LOS ANGELES–The divisive concept of “race” rests easy in California in the wake of this week’s voting. Color blindness took a licking, as voters turned back Proposition 54–the Racial Privacy Initiative–by a 63 to 37 percent margin. Back in July, polling indicated that 50 percent of California’s voters intended to vote for Prop 54, which aimed to prevent state and local governments from using race to classify its citizens. What happened?

”People naturally vote no on a proposition when they don’t understand it or have any question about it,” said Keith Richman, a moderate Republican state assemblyman. Voters did have legitimate concerns about Prop 54’s effect on racial-data gathering and research. Very early in the process, however, opponents began to demonize not only the measure itself, but its backers as well.

Within the “progressive” political community, racial-advocacy groups and legal entities like the ACLU and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund felt that Prop 54 had to be defeated. In many ways, their very existence depended on perceptions of racial victimization and the continuation of sharply defined racial categories. In a twist of events, these groups have unwittingly become the heirs-apparent to the white-supremacist, Jim Crow-era “one drop” rule, which defined how “race” and racial categorization were used, and still results in society’s viewing golfer Tiger Woods, film-star Halle Berry, newscaster Soledad O’Brian, NBA star Shane Battier, or baseball shortstop Derek Jeter as “black,” even though they are the progeny of so-called “mixed” marital unions.

At a rally on the steps of the Los Angeles city hall, Herb Wesson, the speaker of the California assembly and a black liberal Democrat, called Prop 54’s mild-mannered, perpetually civil coauthor Ward Connerly a racist. On one of his numerous swings through the state, Jesse Jackson–with Governor Gray Davis at his elbow–told those appearing at an anti-Prop 54 rally that Proposition 54 was supported by the same forces that fought against equal public accommodations for all citizens, the right to vote, and desegregation. A Palm Springs newspaper’s editorial said, “The passage of Proposition 54 would set the state of California back; back to the days of blatant and unchecked discrimination.” This is strange stuff, since the measure’s exemptions, according to the state’s impartial Legislative Analyst Office, would have allowed for most racial-data collection–most importantly in the realm of medical research–to continue unaffected.

An avalanche of oppositional funding that spanned the gamut from Indian tribes to the California Teachers Association underwrote the doomsday campaign. Cruz Bustamante spent nearly $4 million of his interest money from Indian gaming on anti-Prop 54 television ads, even though a judge told him such spending was illegal and violated the state’s electoral-funding laws. Slick radio ads featured the voices of Jesse Jackson and actor Danny Glover. Looking like a more rotund President Lincoln, former U.S. surgeon general C. Everett Koop appeared in well-produced TV spots, looked into the camera, and told viewers, “On October 7 you’ll be making a life and death decision affecting every Californian.”

All of this begged for a response, but the response was not forthcoming, as the tiny Prop 54 campaign staff was exhausted and out of funds. In total, the proponents of the measure were able to raise only slightly more than $200,000. Although opponents were claiming that Prop 54 was a right-wing, Republican-backed scheme, the fact is that the Republican party, by and large, kept its distance. Of the recall election’s candidates for governor, only Tom McClintock endorsed the measure. When asked about Prop 54 during his only televised debate, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California’s newly elected governor, said he was opposed and tritely offered, “I’m in favor of equality for all Californians.”

Why would Republicans shy away from this issue? Despite being goaded by the shameful, bigoted comment of Donna Brazile (Al Gore’s campaign director) that the Republican party is “the party of the white boys,” the GOP has trod cautiously–some would say timidly–on issues of race. Even as the University of Michigan Supreme Court case was being decided, President Bush was reluctant to attack the kind of racial preferences that hide under the guise of “diversity.” There appears to be a belief that strong stands against the rank politics of identity compromise attempts to woo minority voters to the Republican fold.

In the wake of the proposition’s defeat, several things are apparent. Identity politics have reached a new high point, and their influence is nearly unalterable. Without strong leadership in favor of colorblind government from either the White House or California’s gubernatorial mansion, the movement to end racial classification finds itself in a very tough position.

It is nonetheless clear that the system of classifying Americans based on the color of their skin will eventually collapse under its own weight. Proposition 54 represented a nudge in the right direction. Americans increasingly are crossing the lines of so-called “race” or “ethnicity” to form families and have children. Being asked to check a box on a government form will offend more and more Americans who believe, as did Martin Luther King Jr., that the content of character is of far greater importance than the color of skin.

–Joe R. Hicks is the former Executive Director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission. He is the Vice President of Community Advocates, Inc.