As soon as the Rumford Fair Housing Act went into effect on September 20, 1963, both the law and the State Fair Employment Practices Commission, SFEPC, the agency tasked with enforcing it, came under scrutiny from the California Real Estate Association (CREA) and its local member boards. These opponents of the Rumford Act formed the Committee for Home Protection to initiate a petition drive to kill the fair housing law through the sponsorship of a new initiative, believing the Rumford Act directly threatened the financial interests of the real estate industry.
At the local level, Los Angeles realty member organizations, such as Valley Real Estate Association and Southwest Realty Board, followed CREA’s direction and declared their opposition to the Rumford Act. Civil rights leaders and members of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) responded to the realty industry’s stance by protesting outside member offices and in planned communities across the Southland.
From Initiative to Proposition
With CREA having secured the necessary volume of petitions, the initiative, which became Proposition 14, was placed on the ballot for the November 1964 statewide election. Careful to avoid the use of discriminatory language in its arguments against the Rumford Act and in the proposition itself, CREA, under the banner of the Committee for Home Protection, defended property rights, spoke out against what they considered “forced housing” laws, and mobilized white voters across California.
The Fight Around Proposition 14
Proponents of Proposition 14 argued that the constitutional amendment would "guarantee the right of all home and apartment owners to choose buyers and renters of their property as they wish, without interference by State or local government." The argument further stated that "most owners of such property in California lost this right through the Rumford Act of 1963." Those in favor of the proposition wanted to restore California property owners’ right to sell or rent to persons of their choice.
Opponents of Proposition 14 argued that the law "would write hate and bigotry into the Constitution." They further expressed that the proposition "would legalize and incite bigotry. At a time when our nation is moving ahead on civil rights, it proposes to convert California into another Mississippi or Alabama and to create an atmosphere for violence and hate." Additionally, it was understood by civil rights leaders and allies that the Proposition would not only repeal the Rumford Act but would codify discrimination in the California Constitution.
While white Democratic politicians and labor and legal organizations, the AFL-CIO Los Angeles County Labor Federation and the California Bar Association, were deeply opposed to Proposition 14, opinions within religious institutions across California did not reflect the same values. Churches in the San Fernando Valley, such as Granada Hills Methodist Church, were actively engaged in the debate of whether Proposition 14 should pass, revealing the deep conflict surrounding the amendment in predominantly white neighborhoods.
Voter Mobilization
For most of 1964, fair housing and civil rights advocates rallied to challenge the validity of Proposition 14 and sway public opinion in favor of defeating it. California Democrats and Governor Edmund “Pat” Brown organized Californians Against Proposition 14, which led to a massive effort to convince California voters to oppose the initiative.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Urban League, the United Civil Rights Committee (UCRC), and CORE considered Proposition 14 an attack on the opportunity for African Americans to live in decent housing and mobilized their own efforts to fight the passage of Proposition 14. UCRC initiated voter registration drives with the aim of signing up one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand new voters.
When voter registration ended on September 10, 1964, UCRC had registered over forty thousand new African American voters in just under three months. Although the UCRC did not meet its ultimate goal, the committee recognized the incredible response and efforts within the African American community. UCRC’s Chairman H. H. Brookins stated that "The United Civil Rights Committee, as headquarters of the largest registration mobilization in the United States exceeding in manpower the Mississippi Summer Project, concluded the most successful registration drive ever attempted in Los Angeles and the State of California this week."
Election Results
During the final weeks before the election, the UCRC and other civil rights organizations encouraged all registered African Americans to vote against Proposition 14. While the African American community did not disappoint, the effort to defeat the initiative failed miserably. Polls indicated that there was wide support for the proposition.
On November 3, 1964, Proposition 14 passed by nearly two to one, reintroducing discriminatory laws into the California Constitution.
More Work Ahead
After Proposition 14 was adopted, it nullified the Rumford Fair Housing Act by adding a provision to the California Constitution permitting property owners to exercise racial discrimination. Over the next three years, a series of legal battles ensued to challenge Proposition 14’s constitutional validity. On May 10, 1966, the California Supreme Court, in Mulkey vs. Reitman, overturned Proposition 14, ruling that the state law violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which "protects the rights of citizens and prohibits states from denying equal protection under the law." A year later, the Supreme Court of the United States also ruled that the state constitutional provision violated the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, was unconstitutional.
It would take another seven years before Proposition 14 would be repealed and fair housing legally reinstated in California. During the General Election on November 5, 1974, Proposition 7, known as the Rights of Citizens Amendment, passed. This new law repealed Proposition 14 and introduced protections against housing discrimination by reorganizing and substantively amending numerous provisions of Article I and removing provisions regarding the right to sell or rent real property according to one’s choice.
As we reflect on the protracted fight to end racial discrimination in housing, we pay tribute to the African American community members, civil rights leaders, advocates, heroes, and their allies who have fought and continue to fight discriminatory policies and practices.
Authors note: I would like to thank colleague Bob Timmermann of the History & Genealogy Department for authoring Part One of this post.
Further Reading
