oh boy. So far all the responses here are negative. Look, nobody wants to see non-merit-based appointments. The seemingly rational argument generally amounts t

oh boy. So far all the responses here are negative. Look, nobody wants to see non-merit-based appointments. The seemingly rational argument generally amounts to, 2 wrongs don't equal a right. The problem is that natural bias by existing boards and existing founders leads to over-selection of males. In many of those cases, a female would do equally as well. Choosing the best candidate isn't a strict rank order function. Each candidate has many intangible / hard to quantify positive qualities they bring to the table, and there's always a tradeoff of which qualities are the most important. I'd wager that in 99% of cases, it's impossible to choose a single best candidate. Instead of assuming that forcing females onto the board leads to picking less-qualified candidates, why can't people assume that females are just as qualified as males, and that this legislation just forces a representation more in line with demographics? ie, when given 2 "equal" candidates (and I'll argue there are never just 2, there are often "many"), a female candidate will be preferred so as to bring gender representation closer to population demographics. Please do keep in mind also that board membership is not generally merit-based. The old-boy network is real. And in practical terms, this will have near-zero effect as far as HN crowd is concerned. Tech companies incorporate in Delaware. Companies that are incorporated here that want to reject this legislate will re-incorporate elsewhere.