7 ms·

Judge Strikes Down California Law Mandating Women on Boards

prepend 4y ago
Seems like a pretty straightforward reason under equal protection. Unless someone successfully changes the definition of equal protection to only apply to some groups (ie forcing non-male) then it’s going to be stuck here for a while, I think. So I think there will need to be some sort of push for a constitutional amendment. But I can’t imagine proponents actually arguing and convincing enough states to agree.
- DamnYuppie 4y ago
  - vmception 4y ago
    basically at its core its about paths of upwards mobility, so people have agreed that women should be exploiting themselves for corporations as well. specifically now the more influential and lucrative roles in those corporations. this is why other trades with heavy sex imbalances are ignored. solve the core of additional paths to upwards mobility and all of these contrived abstractions dissipate. since of course, many men don't want to be exploiting themselves for corporations either but nobody will subsidize their life as there's no market of people willing to do that (well, the market of anyone willing to do that is men). if there was, the sex representation remaining within corporations would probably equalize itself - since the men would drop out - the distribution of choices that people are willing to take probably are close to evenly distributed across all sexes. one sex just lacks a choice therefore corralling them into the corporate sphere at all levels, while the other sex has mass dilution of representation in the corporate sphere due to their variety of choices (not suggesting any of those choices are structured perfectly, but there is dilution).
- hemreldop 4y ago
imapeopleperson 4y ago
We already have too much of a state planned economy and it isn’t going well. Should’ve let the banks fail…
codefreeordie 4y ago
This really isn't a very surprising outcome -- and not just because there was a similar ruling on the other "diverse boards" law. U.S. const. amend. XIV: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. C.A. const. article I §7(b): A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. C.A. const. article I §31(a): The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. Reading through the verdict and the references to testimony and other evidence submitted, that this law was discriminatory in nature was barely at issue. The was as close to an open-and-shut anti-discrimination case as you're likely to find. In particular, the California constitution explicitly states something that is only implied at the federal level which all but guarantees this outcome in anything remotely resembling an impartial court: It specifies explicitly not just that the State can't discriminate against, but also explicitly that the State can't grant preferential treatment to any group on the basis of [the protected characteristics which include sex]. This law explicitly is about granting preferential treatment (in this case, dedicated board seats at every public company) to a group (women) on the basis of sex.
- vmception 4y ago
  We need a way to the governor/head of state to immediately punt something up for judicial review, as an additional option aside from signing or vetoing. The most inspired things I've seen from activists in the US is "line item veto", but I'm thinking of direct constitutional court review without waiting for someone with deep pockets/connections to be hurt by the law. Some developed countries have this. Seems like a better check and balance than the one from 1792. Passing a law can potentially involve all three branches of the government.
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
hemreldop 4y ago
vmception 4y ago
> the defense offered the testimony of stereotypical virtues of women such as ‘consensus builders’ and ‘less risky behavior in investments,” the judge wrote in the 23-page opinion. “The court is unpersuaded by this offer of stereotypes for a justification” of the law. amusing problematic behavior from the defense > a conservative legal advocacy group that challenged the measure as reverse discrimination. amusing phrasing from the challenger. conversatives: its just discrimination. don't worry about how academics redefine words to rationalize their own prejudiced behavior, you won't be cancelled for just calling it discrimination
vmception 4y ago
> argued that the use of taxpayer funds to enforce diversity quotas is illegal under California’s constitution always a sure fire bet to find a public funding angle, it makes any action inherit the whole constitution, even if only private sector participants are involved another way to pass this law would be to create incentives, benefits as opposed to penalties

Seems like a pretty straightforward reason under equal protection. Unless someone successfully changes the definition of equal protection to only apply to some groups (ie forcing non-male) then it’s going to be stuck here for a while, I think. So I think there will need to be some sort of push for a constitutional amendment. But I can’t imagine proponents actually arguing and convincing enough states to agree.

DamnYuppie 4y ago
- vmception 4y ago
  basically at its core its about paths of upwards mobility, so people have agreed that women should be exploiting themselves for corporations as well. specifically now the more influential and lucrative roles in those corporations. this is why other trades with heavy sex imbalances are ignored. solve the core of additional paths to upwards mobility and all of these contrived abstractions dissipate. since of course, many men don't want to be exploiting themselves for corporations either but nobody will subsidize their life as there's no market of people willing to do that (well, the market of anyone willing to do that is men). if there was, the sex representation remaining within corporations would probably equalize itself - since the men would drop out - the distribution of choices that people are willing to take probably are close to evenly distributed across all sexes. one sex just lacks a choice therefore corralling them into the corporate sphere at all levels, while the other sex has mass dilution of representation in the corporate sphere due to their variety of choices (not suggesting any of those choices are structured perfectly, but there is dilution).
hemreldop 4y ago

imapeopleperson 4y ago

We already have too much of a state planned economy and it isn’t going well. Should’ve let the banks fail…

codefreeordie 4y ago

This really isn't a very surprising outcome -- and not just because there was a similar ruling on the other "diverse boards" law. U.S. const. amend. XIV: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. C.A. const. article I §7(b): A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. C.A. const. article I §31(a): The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. Reading through the verdict and the references to testimony and other evidence submitted, that this law was discriminatory in nature was barely at issue. The was as close to an open-and-shut anti-discrimination case as you're likely to find. In particular, the California constitution explicitly states something that is only implied at the federal level which all but guarantees this outcome in anything remotely resembling an impartial court: It specifies explicitly not just that the State can't discriminate against, but also explicitly that the State can't grant preferential treatment to any group on the basis of [the protected characteristics which include sex]. This law explicitly is about granting preferential treatment (in this case, dedicated board seats at every public company) to a group (women) on the basis of sex.

vmception 4y ago
We need a way to the governor/head of state to immediately punt something up for judicial review, as an additional option aside from signing or vetoing. The most inspired things I've seen from activists in the US is "line item veto", but I'm thinking of direct constitutional court review without waiting for someone with deep pockets/connections to be hurt by the law. Some developed countries have this. Seems like a better check and balance than the one from 1792. Passing a law can potentially involve all three branches of the government.
- codefreeordie 4y ago

hemreldop 4y ago

vmception 4y ago

> the defense offered the testimony of stereotypical virtues of women such as ‘consensus builders’ and ‘less risky behavior in investments,” the judge wrote in the 23-page opinion. “The court is unpersuaded by this offer of stereotypes for a justification” of the law. amusing problematic behavior from the defense > a conservative legal advocacy group that challenged the measure as reverse discrimination. amusing phrasing from the challenger. conversatives: its just discrimination. don't worry about how academics redefine words to rationalize their own prejudiced behavior, you won't be cancelled for just calling it discrimination

vmception 4y ago

> argued that the use of taxpayer funds to enforce diversity quotas is illegal under California’s constitution always a sure fire bet to find a public funding angle, it makes any action inherit the whole constitution, even if only private sector participants are involved another way to pass this law would be to create incentives, benefits as opposed to penalties