1. Californians to vote on affirmative action, voting rights for felons
2. Federal appeals court strikes down rule requiring disclosure of drug prices in advertising
3. Previewing the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat from Colorado

Californians to vote on affirmative action, voting rights for felons

California’s ballot measure landscape is coming into focus for November. Following two recent certifications, voters will see at least 11 measures, including the Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment and the California Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment, which were both certified on June 24.

Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment

This constitutional amendment would repeal Proposition 209, which was passed in 1996. Proposition 209 prohibited the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting. The Senate passed the amendment June 24, while the Assembly passed it June 10. Most (97%) of the legislative Democrats supported the proposal. Most legislative Republicans (86%) voted against placing it on the ballot. As a constitutional amendment, voter approval is required for ratification.

Proposition 209 passed in 1996 with 54.6% of the vote, making California the first state to enact a formal ban on preferential treatment on the basis of race. After California, nine other states passed affirmative action bans:

• Texas (1996)
• Washington (1998)
• Florida (1999)
• Michigan (2006)
• Nebraska (2008)
• Arizona (2010)
• New Hampshire (2012)
• Oklahoma (2012)
• Idaho (2020)

In 2003, Texas's ban was reversed as a result of Grutter v. Bollinger. In 2019, Washington voters revisited affirmative action, with 50.6% voting to maintain the law from 1998. 

Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) was the principal legislative sponsor of the constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209, first introducing the amendment in January 2019. Weber said of the amendment, “The ongoing pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police violence, is forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still matter.”

Ward Connerly, a former UC regent who chaired the campaign for Proposition 209, responded to the amendment, saying, "I believe we would win by a landslide once we let people know what affirmative action is really about.”

Ballotpedia has tracked 14 affirmative action ballot measures since 1973. Click here to learn more.

As of Thursday afternoon, 11 ballot measures have been certified for the general election ballot in California. The deadline for both citizen-initiated measures and legislative referrals was June 25. Legislation has been introduced to extend the deadline for legislative referrals until July 1.

California Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment

This constitutional amendment would restore voting rights to people on parole for felonies. Currently, the California Constitution disqualifies people with felonies from voting until their imprisonment and parole are completed. The ballot measure would keep imprisonment as a disqualification for voting but remove parole status. The Senate passed the amendment June 24, while the Assembly passed it Sept. 5, 2019. Most (88%) of the legislative Democrats supported the proposal, whereas most legislative Republicans (79%) voted against placing the amendment on the ballot. The constitutional amendment would add California to the list of states that restore voting rights after imprisonment regardless of parole status. Currently, that number stands at 17. A similar amendment (Amendment 4) was passed in 2018 in Florida 64.6% to 35.5%.

Learn more

       

---

Federal appeals court strikes down rule requiring disclosure of drug prices in advertising

Today we’re bringing you an update on prescription drug pricing regulation that we first covered in May 2019. 

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down a final rule that would have required pharmaceutical companies to disclose the list price of some prescription drugs. 

Here’s the background:

• May 10, 2019: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule requiring pharmaceutical companies to disclose the list price, also known as the wholesale acquisition cost, of certain prescription drugs in television advertisements. CMS is a subsidiary agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and would have applied the rule to prescription drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid with a list price of $35 and over. The rule, also known as the WAC (Wholesale Acquisition Cost) Disclosure Rule, was initially set to take effect on July 9, 2019. 

• June 14, 2019: A group of several drug manufacturing companies and a trade marketing association challenged the rule in federal court after it was first issued. Their suit claimed that the rule both constituted an overstep of HHS’s regulatory authority and amounted to a violation of First Amendment rights.

• July 8, 2019: Judge Amit Priyavadan Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on the case that the WAC Disclosure Rule represented “a significant shift in HHS’s ability to regulate the health care marketplace,” one that Congress did not envision when vesting the agency with regulatory authority. Mehta’s ruling blocked the rule from going into effect as intended the following day. HHS appealed the decision later that summer, and the case was argued before the federal appeals court in January of this year. Mehta was appointed by President Barack Obama (D) in 2014.

• June 16, 2020: The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Mehta’s ruling, vacating the WAC Disclosure Rule. In the majority opinion, Judge Patricia Ann Millett countered HHS’s arguments in favor of the rule. Millett stated that the rule represented an unreasonable expansion of HHS’s regulatory authority beyond general administration of Medicare and Medicaid. Millett was appointed by President Obama in 2013. HHS now has the option to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Previewing the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate seat from Colorado

Two candidates—John Hickenlooper and Andrew Romanoff—are running in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Colorado.

Hickenlooper served as Denver's mayor from 2003 to 2011 and as the governor of Colorado from 2011 to 2019. He ran for U.S. president in 2020 before dropping out of the race on August 15, 2019. Upon entering the U.S. Senate race, Hickenlooper was endorsed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, a subsidiary of the national Democratic Party. In the June 23 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, Charles Booker leads DSCC-endorsed candidate Amy McGrath as of writing, though the race remains too close to call.

Romanoff represented District 6 in the Colorado House of Representatives from 2001 to 2009, including two terms as Speaker of the House. He received endorsements from the Progressive Democrats of America and the Metro Denver branch of Our Revolution.

The U.S. Senate general election in Colorado is expected to be competitive. The previous three elections —2016, 2014, and 2010—were decided by margins of 5.7, 1.6, and 1.7 percentage points, respectively. The incumbent U.S. Senator, Cory Gardner (R), is seeking re-election. He was first elected in 2014 after defeating incumbent Mark Udall (D) 48.2% to 46.3%. Gardner is one of two incumbent Republican senators running for re-election in a state that Hillary Clinton (D) won during the 2016 presidential election when she received 48.2% of the vote to Donald Trump's (R) 43.3%.

Ballotpedia depends on the support of our readers.

The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns.