California Democrats are trying to find a way around the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action.

California Democrats are making a bold move ‍to challenge the state’s ⁤voter-approved constitutional ban on ‍affirmative action. Legal experts warn that this could lead ‍to endless litigation.

The proposed initiative, which is set for a final legislative hearing on Friday, aims to create a ballot measure for ⁤2024. ​It would ask voters to approve a measure allowing certain ⁤public⁢ programs​ to consider race,⁣ color, ethnicity, “marginalized genders,” sex, or ‌sexual orientation. This comes just four years after Californians ‌rejected ⁤a similar initiative ⁣in 2020, ‍despite liberal ​groups investing nearly $20 million to sway⁣ voters ⁤in its favor.

However, legal experts believe that even if⁤ the proposal survives ⁤the‍ costly​ ballot initiative process, it is unlikely​ to hold ‌up in⁣ court. The Supreme Court’s June ruling banning race-based admissions ​in colleges and⁢ universities‍ could also curtail race-based policymaking. This raises ⁣concerns about the proposal’s compliance with the U.S. and California constitutions’ guarantee⁢ of equal protection under the law.

“The state ⁣would essentially be ‍inviting ​litigation,” said Alison Somin, a‌ legal fellow for the Pacific Legal Foundation.

The measure,‌ introduced by Assemblyman Corey Jackson (D.) ⁤and co-authored ⁢by ​Mia ‍Bonta (D.), the‍ wife of the ⁢California attorney general, attempts to find‌ a workaround to the state’s affirmative⁣ action‌ ban, initially approved⁢ by voters in 1996. The bill’s analysis states that its purpose ‍is to “mitigate‍ the ⁤impacts” of the ban ‌by​ allowing certain programs ‍aimed at improving life expectancy, academic results, or⁤ reducing poverty in specific⁣ demographics. These programs would need to be “research-based,”⁢ “research-informed,” or “culturally specific,” with‌ funding determined by the governor.

Jackson did not ⁣respond to a request for comment.

Devon Westhill, president and general counsel for‍ the⁢ Center for Equal ⁤Opportunity, views these qualifiers as⁢ an attempt to meet the Supreme⁣ Court’s ⁣requirement for specific justifications in⁤ making race-based decisions. However, he doubts that the bill would ⁢pass the ⁣necessary scrutiny.

“California would face an almost insurmountable challenge,” Westhill said. “They would need to meet a very⁣ strict test.”

The latest legislative analysis of the bill supports this argument. Since the June Supreme⁤ Court ruling, the measure “is more likely to ⁤have a difficult time⁤ withstanding scrutiny if challenged in federal court,” according to ⁤a ‍consultant for the state appropriations ⁢committee wrote ​this week.