by Suzanne Potter
California News Service
Early in-person voting starts this Saturday in dozens of counties across the Golden State, and this year, older adults are expected to have outsized influence at the ballot box.
Data from the Public Policy Institute of California has shown that older voters make up the biggest share of high-propensity voters. So, Luis Campillo, Los Angeles regional director for AARP California, said this population segment will likely decide the election.
“Californians 55 and older make up about 34 percent of the state’s adult population, but constitute about 47 percent of likely voters,” he said. “Whereas those who are between the ages of 18 and 34 make up about 32 percent of the population, but only 23 percent of the likely voters.”
On Nov. 8, the ballot will contain multiple statewide initiatives on a wide range of issues including health care, access to sports betting, flavored tobacco products, taxes, climate change, investments in art and education, and more. Many local and regional measures touch on funds for affordable housing, parks and community colleges. That’s in addition to the contests for governor, the U.S. House and Senate, plus state and local offices.
All registered voters should have received a ballot in the mail. Campillo noted that the deadline to register for a mail-in ballot has passed, but fear not – because California has same-day registration.
“People can still register conditionally and vote,” he said, “so that just means that you will cast your ballot, and it will be counted after the election office goes through the verification process.”
AARP California has a website – aarp.org/CAvotes – and a podcast with election information. People also can text the words ‘CA Votes’ to the number 222777 to get a link on their smartphone.
Clarence Thomas delivers knockout punch when hearing pro-affirmative action claim
by CF Chief Editor
Park, however, could not provide a specific definition of “diversity.”
“First, we define diversity the way this court has in this court’s precedents, which means a broadly diverse set of criteria that extends to all different backgrounds and perspectives and not solely limited to race,” he responded.
Regarding the educational benefits of diversity, Park claimed there is no dispute whether diversity is beneficial in education. When pushed further, he pointed to studies about stock trading that claim “racially diverse groups of people making trading decisions perform at a higher level.”
“The mechanism there is that it reduces groupthink and people have longer and more sustained disagreement, and that leads to a more efficient outcome,” Park claimed.
Thomas fired back, “Well, I guess I don’t put much stock in that, because I’ve heard similar arguments in favor of segregation too.”
Thomas’ objection to affirmative action is well known.
In a previous case — Grutter v. Bollinger, the case that could be overturned — Thomas explained how the racial considerations innate in affirmative action are dehumanizing.
“The Constitution abhors classifications based on race not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all,” he wrote in an opinion.
In another affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas, Thomas explicated his comparison to arguments for segregation.
“It is irrelevant under the Fourteenth Amendment whether segregated or mixed schools produce better leaders,” he wrote.
“Indeed, no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent leaders,” he explained. “Likewise, the University’s racial discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that it will produce better leaders.”
