% d 87% 88% 82% 87% 83% 88% 0%

goVernor 35% f 75% 25% 20% 0% 25% 50% 100%

rePorT findingS

gradeS BY houSe wiTh diSTricT deMograPhicS


AB 764, REAL ESTATE BROKERS (Nava) This bill seeks to crack down on predatory private loan modifications. The bill would prohibit companies from charging up-front fees.

8 Vetoed by the Governor

X3 AB 23, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: EXTENDED BENEFITS (Coto) This bill extends unemployment benefits for 20 weeks to take advantage of Federal funding.

4 Signed by the Governor

AB 838, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH (Swanson) This bill seeks to protect workers from dangerous levels of heat, via education and procedures that limit exposure. AB 838 is the reintroduction of AB 1045 (Richardson) that would establish indoor worker heat regulations, which was vetoed by the Governor.


SB 789, LABOR REPRESENTATIVES: ELECTIONS (Steinberg) This bill gives agricultural employees an alternative method for choosing their collective bargaining repre-sentative—the majority signup election—which is less complicated and faster than the existing secret ballot election. All elections would be monitored by Agricultural Labor Relations Board.


houSing and econoMicS


AB 1422, CALIFORNIA CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT OF 1998 (Bass)This bill seeks to save the Healthy Families Program (HFP) after state budget cuts. HFP provides health insurance to low- and moderate-income families. The bill draws funding from and extends the gross premium tax of 2.35 percent to draw down on federal funds to MediCal man-aged care (MCMC) plans; and, authorizes the California Children and Families Commission (CCFC or First 5) to make specified transfers of program revenues.


AB 2, INDIVIDUAL HEALTH CARE COVERAGE (De La Torre)This bill is a reintroduction of AB 1945, which was vetoed in 2008. AB 2 creates an independent review process when an insurer seeks to rescind a consumer’s health policy, creates new standards and requirements for medical underwriting and requires state review before plan approval.


AB 98, INSURANCE: MATERNITY SERVICES (De La Torre) This bill mandates that all health insurance that cov-ers hospital, medical or surgical expenses that is issued, amended, renewed, or delivered on or after January 1, 2010, also cover maternity services.


AB 657, HEALTH PROFESSIONS WORKFORCE: MASTER PLAN (Hernandez) This bill would create a state master plan for increasing healthcare workforce diversity.


SB 196, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (Corbett)

This bill requires public notice of hospital closure or reduction/elimination of emergency medical services and provides more time to develop local options and alternatives. The bill also mandates three public hearings before closure.


healTh equiTY


AB 8, EDUCATION FINANCE: WORKING GROUP (Brownley)This bill mandates the development of a working group comprised of the Department of Finance and the Legis-lative Analyst to produce recommendations within the framework of the Governors Committee on Educational Excellence and the Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice’s Getting Down to Facts: School Finance and Governance in California to develop a better public school financing system.


AB 132, SCHOOL SAFETY IMMIGRATION INVESTIGATIONS (Mendoza)The bill declares that under law, all children are entitled to a public education while in California, regardless of immigration status, and that California schools should take steps to protect the integrity of the learning environ-ment for all children. This bill establishes a process where school employees who are aware that a pupil’s parent or guardian is not available to care for the pupil remit the child to Child Protective Services only if the school is unable to arrange for care through the use of emergency contact information or other information or instructions provided by the parent or guardian.


AB 544, TEACHING CREDENTIAL: AMERICAN INDIAN LANGUAGE (Coto) This bill authorizes teacher credentialing in Native American languages in public schools.


AB 1510, PUBLIC SCHOOLS: PARENTAL ACCESS (Eng) This bill would allow parents to bring interpreters to school-related parent meetings, such as student disciplin-ary proceedings. It also requires multilanguage noticing.


educaTion equiTY


AB 750, DEFERRED ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (Bass)Modeled after San Francisco’s successful Back on Track program, this bill requires drug counseling and educa-tional and workforce training, specifically creating a drug diversion program for nonviolent drug offenders overseen by Superior Courts.


AB 845, CORRECTIONS: REENTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Bass)This bill meets the funding requirements of the federal Second Chance Act, requiring the Department of Correc-tions and Rehabilitation to establish a Reentry Advisory Committee. The expanded body is charged with pursuing federal funds, developing a comprehensive reentry plan and developing a comprehensive resource guide.


AB 1053, INTERSTATE COMMISSION FOR JUVENILES (Solorio) This bill revises the parole guidelines for foster youth. There is no system in place to return runaway youth to their home states, and as such many juveniles end up in the adult criminal justice system. This bill would enable the state to participate in the Interstate Commission for Juveniles and would also require the Department of Juvenile Justice to provide for reentry services for wards of the State.


SB 118, CHILD WELFARE SERVICES: INCARCERATED PARENTS (Liu) This bill seeks to create a system where information on incarcerated parents is managed and plans are pro-duced and used to maintain relationships where possible between incarcerated parents and their children in foster care. The bill also promotes information sharing between state and local agencies.


criMinal JuSTice


AB 1288, THE EMPLOYMENT ACCELERATION ACT OF 2010 (Fong) This bill prohibits State or local government from requiring an employer to use an electronic employment verification system, including the federal Basic Pilot or E-verify systems, to exclude certain groups.


AB 938, RELATIVE CAREGIVERS AND FOSTER PARENTS (Judiciary Committee) This bill allows relatives to be part of the process and be given information on how to assist the children when custodial parents are not available. The bill also makes California’s policies congruent with the U.S. Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 to ensure that federal funds are not lost.


AB 770, INDIAN TRIBES: FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION PROGRAMS (Torres, Ammiano)This bill would make it the policy of the state to maximize the opportunities for Native American tribes to operate foster care programs for Native American children pursu-ant to the federal (Title IV-E) Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008.


AB 772, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT IDENTIFICATION ACT (Ammiano) This bill establishes the Local Government Identifica-tion Act, which would authorize counties to issue local identification cards to persons who can provide proof of identity and proof of residency within a county.


ciVil righTS


AB 1405, CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006: COMMUNITY BENEFITS FUNDS (De Leon, Perez) This bill creates a Community Benefits Fund to direct a portion of the revenues generated through the implemen-tation of AB 32 to help Californians who are least able to confront the expected impacts of the climate crisis. The funds would be used to provide energy efficiency upgrades for schools, senior centers and low-income housing, improvements to mass transit, clean distributed electricity generation systems and programs that will minimize health impacts caused by global warming.

Inactive Senate Floor

AB 1394, CALIFORNIA WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD: GREEN COLLAR JOBS COUNCIL (Bass) The bill expands the Green Collar Jobs Council’s du-ties to: 1) fundraise, 2) coordinate with state and local agencies and 3) ensure that projects funded are con-sistent with the strategic initiative prior to authorizing the expenditure of any funds made available to the state pursuant to the federal American Recovery and Reinvest-ment Act of 2009.


AB 3, RENEWABLE ENERGY WORKFORCE READINESS INITIATIVE: LOCAL WORK-FORCE INVESTMENT BOARDS (Perez) This bill instructs the Workforce Investment Board to produce an initiative related to green job workforce development and placement to include groups hampered by historical barriers.


AB 1404,CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006: OFFSETS (De Leon) This bill limits the use of “compliance offsets,” as defined, to 10 percent of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions expected from market mechanisms used to meet the GHG reduction goals of AB 32.


green equiTY


PUBLIC POLICIES REINFORCE INSTITUTIONALIzED RACIAL INEqUITIES WHEN THEy RESULT IN ADVERSE OUTCOMES FOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, REGARDLESS OF INTENT. As demographics change, legislative leadership is needed to ensure equity and fair treatment for all Californians regardless of race or citizenship. The following bills, had they passed, would likely have perpetuated or aggravated existing racial inequities.

SB 381, INSTRUCTION: COURSE OF STUDY (Wright) This bill prohibits local school districts from adopting a graduation requirement that includes the A-G coursework needed two meet admission standards for the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) unless they also require students to complete a sequence of at least three Career Technical Education (CTE) courses.

Concerns about racial tracking have shifted policy debates about career technical educa-tion and college preparation. As a result, communities across the state have organized to ensure that students and parents are auditors of the educational path. SB 381 infringes on the rights of communities of color and local school districts to have agency in the devel-opment of policies that impact graduation policies. More egregious than its predecessor, Senator Torlakson’s SB 672, the bill attempted to segregate students by explicitly mandating that schools create two separate and distinct graduation tracks, without the resources to upgrade existing CTE courses.

House Appropriation Committee

legiSlaTing racial inequiTY

leVelS of raciSM

leVel deScriPTion

individual/internalized Racism Racial bias within individuals—one’s beliefs, attitudes and prejudices about race.

interpersonal Racism Racial bias between individuals—public expression of bigotry and hate.

institutional Racism Racial bias within institutions such as schools and hospitals. disparate outcomes reveal institutional racism, whether or not there is racist intent on the part of individuals within that institution.

structural Racism Racial bias among institutions and across society. structural racism is the cumulative effects of history, ideology, and culture and the result of institutions and policies that favor whites and disadvantage people of color.


AB 320, COUNTY JAILS: REENTRY FACILITIES (Solorio) AB 320 would create another incentive for counties that apply for AB 900 bond money ($3.6 billion for prisons, $750 million for county jail facilities) by granting equal preference to counties that provide reentry services to inmates. Opponents assert that the bill would expand the prison system by providing capital funds for new jail facilities for reentry.

The AB 900 funds do not support the maintenance or expansion of existing nongovern-mental reentry programs, which may be more impactful than jail-based programs. AB 900 authorized $7.4 billion in lease-revenue bond financing for the construction of 40,000 new state prison beds and 13,000 new county jail beds, in a state that already devotes more than 10% of its operating budget toward incarcerating inmates.11 California outspends ev-ery state in the nation except Michigan in sustaining its long-troubled corrections system. By 2012, the state will be spending more on its prisons than on educating students in its public universities.12


SB 696, SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT: CEQA: PERMITS (Wright) This bill would allow the South Coast Air quality Manage District to allocate permits overruling a Superior Court decree (Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air quality Management District) that found that the District allocated unquantifiable emission reduction permits to polluting private industry.13 The Court enacted a morato-rium on new permits, which this bill seeks to overrule.

These safeguards are critical for communities of color in California, where one-third of the nation’s air polluting facilities are located. In this state, stationary toxic and polluting sites are concentrated in areas where large swaths of poor and communities of color live.14 A UCLA study in 2001 found that although Latinos represent 40% of the total population of Los Angeles County, more than 60% of residents who live adjacent to the County’s highest polluting facilities are Latino.

Withdrawn from Senate Appropriations Committee

Legislative leadership is needed to ensure

equity and fair treatment for all Californians

regardless of race or citizenship.


On January 15, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger congratulated Senate and Assembly leaders for creating the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holiday asserting: “King has been a great hero who has given his life for justice and equity and has been a great inspiration.”15 Clearly, the Governor’s inspiration from King did not translate into support for bills that promote racial equity and justice. During the 2009 session, the Governor vetoed almost two thirds of the racial justice-promulgating bills that came across his desk. This is compared to 31 percent of these bills in 2006 and 2007. As such, the Governor received an “F” this year for his lack of support for racial justice bills, a few of which passed by consensus in both houses.

raTing The goVernor


BELOW IS A SUMMARy OF THE GOVERNOR’S PERFORMANCE ON THE RACIAL EqUITy AND JUSTICE BILLS THAT REACHED HIS OFFICE.

Criminal JusticeThe Governor performed well on criminal justice reform, especially on measures that pertain to youth. AB 1053 (Solorio) enables California to participate in the Interstate Compact on Juveniles, which is a collaborative that focuses on delinquent youth. Also, the State must now create a system where incarcerated parents will rezmain connected with their children in foster care (SB 118, Liu). In an effort to lower prison incarceration and recidivism rates, the State is now mandated to provide drug diversion counseling, education and workforce training (AB 750, Bass). Conversely, the Governor failed to sign a bill that sought to lower recidivism by creating a reentry advisory committee tasked with developing plans to lower the rates (AB 845, Bass).

Workers’ RightsThe Governor vetoed two bills that would have offered more safety and rights to workers. Similarly, labor unions will not be allowed to streamline the selection process for collective bargaining via majority signup election (SB 789 Steinberg).

Health EquityTo his credit, the Governor supported saving the Healthy Families Program, which provides health insurance to low- and moderate-income families. On the other hand, he put the brakes on three other progressive bills, including an effort to create a healthcare master plan that would diversify California’s healthcare workforce (AB 657, Hernandez). Moreover, hospitals will not have to provide additional notice to a community before they close, which was an attempt to stop the widespread closure of these facilities (SB 196, Corbert). Finally, an bill was vetoed to force insurance companies to pay for prenatal care and delivery (AB 98, De La Torre).

Education Equity On a good note, California now credentials teachers that speak Native American languages in public schools. Nonetheless, Governor Schwarzenegger stopped the forming of a working group that would, within the recommendations of his own Governor’s Committee on Educational Excellence, develop a better school finance system (AB 8, Brownley). The Governor withheld his signature on two other education bills. The first would have protected school-age children with parents who were arrested in immigration raids from harassment and foster care when relatives are available (AB 544, Coto). The second would have allowed for monolingual non-English-speaking parents to bring translators to school meetings (AB 1510, Eng).

Civil RightsCalifornia now has laws that provides more opportunity for Indian tribes to operate foster care programs (AB 770, Torres, Ammiano) and a law that seeks to involve relatives in foster care when custodial parents are not available (AB 938, Judiciary Committee). However, Governor Schwarzenegger failed to sign into law two critical pieces of civil rights legislation. The first bill would have banned the use of federal electronic verifica-tions systems that m ay be unreliable in determining an employee’s legal eligibility. The second bill would have empowered local jurisdictions to issue identification cards.

legiSlaTiVe rePorT card



BILLS WERE SELECTED FOR THIS REPORT CARD ON THE BASIS OF THEIR POTENTIAL TO IMPACT RACIAL DISPARITIES POSITIVELy OR NEGATIVELy. This assessment was made in conjunction with several organizations from throughout the state. Five criteria were used:

1. Does the legislation explicitly address racial outcomes and seek to eliminate racial equities?

2. Will the legislation increase access to public benefits and institutions for communities of color?

3. Does the legislation advance enfranchisement and full civic participation for all Californians?

4. Will the legislation protect against racial violence, racial profiling and discrimination?

5. Is the legislation enforceable? Are there mechanisms in place for accountability?

To be included, a bill had to pass in the house of origin.

Legislators were graded based on their votes and authorship, if any, of a racial equity bill that was voted out of its house of origin. Voting accounted for 90 percent of the grade. For a maximum of twice, legislators authoring a racial equity bill earned an additional 5 percentage points per bill. Conversely, legislators who introduced bills that were detrimental to people of color lost 5 percentage points per bill, also with a maximum of twice (10%). Votes against racial equity and missed votes reduced legislators’ scores.

The grading scale is as follows:

A90–100%

B80–89%

C70–79%

d60–69%

F0-59%

grading MeThodologY


houSe

Cri

min

al J

usti

ce

Hou

sing

&

Eco

nom

ics

Hea

lth

Equ

ity

Gre

en E

quity

Educ

atio

n Eq

uity

Civ

il R

ight

s

Lega

l Rac

ism

% People of Color in

District

2009 House District Grade Total % Leadership

Anthony Adams R-59 F 38% 0 67% 25% 40% 100% 67% 50% 0% 35%

Tom Ammiano D-13 A 91% 5% 100% 100% 100% 25% 100% 100% 0% 50%

Joel Anderson R-77 F 30% 0 33% 25% 0% 25% 67% 50% 100% 25%

Juan Arambula I-31 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 0% 78%

Karen Bass D-47 A 96% 10% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 0% 70%

Jim Beall Jr. D-24 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 43%

Bill Berryhill R-26 F 34% 0 33% 25% 20% 50% 67% 75% 0% 47%

Tom Berryhill R-25 F 30% 0 33% 25% 20% 100% 67% 50% 0% 29%

Sam Blakeslee R-33 F 30% 0 33% 25% 0% 75% 67% 50% 0% 36%

Marty Block D-78 C 75% 0 67% 75% 100% 75% 100% 100% 0% 60%

Bob Blumenfield D-40 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 0% 57%

Curren Price, Jr/ Steven Bradford D-51 F 26% 0 33% 25% 0% 100% 0% 75% 0% 85%

Julia Brownley D-41 A 91% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 33%

Joan Buchanan D-15 C 75% 0 100% 100% 80% 25% 100% 75% 0% 37%

Anna M. Caballero D-28 C 79% 0 67% 100% 100% 25% 100% 100% 0% 72%

Charles M. Calderon D-58 C 71% 0 100% 100% 60% 100% 67% 100% 0% 81%

Wilmer Amina Carter D-62 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 79%

Wesley Chesbro D-1 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 21%

Connie Conway R-34 F 34% 0 33% 25% 20% 25% 67% 75% 0% 47%

Paul Cook R-65 F 26% 0 33% 25% 0% 0% 67% 50% 0% 38%

Joe Coto D-23 A 96% 10% 100% 100% 100% 33% 100% 100% 0% 80%

Mike Davis D-48 C 79% 0 100% 75% 80% 100% 100% 100% 0% 95%

Hector De La Torre D-50 A 93% 10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 0% 89%

Chuck DeVore R-70 F 26% 0 33% 25% 0% 100% 67% 50% 0% 33%

Duvall (Vacant) R-72 F 8% 0 0% 0% 0% 100% 67% 0% 0% 53%

Bill Emmerson R-63 F 41% 0 33% 50% 40% 25% 100% 50% 0% 48%

Mike Eng D-49 A 91% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 87%


Cri

min

al J

usti

ce

Hou

sing

&

Eco

nom

ics

Hea

lth

Equ

ity

Gre

en E

quity

Educ

atio

n Eq

uity

Civ

il R

ight

s

Lega

l Rac

ism


District


Noreen Evans D-7 C 71% 0 100% 75% 100% 75% 67% 75% 0% 40%

Mike Feuer D-42 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 25%

Nathan Fletcher R-75 F 34% 0 33% 25% 40% 25% 67% 50% 0% 35%

Paul Fong D-22 A 96% 10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 53%

Felipe Fuentes D-39 B 83% 0 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 0% 86%

Jean Fuller R-32 F 30% 0 33% 25% 20% 25% 67% 50% 0% 35%

Warren T. Furutani D-55 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 78%

Ted Gaines R-4 F 30% 0 33% 25% 20% 25% 67% 50% 0% 20%

Cathleen Galgiani D-17 D 68% 0 100% 75% 60% 50% 100% 100% 0% 62%

Martin Garrick R-74 F 30% 0 33% 25% 20% 25% 67% 50% 0% 35%

Danny D. Gilmore R-30 F 34% 0 33% 25% 20% 25% 67% 75% 0% 73%

Curt Hagman R-60 F 26% 0 33% 25% 0% 25% 67% 50% 0% 53%

Isadore Hall III D-52 B 83% 0 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 0% 96%

Diane L. Harkey R-73 F 30% 0 33% 50% 0% 25% 67% 50% 0% 35%

Mary Hayashi D-18 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 56%

Edward P. Hernandez D-57 A 91% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 80%

Jerry Hill D-19 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 47%

Alyson Huber D-10 D 60% 0 67% 75% 80% 50% 67% 75% 0% 35%

Jared Huffman D-6 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 22%

Kevin Jeffries R-66 F 34% 0 33% 50% 20% 25% 67% 50% 0% 43%

Dave Jones D-9 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 61%

Steve Knight R-36 F 30% 0 33% 25% 0% 50% 67% 50% 0% 48%

Paul Krekorian D-43 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 49%

Kevin de Leon D-45 A 96% 10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 88%

Ted W. Lieu D-53 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 38%


Cri

min

al J

usti

ce

Hou

sing

&

Eco

nom

ics

Hea

lth

Equ

ity

Gre

en E

quity

Educ

atio

n Eq

uity

Civ

il R

ight

s

Lega

l Rac

ism


District


Dan Logue R-3 F 30% 0 33% 25% 0% 25% 67% 50% 100% 19%

Bonnie Lowenthal D-54 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 49%

Fiona Ma D-12 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 65%

Tony Mendoza 56 C 76% 5% 33% 75% 100% 100% 100% 75% 0% 76%

Jeff Miller R-71 F 26% 0 33% 25% 0% 25% 67% 50% 0% 37%

William W. Monning D-27 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 30%

Pedro Nava D-35 B 84% 5% 33% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 46%

Brian Nestande R-64 F 30% 0 33% 25% 20% 50% 67% 25% 0% 45%

Roger Niello R-5 F 34% 0 67% 25% 20% 25% 67% 50% 0% 24%

Jim Nielsen R-2 F 34% 0 33% 25% 20% 25% 67% 50% 100% 24%

John A. Pérez D-46 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 96%

V. Manuel Pérez D-80 B 88% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 0% 67%

Anthony J. Portantino D-44 B 83% 0 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 0% 61%

Ira Ruskin D-21 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 35%

Lori Saldaña D-76 C 79% 0 100% 75% 100% 100% 67% 100% 0% 37%

Mary Salas D-79 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 76%

Jim Silva R-67 F 30% 0 33% 50% 0% 25% 67% 50% 0% 37%

Nancy Skinner D-14 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 48%

Cameron Smyth R-38 F 26% 0 33% 25% 0% 25% 67% 50% 0% 34%

Jose Solorio D-69 B 88% 5% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 0% 86%

Audra Strickland R-37 F 30% 0 33% 25% 0% 50% 67% 50% 0% 33%

Sandre R. Swanson D-16 A 91% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 72%

Alberto Torrico D-20 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 61%

Tom Torlakson D-11 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 45%

Norma J. Torres D-61 A 91% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 74%

Van Tran R-68 F 34% 0 67% 25% 0% 25% 67% 75% 0% 57%

Michael N. Villines R-29 F 38% 0 33% 25% 20% 50% 67% 50% 100% 44%

Mariko Yamada D-8 B 86% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 42%


Cri

min

al J

usti

ce

Hou

sing

&

Eco

nom

ics

Hea

lth

Equ

ity

Gre

en E

quity

Educ

atio

n Eq

uity

Civ

il R

ight

s

Lega

l Rac

ism


District

2009 Senate District Grade Total % Leadership

Sam Aanestad R-4 F 22% 0 33% 25% 0% 0% 33% 50% 33% 22%

Elaine Alquist D-13 C 76% 0 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 68%

Roy Ashburn R-18 F 22% 0 33% 25% 20% 0% 33% 50% 0% 38%

John J. Benoit R-37 F 25% 0 67% 25% 0% 33% 67% 25% 0% 45%

Ron Calderon D-30 C 76% 0 100% 100% 100% 67% 100% 100% 0% 84%

Gilbert Cedillo D-22 C 72% 0 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 75% 0% 92%

Dave Cogdill R-14 F 18% 0 33% 25% 0% 0% 33% 50% 0% 37%

Ellen Corbett D-10 B 84% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 62%

Lou Correa D-34 F 54% 0 33% 50% 60% 67% 100% 100% 0% 78%

Dave Cox R-1 F 29% 0 33% 25% 40% 0% 67% 50% 0% 20%

Jeff Denham R-12 F 22% 0 33% 25% 0% 0% 67% 50% 0% 60%

Mark DeSaulnier D-7 D 68% 0 100% 75% 80% 100% 100% 75% 0% 37%

Denise Moreno Ducheny D-40 D 68% 0 100% 75% 80% 100% 67% 100% 0% 76%

Robert D. Dutton R-31 F 18% 0 33% 25% 0% 0% 33% 50% 0% 46%

Dean Florez D-16 D 65% 0 67% 100% 80% 100% 67% 75% 0% 78%

Loni Hancock D-9 C 79% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 62%

Tom Harman R-35 F 22% 0 33% 25% 0% 0% 67% 50% 0% 36%

Dennis Hollingsworth R-36 F 18% 0 33% 25% 0% 0% 33% 50% 0% 28%

Bob Huff R-29 F 22% 0 33% 25% 0% 0% 67% 50% 0% 51%

Christine Kehoe D-39 B 83% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 33% 46%

Mark Leno D-3 C 79% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 38%

Carol Liu D-21 C 79% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 53%

Alan S. Lowenthal D-27 C 79% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 70%

Abel Maldonado R-15 F 36% 0 67% 25% 60% 33% 33% 50% 0% 37%

SenaTe


Cri

min

al J

usti

ce

Hou

sing

&

Eco

nom

ics

Hea

lth

Equ

ity

Gre

en E

quity

Educ

atio

n Eq

uity

Civ

il R

ight

s

Lega

l Rac

ism


District

2009 Senate District Grade Total % Leadership

Gloria Negrete McLeod D-32 D 68% 0 100% 100% 80% 67% 67% 100% 0% 77%

Jenny Oropeza D-28 F 43% 0 100% 75% 40% 33% 33% 50% 0% 55%

Alex Padilla D-20 D 65% 0 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 25% 0% 77%

Fran Pavley D-23 C 76% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 0% 36%

Curren Price D-26 D 65% 0 67% 50% 80% 100% 100% 100% 0% 79%

Gloria Romero D-24 C 76% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 67% 100% 0% 87%

George Runner R-17 F 18% 0 33% 25% 0% 0% 33% 50% 0% 43%

Joe Simitian D-11 B 83% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 33% 38%

Darrell Steinberg D-6 B 84% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 49%

Tony Strickland R-19 F 40% 0 33% 25% 40% 67% 67% 50% 33% 31%

Mimi Walters R-33 F 18% 0 33% 25% 0% 0% 33% 50% 0% 3%

Patricia Wiggins D-2 B 83% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 33% 31%

Lois Wolk D-5 C 79% 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 52%

Roderick Wright D-25 F 49% -10% 100% 100% 80% 67% 67% 100% 0% 84%

Mark Wyland R-38 F 22% 0 33% 25% 0% 0% 67% 50% 0% 38%

Leland Yee D-8 C 79% 0 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 33% 55%


Principle ResearcherGoro Mitchell, Executive DirectorCommunity Development Institute

ResearchersCarlos ChavezCommunity Development Institute

Christina ChenApplied Research Center

EditorTammy Johnson, Director of Strategic PartnershipsApplied Research Center

Dominique Apollon, Ph.D, Research DirectorApplied Research Center

Special thanks for her contribution to the budget sectionElizabeth Sholes, Director of Public PolicyCalifornia Council of Churches

Copy EditorSusan Starr

Art Direction and DesignHatty Lee

Photographsistockphoto

grading MeThodologY


1. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fourth Quarter 2008 to Third Quarter 2009 Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization for States, www.bls.gov/lau/stalt09q3.htm.

2. Center for Social Inclusion, Measuring the Recession, An Impact Index, October 2009. atlanticphilanthropies.org/content/download/8294/124357/file/CSI_Measuring-the-Recession_Impact-Index.pdf.

3. Economic Policy Institute, State of Working America 2008-2009, www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig/2008/05/09.jpg.

4. Rakesh Kochhar, The Wealth of Hispanic Households, Pew Hispanic Center, 2004.

5. State of California, Department of Finance, E-3 California County Race / Ethnic Population Esti-mates and Components of Change by Year, July 1, 2000–2007 and United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2008.

6. Ibid.

7. State of California, Department of Finance, Current Population Survey: California Two-year Average Series: March 2000 to 2008 Data, Sacramento, California, November 2009, 7.

8. Sacramento Bee, July 10, 2009, p. 14A.

9. Office of the Governor of California, “Fact Sheet on CalWORKs,” July 1, 2009; Ventura County Star, July 8, 2009, www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jul/08/Governor-county-leaders-clash-over-CalWORKS/

10. “Facts About CalWORKs,” www.docstoc.com/docs/2235332/Facts-About-CalWORKs

11. “As Calif. Prison Spending Rises, So Do Concerns.” CBS 2 29 Aug. 2009: n. pag. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 17 Dec. 2009.

12. Sterngold, James. “Prisons’ budget to trump colleges.’” San Francisco Chronicle. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2009. www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/21/MNG4KPUKV51.DTL&feed=rss.news.

13 Natural Resources Defense Council v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2007, No. BS 110792).

14. Matsuoka, Martha. Building Healthy Communities from the Ground Up: Environmental Justice in California. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2009. www.cbecal.org/pdf/healthy-communities.pdf.

15. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, State of the State Speech, January 15, 2009, gov.ca.gov/speech/11390/.

endnoTeS

california

900 alice street, suite 400oakland, Ca 94607p: 510.653.3415F: 510.986.1062

www.arc.org

new York

32 Broadway, suite 1801new york, ny 10004p: 212.513.7925F: 212.513.1367

MidweST

28 e. Jackson Bldg. #10-a924Chicago, iL 60604 p: 312-376-8234F: 312-922-6964

facing race: 2009 legislative report card on racial equity, california

Documents