![[Click here to get more mileage out of your computer. ]](images/a2z460.gif)
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuter) - A federal judge temporarily blocked a controversial measure to roll back affirmative action programs in California, three weeks after it was passed by the state's voters.
U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson of San Francisco agreed to a request by civil rights groups to issue a temporary restraining order barring Gov. Pete Wilson and California Attorney General Dan Lungren from implementing the measure, called Proposition 209.
The order remains in effect until Dec. 16, when Henderson will hear the civil rights groups' arguments for a preliminary injunction that would freeze Proposition 209 until a trial can be held on the measure's constitutionality.
"The public interest in remedying discrimination, which underlies existing governmental affirmative action programs, weighs in favor of granting a temporary restraining order," Henderson wrote in a nine-page ruling.
Californians voted 54-46 percent Nov. 5 to make Proposition 209 part of the state constitution. Proposition 209 bars discrimination and preferential treatment based on race or sex in public employment, education and contracting in California.
The initiative, the first of its kind passed by any state, would eliminate most California affirmative action programs designed to broaden opportunities for women and racial minorities. Such policies have been widely used in the United States since the 1960s to counter past or present discrimination.
Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California who argued for the order at a court hearing Monday, said he was thrilled by the judge's decision. "Thanksgiving came a day early in California," he said.
But Wilson, a Republican who strongly backed Proposition 209, blasted the ruling, saying it was an affront to the majority of California voters who passed it. "I am confident that the will of the voters will ultimately prevail," he said in a statement.
Steve Telliano, a spokesman for Lungren -- also a Republican who backed the measure -- described the ruling as disappointing but said defenders of Proposition 209 would win in the end. "This is a constitutionally sound ban on discrimination, and there is no way that that can be discriminatory," he said.
A day after the election, civil rights groups sued to block Proposition 209 on behalf of a number of labor, education, women's business groups and minority organizations, arguing it was unconstitutional.
Henderson said Wednesday that the civil rights groups had shown a "strong probability" that their argument that the measure violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution would triumph at a trial. Henderson also said he was satisfied that plaintiffs "face an immediate possibility of irreparable harm" because of the passage of Proposition 209.
The ACLU argued that Proposition 209 violates the equal protection clause -- which says all citizens enjoy equal rights -- because it restructures the political process to disadvantage those seeking to enact affirmative action programs to remedy discrimination against women and minorities. They also argued that it violated the supremacy clause of the constitution which forbids states from obstructing federal law.
Backers of Proposition 209 say race and gender preferences are unfair and may discriminate against someone better qualified. Opponents say minorities and women still face discrimination and affirmative action is still needed.