Part of a series of articles on Racial Segregation

Segregation in the US Black Codes Jim Crow laws Redlining Racial steering Blockbusting White flight Black flight Gentrification Sundown towns Proposition 14 Indian Appropriations Indian Reservation Antisemitism May Laws Japanese American internment Italian American internment German American internment Immigration Act of 1924 Separate but equal Ghettos This box: view • talk • edit

California Proposition 14 was a 1964 ballot proposition that amended the California state constitution, nullifying the Rumford Fair Housing Act. Proposition 14 was declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court in 1966. The decision of the California Supreme Court was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 in Reitman v. Mulkey.

Contents 1 Rumford Fair Housing Act 2 Proposition 14 3 Unconstitutionality 4 References

[edit] Rumford Fair Housing Act

The Rumford Fair Housing Act was a law passed in 1963 by the state of California to help end racial discrimination by property owners and landlords who refused to rent or sell their property to "colored" customers. It was drafted by William Byron Rumford, the first African American from Northern California to serve in the legislature. The Act provided that landlords could not deny people housing because of ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, physical handicap, or familial status.

[edit] Proposition 14

Many of these property owners disagreed with this act. Many felt that it was too restrictive and represented unfair interference by state government in private affairs. Thus, in 1964, the California Real Estate Association sponsored an initiative to counteract the effects of the Act.^[1]

The initiative, numbered Proposition 14 when it was certified for the ballot, was to add an amendment to the constitution of California. This amendment would provide, in part, as follows:

Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.

Following much publicity the proposition gained the endorsement of many large conservative political groups, including the John Birch Society and the California Republican Assembly. As these and other groups endorsed the proposal it became increasingly more popular and the petition to have the proposition added to the ballot garnered over one million signatures. This was more than twice the 480,000 signatures that were required. The initiative proved to be overwhelmingly popular, and was passed by a 65% majority vote in the 1964 California elections.^[2]

As soon as it was passed, the federal government cut off all housing funds to California. The fact that Robert C. Weaver, the first African American member of the U.S. Cabinet, was United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, may have had something to do with the government's response.^[3]

It is believed that this amendment helped to fuel racial tensions which erupted during the Watts Riots of 1965.^[4]

[edit] Unconstitutionality

The California Supreme Court held that the proposition was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the California Constitution.^[5]

The US Supreme Court in the case of Reitman v. Mulkey affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court and stated that the proposition violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This decision established an important precedent that states could remove a constitutional amendment passed by initiative, if the amendment encouraged racial discrimination.

[edit] References