I-1000 would lead to de facto quota

Although the text of Initiative 1000 (I-1000)  says “without quota”, the details of I-1000 show that it would lead to de facto quota during implementation.

Court rules that goal and quota are essentially the same

In Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), the Supreme Court ruling says: “This semantic distinction (between goal and quota) is beside the point … Whether this limitation is described as a quota or a goal, it is a line drawn on the basis of race and ethnic status”. Source

Details of I-1000 show that it would lead to de facto quota

Sec 3 (8) of I-1000 says, “remedying … underrepresentation of, disadvantaged groups as documented in a valid disparity study”. Even if court of law doesn’t prove there is any discrimination, as long as the underrepresentation is documented in a valid disparity study, the government agency wants to remedy underrepresentation to reach equal representation of groups, which is de facto quota based on demography distribution.

Sec 3 (9) of I-1000 says, “procedures such as participation goals”. The participation goals indicate de facto quota.

Sec 3 (11) (c) of I-1000 says, “setting and achieving goals and timetables”. It cannot be more clear. Goals indicate de facto quota. And it is enforced by government agency based on timetables.

Attorney Yvonne Kinoshita Ward argues that I-1000 would implement racial quota

“If I-1000 passes, anti-Asian discrimination will be legalized here through Harvard-style quotas and caps, which the powerful insiders behind I-1000 concealed in hidden loopholes. Agencies will count students and employees by race, decide which races get favored status, set targets for those races, and make college admission and employment decisions in favor of those races. These are, by definition, quotas. They will be implemented at every level of government.” said attorney Yvonne Kinoshita Ward. Source Northwest Asian Weekly

 “They have to set, count numbers, set goals, implement hiring, to meet those goals by deadline enforced by an agency. Our courts have ruled that constitutes quotas,” said attorney Yvonne Kinoshita Ward. Source Kiro7 news.

“Referendum 88 is our chance as voters to say we should be judged not by the color of our skin, but the content of our character,” said civil rights lawyer Yvonne Kinoshita Ward. “That’s what this state is known for and we need to keep this going.”

“That’s the problem. It’s not affirmative action, it’s racial quotas, its racism, and its divisive,” Ward said. “We’ve had enough divisiveness in this country, we need to move beyond this”. Source King5 news.

Reject I-1000 on Referendum 88 on November ballot.

Say NO to racial quota!