1964 California Proposition 14
# 1964 California Proposition 14

Elections in California :

Federal government

U.S. President

1852

1856

1860

1864

1868

1872

1876

1880

1884

1888

1892

1896

1900

1904

1908

1912

1916

1920

1924

1928

1932

1936

1940

1944

1948

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

Dem

Rep

2000

Dem

Rep

2004

Dem

Rep

2008

Dem

Rep

2012

Dem

Rep

2016

Dem

Rep

2020

Dem

Rep

2024

Dem

Rep

U.S. Senate

1849

1850

1852 sp

1856

1857 sp

1860

1860 sp

1868

1872

1873

1873 sp

1878

1880

1885

1886 sp

1887

1891

1891 sp

1893

1895 sp

1897

1900 sp

1903

1905

1909

1911

1914

1916

1920

1922

1926

1928

1932

1934

1938

1940

1944

1946

1946 sp

1950

1952

1954 sp

1956

1958

1962

1964

1968

1970

1974

1976

1980

1982

1986

1988

1992

1992 sp

1994

1998

2000

2004

2006

2010

2012

2016

2018

2022

2022 sp

2024

2028

U.S. House of Representatives

1849

1851

1852

1854

1856

1859

1861

1863

1864

1867

1868

1871

1872

1875

1876

1879

1880

1882

1884

1886

1888

1890

1892

1894

1896

1898

1900

1902

1904

1906

1908

1910

1912

1914

1916

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

12th sp

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1987

5th sp

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2001

32nd sp

2002

2004

2005

5th sp

48th sp

2006

50th sp

2007

36th sp

2008

12th sp

2009

10th sp

32nd sp

2010

2011

36th sp

2012

2014

2016

2017

34th sp

2018

2020

25th sp

2022

22nd sp

2024

30th

45th

47th

vte :

State government

Executive Governor

1849

1851

1853

1855

1857

1859

1861

1863

1867

1871

1875

1879

1882

1886

1890

1894

1898

1902

1906

1910

1914

1918

1922

1926

1930

1934

1938

1942

1946

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2003 (recall)

2006

2010

2014

2018

2021 (recall)

2022

2026

Lieutenant governor

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Attorney general

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Secretary of state

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Treasurer

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Controller

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Insurance commissioner

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Superintendent

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Board of equalization

2018

2022

Legislature Senate

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Special

Assembly

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2021 (79th sp)

2022 (17th sp)

2024

Special

Judiciary Court of appeals

1994

1998

2002

2006

Elections by year

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2005

2006

2008

Feb

Jun

Nov

2009

2010

Jun

Nov

2012

Jun

Nov

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

vte :

State propositions

1910–1919

1911

4

7

8

1960–1969

1964

14

1970–1979

1978

6

8

13

1980–1989

1982

8

1986

64

65

1988

98

99

1990–1999

1994

187

1996

196

209

215

218

1998

6

10

227

2000–2009

2000

21

22

36

39

2003

53

54

2004

1A

55

56

57

58

59

60

60A

61

62

63

64

65

66

69

71

2005

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

2006

81

82

83

85

87

89

90

2008

91

92

93

94, 95, 96, and 97

98 and 99

1A

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2009

1A

1B

1C

1D

1E

1F

2010–2019

2010

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2012

29

30

32

34

37

38

39

2014

1

2

41

42

45

46

47

48

2016

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

2018

68

69

70

71

72

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2020–2029

2020

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2022

1

26

27

28

29

30

31

Full listvte :

Los Angeles County

Los Angeles County Board of supervisors

1980

1996

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Ballot measures

1980

A

2008

R

2012

B

J

2016

M

Elections

2020

2022

Los Angeles Mayor

1896

1898

1900

1902

1904

1906

1909 (sp)

1909

1911

1913

1915

1917

1919

1921

1923

1925

1929

1933

1937

1938

1941

1945

1949

1953

1957

1961

1965

1969

1973

1977

1981

1985

1989

1993

1997

2001

2005

2009

2013

2017

2022

City attorney

2009

Ballot measures

1986

U

2017

S

Elections

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019 (sp)

2020

2022

2023 (sp)

2024

Long Beach Mayor

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

vte :

Orange County

Orange County Board of supervisors

2018

2020

2022

2024

District attorney

2018

Anaheim Mayor

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Irvine Mayor

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

vte :

Sacramento

Mayor

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

2024

vte :

San Diego County

San Diego County Board of supervisors

2020

San Diego Mayor

1887

1889

1891

1893

1895

1897

1899

1901

1903

1905

1907

1909

1911

1913

1915

1917

1919

1921

1923

1925

1927

1929

1931

1932

1935

1939

1943

1947

1951

1955

1959

1963

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983 (sp)

1984

1986 (sp)

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2005 (sp)

2008

2012

2013–14 (sp)

2016

2020

2024

City attorney

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

City council

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Special

vte :

San Francisco

Mayor

1959

1963

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983 (recall)

1983

1987

1991

1995

1999

2003

2007

2011

2015

2018 (sp)

2019

2024

District attorney

2019

2022 (recall)

2022 (sp)

2024

Board of supervisors

1977

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

Board of education

2018

2022 (recall)

Elections

2004

Mar

Nov

2005

2006

Jun

Nov

2007

2008

Feb

Jun

Nov

2009

2010

Jun

Nov

2011

2012

Jun

Nov

2013

2022

Feb

vte :

San Jose

Mayor

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

vte :

Other localities

Bakersfield

Mayoral elections:

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

Fresno

Mayoral elections:

1996

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

Oakland

Mayoral elections:

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Riverside

Mayoral elections

San Bernardino

Mayoral elections:

2005

2009

2014

2018

2022

Stockton

Mayoral elections:

2008

2012

2016

2020

vte :

vte :

California Proposition 14 was a November 1964 initiative ballot measure that amended the California state constitution to nullify the 1963 Rumford Fair Housing Act, thereby allowing property sellers, landlords and their agents to openly discriminate on ethnic grounds when selling or letting accommodations, as they had been permitted to before 1963. The proposition became law after receiving support from 65% of voters. In 1966, the California Supreme Court in a 5–2 split decision declared Proposition 14 unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment). The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision in 1967 in Reitman v. Mulkey.

Political science research has tied white support for Proposition 14 to racial threat theory, which holds that an increase in the racial minority population triggers a fearful and discriminatory response by the dominating racial majority.

## Circumstances Leading to Proposition 14

As early as 1927, the California Real Estate Association (the eventual sponsor of Proposition 14) began to advise its membership in ways to keep California communities all white. This was part of a decades-long campaign by real estate interests to undercut the rights of minority groups in regard to housing facilities in California. This also included the California Real Estate Association opposing the relocation of the evacuated Japanese (during World War II) in California or anywhere on the West Coast.

### California Real Estate Association Race Restriction Committee

In 1942, in response to the success of some Negroes in moving out of the Los Angeles ghetto and into traditionally all white neighborhoods, the California Real Estate Association formed its Race Restriction Committee. The purpose of the Committee was to establish perpetual race restrictions on parcels of property.

### U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Shelley v. Kraemer

In 1948, the United States Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer precluded judicial enforcement of racially restrictive housing covenants. Prior to 1948, the California Real Estate Association routinely promoted and enforced racially restrictive housing covenants to prevent family homes from ending up in the hands of minorities, particularly Negroes.

### Support of Federal Constitutional Amendment Allowing Racially Restrictive Covenants

Shortly following the 1948 court decision in Shelley, an item appeared in the California Real Estate magazine, a publication of the California Real Estate Association (the organization is currently named the California Association of Realtors) advocating an amendment to the United States Constitution that would overturn Shelley and constitutionally guarantee the legal enforcement of racially restrictive covenants throughout the United States.

In advocating support for a federal constitutional amendment guaranteeing the legal enforcement of racially restrictive covenants, the California Real Estate Association publication stated that "millions of home owners of the Caucasian race have constructed or acquired homes in areas restricted against occupancy by Negroes. The practice of surrounding homes in such areas with the security of such restrictions has become a traditional element of value in home ownership throughout this nation."

The publication further stated: "The recent decisions of the Supreme Court abovementioned have destroyed the values thus secured. The threat of occupancy by Negroes of property in such areas depreciates the value of all home properties and constitutes a direct deterrent to investment in the construction or acquisition of homes of superior quality whether large or small. The experience has been uniform that whenever and wherever Negroes have occupied homes in such areas this has not only depreciated values of the properties which they own, but has depreciated the values of all surrounding properties."

In further support of the constitutional amendment, the publication stated: "Moreover, the prices of homes in such areas are well within the purchasing power of vast numbers of Negroes. These circumstances greatly aggravate the hazard to which such home owners are exposed. ... Additionally, the insistence of some Negroes upon moving into areas previously restricted exclusively to the occupancy of Caucasians will necessarily create racial tensions and antagonisms and do much harm to our national social structure."

The federal constitutional amendment effort was unsuccessful, but the reasons for pursuing such an amendment provided insight into the underlying reasons for pursuing a future and similar protective state constitutional amendment in California.

### California Real Estate Association Support of 1950 California Proposition 10

The California Real Estate Association also supported California Proposition 10 on the November 1950 election ballot (adding Article 34 to the California Constitution and known as the "Public Housing Project Law") which made it significantly more difficult to build low-rent housing projects in California communities. Proposition 10 had been described as a means of legally handcuffing public housing that may be greatly needed for low-income renters, including minorities.

### Blockbusting

Despite the court decision in Shelley, segregation in California continued. As an example, an insidious form of segregation known as blockbusting occurred in East Palo Alto. In 1954, a white resident sold his house to a black family. Almost immediately, agents of the California Real Estate Association, including the president of the statewide real estate Association himself, began warning of a "Negro invasion" and even staged burglaries to panic white homeowners to sell at below-market prices. Those properties were then sold to Negroes at higher-than-market prices with real estate interests handsomely profiting from the transactions. These East Palo Alto houses had been priced so much higher than similar properties for white homeowners that the black homeowners had difficulty making payments which created a slum in East Palo Alto.

### Rumford Fair Housing Act

The tipping point for the California Real Estate Association to pursue an initiative for a state constitutional amendment in California was the enactment of the Rumford Fair Housing Act in 1963. The Rumford Fair Housing Act was passed by the California Legislature to help end racial discrimination by property owners and landlords who refused to rent or sell their property to "colored" people. It was drafted by William Byron Rumford, the first African American from Northern California to serve in the legislature. The Act provided that landlords could not deny people housing because of ethnicity, religion, or national origin (later the law would be extended to apply to sex, marital status, physical handicap, or familial status) Future Governor Ronald Reagan opposed this and other legislative attempts to enact fair housing, but the Rumford Fair Housing Act was signed into law by Governor Pat Brown.

The California Real Estate Association had fought the Rumford Fair Housing Act "every step of the way." In the minds of California Real Estate Association leaders, the Rumford Fair Housing Act directly threatened the financial interests of the real estate industry who came to see "the promotion, preservation, and manipulation of racial segregation as central – rather than incidental or residual – components of their profit generating strategies."

The California Real Estate Association also advised its member boards that speakers from the State Fair Employment Practice Commission, the agency which enforced the Rumford Fair Housing Act, should be prevented from talking to the general real estate membership about the new law. Instead, all questions about the interpretation of the new law would come from the real estate association itself.

Following the assassination of President John Kennedy on November 22, 1963, tremendous pressure was placed on the California Real Estate Association to call off their initiative campaign to repeal the Rumford Fair Housing Act. The Association instead decided to "delay a little while" to "let things simmer down."

## Proposition 14

In 1964, the California Real Estate Association (currently named the California Association of Realtors) sponsored an initiative constitutional amendment to counteract the effects of the Rumford Act. A member of the State Fair Employment Practice Commission, the agency which enforced the Rumford Fair Housing Act, asserted that some members of the California Real Estate Association were promoting their initiative campaign to repeal the Rumford Fair Housing Act to continue blockbusting.

The initiative, numbered Proposition 14 when it was certified for the ballot, was to add an amendment (Cal. Const. art. I, § 26) to the constitution of California. This amendment would provide, in part, as follows:

   Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.

In California, housing segregation was rampant as a result of decades of racially discriminatory housing policies explicitly aimed at keeping people of color confined to urban ghettos and out of the expanding suburbs. Proposition 14 attempted to re-legalize discrimination and associational privacy by landlords and property owners.

### Ballot Arguments

The ballot argument in favor of Proposition 14 stated that the constitutional amendment "will guarantee the right of all home and apartment owners to choose buyers and renters of their property as they wish, without interference by State or local government." The argument further stated that "most owners of such property in California lost this right through the Rumford Act of 1963. It says they may not refuse to sell or rent their property to anyone for reasons of race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry."

The ballot argument against Proposition 14 stated that Proposition 14 "would write hate and bigotry into the Constitution." The argument further stated that Proposition 14 "would legalize and incite bigotry. At a time when our nation is moving ahead on civil rights, it proposes to convert California into another Mississippi or Alabama and to create an atmosphere for violence and hate."

### Endorsements

Following much publicity the proposition gained the endorsement of many large conservative political groups, including the John Birch Society and the California Republican Assembly. As these and other groups endorsed the proposal it became increasingly popular and the petition to have the proposition added to the ballot garnered over one million signatures. This was more than twice the 480,000 signatures that were required.

**Endorsements by Racist Groups**

Other supporters of Proposition 14 included the American Nazi Party and local branches of the White Citizens' Councils, a network of white supremacist, segregationist organizations. The National States' Rights Party, a white supremacist political party having the slogan "White Men Unite," also supported Proposition 14.

The statewide director of the campaign against Proposition 14 asked the California Real Estate Association to repudiate the White Citizens' Council's support of Proposition 14, but the California Real Estate Association, acting through its president, refused to do so. In response to this refusal, Rev. H. H. Brookins, chairman of the United Civil Rights Committee said: “It no longer is possible for proponents of Proposition 14 to hide their real intention, which is to legalize segregation in housing. By refusing to repudiate support of a local Mississippi-based racist group, the California Real Estate Association had admitted its concern is not with property rights – it is to destroy human rights.”

Other opponents of Proposition 14, including the AFL-CIO Los Angeles County Labor Federation, also demanded that the California Real Estate Association fire its Southern California publicity director who had written extensively for the White Citizens’ Council magazine, and who stated during a campaign Town Hall meeting in Los Angeles: “The people have the right to discriminate if they want to.” The president of the California Real Estate Association had recently claimed that realtors are against anything smacking of prejudice against minorities.

**Los Angeles Times Endorsement**

In endorsing Proposition 14, the Los Angeles Times stated: “One of man’s most ancient rights in a free society is the privilege of using and disposing of his private property in whatever manner he deems appropriate.” The editorial further stated: “But we do feel, and strongly, that housing equality cannot safely be achieved at the expense of still another basic right.” According to the Los Angeles Times, the ability to discriminate against home buyers or renters by race, color, and creed was considered a "basic property right."

In a letter-to-the-editor response to the Times' endorsement of Proposition 14, then-California Attorney General Stanley Mosk stated: “I oppose the segregation initiative. I oppose it because it sugar-coats bigotry with an appeal to generalities we can accept, while ignoring the specific problem that confronts us.”

### Heated campaign

The Proposition 14 campaign was heated and included several controversial comments from Edmund Brown who was the Governor of California at the time. Governor Brown stated that passage of Proposition 14 would put into California's Constitution "a provision for discrimination of which not even Mississippi or Alabama can boast." Previously, Governor Brown had likened the campaign for Proposition 14 to "another hate binge which began more than 30 years ago in a Munich beer hall." In a letter to the editor response to several items published in the Los Angeles Times relating to Proposition 14, Governor Brown wrote: “I submit that it is not the Governor who is inflammatory. It is Proposition 14. And I submit that it is not the opponents of Proposition 14 who encourage the racists and bigots in this state, but those who support Proposition 14.”

Martin Luther King Jr. visited California on multiple occasions to campaign against Proposition 14, saying its passage would be "one of the most shameful developments in our nation’s history."

### Election results

Proposition 14 appeared on the November 3, 1964, general election ballot in California. The ballot proposition passed with 65.39% support, receiving 4,526,460 votes in support and 2,395,747 votes against.

**Results by county**

The final election results by county for Proposition 14 from the Statement of Vote were as follows:

| County | Yes | No | Total | Yes % | Outcome |
| - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Alameda | 253,380 | 164,736 | 418,116 | 60.60 | Pass |
| Alpine | 127 | 66 | 193 | 65.80 | Pass |
| Amador | 3,122 | 1,711 | 4,833 | 64.60 | Pass |
| Butte | 27,578 | 12,204 | 39,782 | 69.32 | Pass |
| Calaveras | 3,686 | 1,494 | 5,180 | 71.16 | Pass |
| Colusa | 2,699 | 1,696 | 4,395 | 61.41 | Pass |
| Contra Costa | 118,313 | 64,712 | 183,025 | 64.64 | Pass |
| Del Norte | 3,217 | 1,913 | 5,130 | 62.71 | Pass |
| El Dorado | 9,904 | 4,396 | 14,300 | 69.26 | Pass |
| Fresno | 86,636 | 45,748 | 132,384 | 65.44 | Pass |
| Glenn | 4,662 | 2,335 | 6,997 | 66.63 | Pass |
| Humboldt | 20,867 | 15,552 | 36,419 | 57.30 | Pass |
| Imperial | 13,723 | 6,319 | 20,042 | 68.47 | Pass |
| Inyo | 3,987 | 1,647 | 5,634 | 70.77 | Pass |
| Kern | 76,510 | 30,114 | 106,624 | 71.76 | Pass |
| Kings | 11,105 | 6,908 | 18,013 | 61.65 | Pass |
| Lake | 5,828 | 2,371 | 8,199 | 71.08 | Pass |
| Lassen | 3,412 | 2,457 | 5,869 | 58.14 | Pass |
| Los Angeles | 1,802,620 | 870,342 | 2,672,962 | 67.44 | Pass |
| Madera | 8,921 | 4,224 | 13,145 | 67.87 | Pass |
| Marin | 38,667 | 35,450 | 74,117 | 52.17 | Pass |
| Mariposa | 1,912 | 923 | 2,835 | 67.44 | Pass |
| Mendocino | 10,110 | 7,360 | 17,470 | 57.87 | Pass |
| Merced | 16,409 | 10,572 | 26,981 | 60.82 | Pass |
| Modoc | 1,536 | 1,555 | 3,091 | 49.69 | Fail |
| Mono | 1,117 | 312 | 1,429 | 78.17 | Pass |
| Monterey | 36,753 | 26,590 | 63,343 | 58.02 | Pass |
| Napa | 22,403 | 8,286 | 30,689 | 73.00 | Pass |
| Nevada | 7,668 | 3,334 | 11,002 | 69.70 | Pass |
| Orange | 312,933 | 89,190 | 402,123 | 77.82 | Pass |
| Placer | 17,053 | 10,027 | 27,080 | 62.97 | Pass |
| Plumas | 3,185 | 2,311 | 5,496 | 57.95 | Pass |
| Riverside | 95,734 | 43,861 | 139,595 | 68.58 | Pass |
| Sacramento | 139,018 | 86,777 | 225,795 | 61.57 | Pass |
| San Benito | 3,281 | 2,657 | 5,938 | 55.25 | Pass |
| San Bernardino | 150,680 | 59,787 | 210,467 | 71.59 | Pass |
| San Diego | 296,994 | 124,670 | 421,664 | 70.43 | Pass |
| San Francisco | 165,155 | 147,151 | 312,306 | 52.88 | Pass |
| San Joaquin | 60,601 | 32,460 | 93,061 | 65.12 | Pass |
| San Luis Obispo | 23,209 | 12,603 | 35,812 | 64.81 | Pass |
| San Mateo | 129,480 | 85,525 | 215,005 | 60.22 | Pass |
| Santa Barbara | 52,801 | 32,059 | 84,860 | 62.22 | Pass |
| Santa Clara | 168,684 | 149,153 | 317,837 | 53.07 | Pass |
| Santa Cruz | 26,146 | 18,518 | 44,664 | 58.54 | Pass |
| Shasta | 14,341 | 13,050 | 27,391 | 52.36 | Pass |
| Sierra | 694 | 466 | 1,160 | 59.83 | Pass |
| Siskiyou | 7,013 | 6,401 | 13,414 | 52.28 | Pass |
| Solano | 34,606 | 15,041 | 49,647 | 69.70 | Pass |
| Sonoma | 43,207 | 26,726 | 69,933 | 61.78 | Pass |
| Stanislaus | 39,510 | 23,578 | 63,088 | 62.63 | Pass |
| Sutter | 10,040 | 3,647 | 13,687 | 73.35 | Pass |
| Tehama | 6,370 | 4,668 | 11,038 | 57.71 | Pass |
| Trinity | 1,765 | 1,461 | 3,226 | 54.71 | Pass |
| Tulare | 35,704 | 18,664 | 54,368 | 65.67 | Pass |
| Tuolumne | 4,807 | 2,642 | 7,449 | 64.53 | Pass |
| Ventura | 63,964 | 32,983 | 96,947 | 65.98 | Pass |
| Yolo | 14,412 | 11,157 | 25,569 | 56.37 | Pass |
| Yuba | 8,201 | 3,187 | 11,388 | 72.01 | Pass |
| Total | 4,526,460 | 2,395,747 | 6,922,207 | 65.39 | PASS |

### Election aftermath

Shortly following the successful Proposition 14 election, the president of the National Association of Real Estate Boards declared that private property rights were more basic to human liberty than the civil rights of minority groups.

### Election analysis

A 2018 study in the American Political Science Review found that white voters in areas which experienced massive African-American population growth between 1940 and 1960 were more likely to vote for Proposition 14. Political scientists have taken this as evidence for "racial threat theory", which holds that the rapid increase in a minority population triggers fears among the majority race population, leading the majority to impose higher levels of social control on the subordinate race.

## Unconstitutionality

Soon after Proposition 14 was passed, the federal government cut off all housing funds to California. Many also cited the proposition as one of the causes of the Watts Riots of 1965.

With the federal housing funds cut off and with the support of Governor Pat Brown, the constitutionality of the measure was challenged soon afterward. In 1966, the California Supreme Court did not consider whether Proposition 14 was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the California Constitution; instead, it held that Proposition 14 violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. Gov. Brown's stance proved controversial; later in 1966, he was defeated in his bid for re-election by Ronald Reagan. However, Reagan opposed both Proposition 14 and the Rumford Act, and stated that Proposition 14 was "not a wise measure." Reagan labeled the Rumford Act as an attempt "to give one segment of our population a right at the expense of the basic rights of all our citizens."

However, the case continued. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court's decision in Reitman v. Mulkey (1967), holding that Proposition 14 was invalid because it violated the equal protection clause. The proposition was repealed by Proposition 7 in the November 1974 election.

Reitman established a significant precedent because it held that state assistance or encouragement of private discrimination violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Even following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reitman, the California Real Estate Association was looking for ways to continue engaging in housing discrimination by evading the high court decision.

## Additional ballot measures by the real estate industry

Similar to Proposition 14, there have been subsequent efforts by the real estate industry to promote ballot measures in California to generate more profits at the alleged expense of minorities. Examples include the unsuccessful 2018 California Proposition 5 and 2020 California Proposition 19, which has been criticized for not helping first-time homeowners who are disproportionately minorities and for reinforcing racial inequity within California's tax system.

