Firstly, the quota system that was once used by the University of California, Davis’ admission process for minority students was ruled unlawful.

[1] The political campaign to place the language of CCRI on the California ballot as a constitutional amendment was initiated by Joe Gelman (president of the Board of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles), Arnold Steinberg (a pollster and political strategist) and Larry Arnn (president of the Claremont Institute).

A key co-chair of the campaign was law professor Gail Heriot, who served as a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

The initiative was opposed by affirmative action advocates and traditional civil rights and feminist organizations on the left side of the political spectrum.

The text of Proposition 209 was drafted by Cal State anthropology professor Glynn Custred and California Association of Scholars Executive Director Thomas Wood.

On February 24, 2014, Gene D. Block, chancellor of UCLA, sent an open letter to all students and faculty expressing his strong opposition to Proposition 209.

[4] On January 18, 2019, Assemblymembers Shirley Weber, Mike Gipson, and Miguel Santiago introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment No.

In June 2020, the California State Legislature passed ACA 5 with more than a two-thirds vote in each house, allowing the proposal to become a qualified ballot measure and later Proposition 16.

[6][7] The amendment's author decided to let the proposal die, in part due to the fear that "... voters wouldn’t pass the measure..."[8] Supporters of Proposition 209 contended that existing affirmative action programs led public employers and universities to reject applicants based on their race, and that Proposition 209 would "restore and reconfirm the historic intention of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

[10] Opponents of Proposition 209 argued that it would end affirmative action practices of tutoring, mentoring, outreach and recruitment of women and minorities in California universities and businesses and would gut state and local protections against discrimination.

[18] On August 2, 2010, in a case brought before the Supreme Court of California by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) found for the second time that Proposition 209 was constitutional.

Ninth Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima disagreed in part with the ruling, saying he believes the court "wrongly decided" the issue in 1997.

[26] Based on "University of California Applicants, Admits and New Enrollees by Campus, Race/Ethnicity", prepared by Institutional Research, the University of California Office of the President, August 11, 2011, enrollment percentages of the four major ethnic groups university-wide are: American (Non-Hispanic) African American enrollment rates dropped significantly immediately after the passage of Prop 209.

[30] Researchers also found that enrollment statistics for Native American students beginning in 1997 through 2006 declined by 38% cumulatively and, unlike other ethnic groups, have not increased since.

[33] One response to Proposition 209 was the establishment of the IDEAL Scholars Fund to provide community and financial support for underrepresented students at the University of California, Berkeley.