Talk:1964 California Proposition 14

Is the title appropriate?

The article concludes, at present (9/18/13), "As of 2013, this precedent remains good law." That strikes me as blatant editorializing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Shaver (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be changed to "California Proposition 14 (1964)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Shaver (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is titled one thing, and reads as if it is about something else entirely...doesn't make much sense, cleanup needed. Paul 23:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Rumford Fair Housing Act redirects here, which doesn't make much sense to me. The two are certainly related, but the Rumford Act was NOT Proposition 14, Prop 14 was a reaction against the Rumford Act... --Kfreeland 00:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Paul. While the Rumford Fair Housing Act deserves its own separate entry, this Prop 14 article is fine. Prop 14 was backlash to something, namely Rumford. Therefore, starting the article with Rumford makes good sense. The problem is not with this article, but with the lack of a separate article on the history of housing discrimination in California and the resulting redress of Rumford. --(edit by 24.126.195.242) 17:25, 12 September 2006

Article ignores the political turmoil it caused in California

I also agree with the previous paragraph. Proposition 14 was at the center of the dispute and deserves its own page. Is there a page on racial discrimination and the civil-rights movement in California? It certainly deserves one as it is still a major problem there.

Also, the article does not mention the political turmoil caused by the proposition. There were major protests in every part of the state and much money flowed into supporting and against the proposition. Newspapers. politicians, and movie stars were lining up on both sidesAt least once that I know of Martin Luther King, Jr. came to California to march and join the protests against the proposition.

The proposition was also the cause of turmoil in the Catholic church, mainly centered on the refusal of Cardinal McIntyre of Los Angeles to support the Civil Rights Movement. As the result of this conflict, several priests lost their job or left the Archdiocese, Bdubay (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Question of chronology

I have two problems with the article's chronology. (1) If 14 was on the ballot in 1964, why does the page's title say 1963? (2) The article indicates that Weaver was Secretary of HUD when 14 passed and that he immediately cut off federal funds to California; however Weaver's own article says he wasn't appointed, and indeed HUD wasn't created, until 1966. Jef (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Article move to reflect correct year

Rumford Act was in 1963, this proposition was in 1964. I moved the article to reflect this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Prop 14 as a cause of Watts riots of 1965

The article now says

Many also cited the proposition as one of the causes of the Watts Riots of 1965.

I think Prop 14 did have this effect, but more work would make this better. The article had a dead link to the lengthy paper by Alex Alonso -- I fixed that. Alonso's paper is a good and useful source on the overall history of discrimination against Blacks in Los Angeles. However, the article would be better if it didn't rely solely on Alonso's work as a reference on the way Prop 14, in particular, may have been a cause of the 1965 riots. Oaklandguy (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

How about saying in the first two sentences (or "lead") what Proposition 14 actually was?

I came here because I wanted to find out what Proposition 14 was, having read a reference to it on the page about the Watts riots. That page states:

The Rumford Fair Housing Act, designed to remedy residential segregation, was overturned by Proposition 14 in 1964, which was sponsored by the California real estate industry, and supported by a majority of white voters. Psychiatrist and civil rights activist Alvin Poussaint considered Proposition 14 to be one of the causes of black rebellion in Watts.

As you can see, that doesn't say what this proposition actually was. The page on it should tell us right at the top, in its lead. Basically it allowed people selling or letting accommodation to discriminate by ethnicity. I will edit to make this clear. Gruiakal (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have now edited. The opening sentence now reads:

California Proposition 14 was a November 1964 ballot proposition that amended the California state constitution to nullify the Rumford Fair Housing Act, thereby allowing property sellers, landlords and their agents to discriminate on ethnic grounds when selling or letting accommodation. Gruiakal (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan position

As currently written, the article states that Ronald Reagan both supported (footnote 19 as of May 2022) and opposed (footnote 39 as of May 2022) Proposition 14, although the reference cited in footnote 19 seemingly suggests it was Reagan's overall opposition to "fair housing" legislation. The article as now constituted seems to imply both that Reagan's victory over Pat Brown in 1966 was in large measure due to his support for it and Brown's opposition, but that also Reagan opposed it, which seems not to be possible. I realize that some internal contradiction is to be expected in a project authored through joint effort, but this seems to much to be allowed to stand. 2600:1004:B125:FF96:4454:575E:FFF8:1622 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Reagan supported Prop 14, as quoted in Los Angeles Times 10/21/20 article

Ronald Reagan would go on to use the white populism generated by Proposition 14 and the riots to crush Brown in the California governor’s race in 1966. And he openly adopted Proposition 14’s Trojan Horse strategy to do so.

“If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, he has the right to do so,” Reagan argued on the campaign trail, while decrying racism from the other side of his mouth. 2600:1700:6970:BB70:A9C7:B97:5290:5332 (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)