In the history of California, there have been few ballot measures of a more controversial nature presented to the electorate than the initiative constitutional amendment known as Proposition 14 which appeared on the 1964 General Election ballot.
Proposition 14 was a propsed amendment to the Constitution of the State of California which would prohibit the state, its agencies, and local government from placing limitations on a person's right to refuse to sell or rent his residential property to another person.1
The controversy stirred up by Proposition 14 caused it to gain national attention. Its opponents made claim that Proposition 14 went beyond repeal of "fair housing" legislation. This could have been achieved through an initiative referendum. Instead, by constitutional amendment, the measure instituted the right to discriminate in selling or renting residential property. This was an open attack upon the civil rights of the minorities in California. Its proponents counter claimed that it was a measure ot restore to California property owners their right to sell or rent to whomever they choose. This right had been taken away from them by the Rumford Act. The constitutional amendment method was used to prevent a future legislature from enacting another "fair housing" law. Thus, civil rights became pitted against property rights in the ensuing arguments over Proposition 14.
With the United States in the throes of a movement by the Negro race to achieve greater interplay in American life, it was to be expected, then, that considerable nationwide attention would fall upon this particular initiative amendment to California's Constitution. The controversy it raised carried beyond California's borders. It was watched throughout the country to see what would happen to it.
This attention made Proposition 14 unlike its companion measures on the ballot. Because it differed in this manner from the other propositions, this thesis has recorded Proposition 14 and its ramifications, particularly the campaign which enveloped it. While the controversy over this constitutional amendment has not yet been stilled, one particular limitation has been placed upon this thesis. It does not pursue Proposition 14 beyond Election Daty, November 3, 1964. Basically, this thesis has employed an historical approach to the presentationof Proposition 14. It has not, however, taken theusual chronological listing of events used by most historical studies. Rather, it has examined nine general areas concerning Proposition 14 without particular regard to making and account of events in orde ot time. Each of the nine areas, instead, has been presented more to give tenor or character to certain phases of the measure than to chronicle events.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:pacific.edu/oai:scholarlycommons.pacific.edu:uop_etds-2641 |
| Date | 01 January 1967 |
| Creators | Hartgraves, Arthur Wayne |
| Publisher | Scholarly Commons |
| Source Sets | University of the Pacific |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds