This is what the California constitutional says (excerpt),
> 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.
The is what the bill says (excerpt):
> a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California shall have a minimum of one director from an underrepresented community on its board
> “Director from an underrepresented community” means an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
So as someone who is mixed (Cape Verdean father, Irish/Jewish mother), identifies as mixed, but is white passing (Latino passing in the summer if I get sun... which is rare these days. Spoken to in Spanish quite a bit), how would that work?
I ask in a meaningful way, not to spark an argument. It's just that this is so confusing.
Like I did not grow up with the hassle or hate (with exception of a few racist remarks made to me growing up after being asked my background) that my brown family members and friends encountered and still encounter today, but I could still benefit from legislation like this? It just seems off.
Also, couldn't people just game this and say they're xyz or how is this proven? If it weren't by self identification, birth certificates seem like they'd be an issue. For example, because my father was black but light skinned my grandmother got away with putting caucasian down on his birth certificate thinking it'd benefit him somehow in life, but if you saw him you'd say he's black. So what is he and his offspring considered officially when his whole life he has identified as black and my siblings and I as mixed?
Idk this just sounds weird to me
Edit: Sorry to OP. Not directly speaking to your pointing out of this being unconstitutional in California. Just that it's the first post I saw summarizing the legislation and was commenting on that
> 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.
The is what the bill says (excerpt):
> a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California shall have a minimum of one director from an underrepresented community on its board
> “Director from an underrepresented community” means an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.