<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>American Civil Rights Institute Blog &#187; Pacific Legal Foundation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.acri.org/blog/category/pacific-legal-foundation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.acri.org/blog</link>
	<description>&#34;Race has no place in American Life or Law&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:20:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>PLF Warns CA High-Speed Rail Against Quotas</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2011/11/09/plf-warns-ca-high-speed-rail-against-quotas/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2011/11/09/plf-warns-ca-high-speed-rail-against-quotas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 12:50:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lbarber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pacific Legal Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quotas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=9940</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We&#8217;re all aware of how fond California lawmakers are of introducing and passing bills that give government-mandated special favors to certain racial and ethnic minorities, despite a 15-year-old voter-approved law that bars the practice. The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which raises legal challenges against government programs that violate the law barring racial preferences, issued a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2011/11/09/plf-warns-ca-high-speed-rail-against-quotas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PLE Sues State for Prop 209 Violation</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2011/10/12/ple-sues-state-for-prop-209-violation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2011/10/12/ple-sues-state-for-prop-209-violation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lbarber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pacific Legal Foundation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=9732</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite a voter-approved law that bars the government from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals or groups on the basis of race in employment, contracting, and education, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission is doing just that to select members. An excerpt: &#8220;The statute governing selection of Commission members requires, among other things, that members [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2011/10/12/ple-sues-state-for-prop-209-violation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PLF Appeals Caltrans Set-Asides Case</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2011/05/20/plf-appeals-caltrans-set-asides-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2011/05/20/plf-appeals-caltrans-set-asides-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 11:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lbarber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Legal Foundation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=8635</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Despite the state’s ban on government discrimination and preferential treatment in employment, contracting, and education based on race or sex, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) set aside 6.75 percent of federal contracts for women, blacks, people of Asian-Pacific descent, and American Indians. The Federal Highway Administration approved the plan. The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLE) [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2011/05/20/plf-appeals-caltrans-set-asides-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge Knocks Down Prop. 209 Challenge</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/12/09/judge-knocks-down-prop-209-challenge/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/12/09/judge-knocks-down-prop-209-challenge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lbarber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Legal Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ward Connerly]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=7182</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Another victory for race neutrality in government! Fourteen years after voters in California barred their government from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals or groups in employment, contracting, and education based on race, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigration Rights By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) is still trying to overturn the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/12/09/judge-knocks-down-prop-209-challenge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Model Racial Preferences Brief</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/08/05/model-racial-preferences-brief/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/08/05/model-racial-preferences-brief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 15:38:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lbarber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Center for Equal Opportunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Legal Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roger Clegg]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=6104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Pacific Legal Foundation&#8216;s Sharon Browne and the Center for Equal Opportunity&#8216;s Roger Clegg have created a model brief (31 pages PDF) for contractors and subcontractors who&#8217;ve been shut out of government contracts because of racial preferences. Preferences proponents typically cite sentiment over the law to justify government discrimination. Black American&#8217;s ancestors were slaves, and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/08/05/model-racial-preferences-brief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Supreme Court Upholds State&#8217;s Racial Preferences Ban</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/08/03/california-supreme-court-upholds-states-racial-preferences-ban/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/08/03/california-supreme-court-upholds-states-racial-preferences-ban/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:47:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lbarber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Legal Foundation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=6067</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For almost three decades, the city of San Francisco set aside a certain percentage of government contracts for businesses owned by minorities and women, claiming preferences were necessary to remedy discrimination against these groups. After the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held the ordinance unconstitutional, the city eliminated the set-asides but retained bid discounts and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/08/03/california-supreme-court-upholds-states-racial-preferences-ban/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Court Voids Quota Law</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/07/06/court-agrees-quota-bill-unconstitutional/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/07/06/court-agrees-quota-bill-unconstitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:28:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lbarber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pacific Legal Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quotas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ward Connerly]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5764</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although California&#8217;s constitution bars the government from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals or groups on the basis of race in government employment, education, or contracting, proponents of race-based policies still resist obeying the law. Last October, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who swore to uphold the constitution, signed into law a bill that directs state [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/07/06/court-agrees-quota-bill-unconstitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defend California&#8217;s Proposition 209</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/17/defend-californias-proposition-209/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/17/defend-californias-proposition-209/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:52:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lbarber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Legal Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ward Connerly]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5638</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this year I blogged about the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigration Rights By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) filing a lawsuit challenging Proposition 209, approved by 54 percent of California voters in 1996. The law bars the state from granting preferences to or discriminating against individuals or groups based on race in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/17/defend-californias-proposition-209/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Supreme Court to Hear San Fran Preferences Case</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/05/04/california-supreme-court-to-hear-san-fran-preferences-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/05/04/california-supreme-court-to-hear-san-fran-preferences-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 15:27:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lbarber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Legal Foundation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5220</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, California&#8217;s highest court will hear arguments in Construction v. City Of San Francisco, a case in which two contractors challenged San Francisco&#8217;s preferential treatment ordinance. Although California state law bars the government from granting preferences to and discriminating against individuals or groups based on skin color in hiring, contracting, and admissions, San Francisco mandates [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/05/04/california-supreme-court-to-hear-san-fran-preferences-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sharon Browne on Voting Rights Case</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2009/06/17/sharon-browne-on-voting-rights-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2009/06/17/sharon-browne-on-voting-rights-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>lbarber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Legal Foundation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=1939</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Pacific Legal Foundation&#8216;s Sharon Browne talked about the Voting Rights case presently before the U.S Supreme Court on a Federalist Society podcast. Background: Decades ago, certain jurisdictions tried to keep blacks away from the polls. The infamous poll tax was one method. Over 40 years ago, Congress enacted a law (known as Section 5) [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2009/06/17/sharon-browne-on-voting-rights-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

