IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Electoral Economics: Proposition 209 and the Public Concensus


  • Hartogh, Matthew


Abstract: The question posed is whether proposition 209 unconstitutionally bars a remedy to discrimination against a specified group "women and minorities", and thereby denies equal protection of the laws to a targeted group. The partial template for this problem is provided by the Supreme Court’s disposition of Romer v. Evans. The conclusion of my analysis here is that it does not. My analysis relies on two theories, one formal and one political. The formal proposition is this: a remedy is only meaningful as a response to an injury. In equal protection and discrimination jurisprudence, the Federal courts have imposed, and the Supreme Court has upheld, quotas, busing, and other affirmative measures against discrimination where there has been a judicial finding of past discrimination. There has been no such finding against the University of California or any of the contracting agencies of the state of California. Further, each time such a remedy to a demonstrated injury has been imposed, the Court has demanded that the remedy conform to a tight fit to the demonstrated injury. No injury has been demonstrated here, therefore no remedy exists, and to quote Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch vs. Maryland "what does not exist can not be taken away."

Suggested Citation

  • Hartogh, Matthew, 2007. "Electoral Economics: Proposition 209 and the Public Concensus," MPRA Paper 5774, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:5774

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. William A. Barnett, 2011. "Multilateral Aggregation-Theoretic Monetary Aggregation over Heterogeneous Countries," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Financial Aggregation And Index Number Theory, chapter 6, pages 167-206 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Barnett, William A. & Ronald Gallant, A. & Hinich, Melvin J. & Jungeilges, Jochen A. & Kaplan, Daniel T. & Jensen, Mark J., 1995. "Robustness of nonlinearity and chaos tests to measurement error, inference method, and sample size," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 301-320, July.
    3. William A. Barnett & Shu Wu, 2011. "On User Costs of Risky Monetary Assets," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Financial Aggregation And Index Number Theory, chapter 3, pages 85-105 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. William Barnett & Apostolos Serletis & W. Erwin Diewert, 2005. "The Theory of Monetary Aggregation (book front matter)," Macroeconomics 0511008, EconWPA.
    5. Feenstra, Robert C., 1986. "Functional equivalence between liquidity costs and the utility of money," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 271-291, March.
    6. William Barnett, 2005. "Monetary Aggregation," Macroeconomics 0503017, EconWPA.
    7. Schunk, Donald L, 2001. "The Relative Forecasting Performance of the Divisia and Simple Sum Monetary Aggregates," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 33(2), pages 272-283, May.
    8. Belongia, Michael T. & Ireland, Peter N., 2006. "The Own-Price of Money and the Channels of Monetary Transmission," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 38(2), pages 429-445, March.
    9. William A. Barnett & Melvin J. Hinich & Piyu Yue, 2011. "The Exact Theoretical Rational Expectations Monetary Aggregate," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Financial Aggregation And Index Number Theory, chapter 2, pages 53-84 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Barnett, William A, 1982. "The Optimal Level of Monetary Aggregation," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 14(4), pages 687-710, November.
    11. Barnett, William A. & Liu, Yi & Jensen, Mark, 1997. "Capm Risk Adjustment For Exact Aggregation Over Financial Assets," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(02), pages 485-512, June.
    12. Robert E. Lucas, Jr., 2000. "Inflation and Welfare," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(2), pages 247-274, March.
    13. Chauvet, Marcelle, 1998. "An Econometric Characterization of Business Cycle Dynamics with Factor Structure and Regime Switching," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(4), pages 969-996, November.
    14. Belongia, Michael T, 1996. "Measurement Matters: Recent Results from Monetary Economics Reexamined," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(5), pages 1065-1083, October.
    15. repec:cup:macdyn:v:4:y:2000:i:2:p:197-221 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Milton Friedman & Anna Jacobson Schwartz, 1970. "Monetary Statistics of the United States: Estimates, Sources, Methods," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number frie70-1, January.
    17. William A. Barnett & Melvin Hinich & Piyu Yue, 1989. "Monitoring monetary aggregates under risk aversion," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, pages 189-245.
    18. Diewert, W. E., 1976. "Exact and superlative index numbers," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 115-145, May.
    19. Gerhard Bry & Charlotte Boschan, 1971. "Cyclical Analysis of Time Series: Selected Procedures and Computer Programs," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number bry_71-1, January.
    20. Fischer, Stanley, 1974. "Money and the Production Function," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 12(4), pages 517-533, December.
    21. Jones, Barry E. & Dutkowsky, Donald H. & Elger, Thomas, 2005. "Sweep programs and optimal monetary aggregation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 483-508, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    economics law discrimination game theory welfare;

    JEL classification:

    • K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
    • K13 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:5774. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Joachim Winter). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.