As a state senator who enjoyed participating in the legislative process, I had to read and vote on numerous bills every year. One that is currently in the news is Senate Bill (SB) 826, written by former State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D – Santa Barbara).
It required California-headquartered corporations to appoint at least one woman to their board of directors by December 31, 2019, and up to three women by December 31, 2021, depending on the size of the board.
Sen. Jackson was the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I served as the committee’s vice chair. When she presented the bill on April 24, 2018, I chaired the meeting. The bill provided quite a discussion among the committee’s members, and you could sense the uncomfortableness in the air as my Democratic colleagues had reservations but were not accustomed to voting against bills from a member of their own party, let alone the chair of the committee.
With some grumbling, the bill passed out of committee with only one “no” vote. Mine. I was opposed to interfering with the private sector and mandating quotas and said as much. Sacramento was overstepping its bounds, again.
To me it seemed more of a showboating exercise to try and make a point. But mandating that a female be on a publicly owned board would make that person a token, selected not because of her qualifications for the position, but for the requirement. This did not seem healthy to me, as it would be an instant stigma for the woman selected. A similar reaction was felt nationally when President Biden stated early on that his choice for the United States Supreme Court would be a black woman—instead of saying the choice would be the best possible selection and if she happened to be black, all the better.
The verdict just came after a 28-day trial. I did not watch the proceedings but was informed that my comments on that April 24th day four years ago would be presented and that I may be contacted to testify.
Judicial Watch argued that the quota for women on corporate boards violated the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. California Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis agreed and “determine[d] that SB 826 ... is thus enjoined.”
In the Judicial Watch announcement, it provided the following:
The number of bills that I voted against, knowing they would not overcome judicial muster, is rather high. The supermajority passed bills that went beyond the boundaries of reasonableness because they could. This is tragic because of the costs that are borne by either the California Attorney General or the California Legislative Counsel in defending the nonsense. In the case of SB 826, I know many of my Democratic colleagues were exasperated by this bill but had to go along with their herd and support it.
SB 826 was a very expensive foray for an act of showmanship, versus an act of true leadership, and has been a costly use of taxpayer dollars.
It takes a rare taxpayer to stand up to the strong forces controlling Sacramento. As President Abraham Lincoln once said, “Let’s have faith that right makes might; and in that faith let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.” My thanks go out to Robin Crest, Earl De Vries, and Judy De Vries for their willingness and bravery to stand up to the absurd.