COALITION FOR AN INFORMED CALIFORNIA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

August 29, 2003



CONNERLY SUFFERS DOUBLE DEFEAT IN COURT

Judge rules that Prop. 54 ballot summary and analysis must be changed to

accurately reflect far reaching health implications of initiative

Ruling that the proponents of Proposition 54 did not accurately reflect the

far reaching health implications of the measure in their ballot summary,

California Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian, Department 11, today ruled

that the summary must instead track the actual language of the initiative.

Further, in considering the accuracy of the Legislative Analysts' Office

(LAO) analysis of the proposition, the judge ruled that the language of

that summary must also be changed to more accurately digest the language

and intent of the initiative.

"This is a huge victory for the voters of California, who can now make

accurate, informed decisions on October 7th," said Maria Blanco, national

senior counsel with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund,

which brought the case before the court. "This ruling demonstrates just

how ambiguous Proposition 54's so-called medical exemption really is, and

confirms that the loss of health data is too risky to leave for a

post-election court to decide."

Proposition 54, authored by Ward Connerly, would ban the collection,

analysis and use of racial data by any public agency in California.

Connerly's initiative includes an exemption for "medical research subjects

and patients," which he misleadingly summarized in his 50-word summary as,

"all medical and healthcare subject matter."

The court ruling today would mandates that the language accurately reflect

the language of the initiative, and must now describe the exemption as,

"medical research subjects and patients."

"Clearly, Connerly sees the writing on the wall that voters are concerned

about the loss of important health information," said Blanco, "so he is

attempting to rewrite his initiative in the ballot summary. If he meant to

allow all government departments to collect racial information that may

have a possible health use, he should have written it that way. It's too

late ? the horse is out of the barn and the damage is done and the voters

can now decide."

Judge Ohanesian also agreed with the petitioners on the ambiguity of the

initiative's consequences on health, and ordered the LAO to change its

analysis. Rather than concluding that state and local agencies could

continue to collect a variety of public health information through the use

of surveys of the public that may include race-related information, the

court ordered the analysis to state that this activity might be allowed to

continue. This underscores the healthcare community's concern about losing

vital information for the health of all Californians.

# # #