SACRAMENTO, CA - On Tuesday, 61 percent of California voters improved the state's educational and fiscal prospects by rejecting Proposition 82, an expensive government pre-school measure of dubious merit that would have raised already high taxes and expanded state power. Proposition 82 will not take effect, a contrast to past elections in which the voice of the people has not exactly been followed.

Voters confused by ballots in Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese and Tagalog might not be aware that Californians weighed in on the language issue 20 years ago. That is, a full two decades before the U.S. Senate voted - with 34 senators opposed - to make English the "national" language of the entire country.

The ballot in 1986 included Proposition 63, a measure that made English the official language of California. The measure enjoyed the backing of former Senator S.I. Hayakawa but was opposed by then-Governor George Deukmejian and state Attorney General John Van de Kamp. Professional ethnics charged that the measure was xenophobic, "a balding, pot-bellied, frightened, third- or fourth-generation proposition," according to Mexican-American commentator Richard Rodriguez. Many disagreed, including Hispanics.

Californians passed Proposition 63 in a landslide, with 73 percent of the vote, more than the 65-percent margin of Proposition 13, the 1978 ballot initiative to limit property taxes. Despite that margin, a Nexis search in May
revealed only two articles reminding Californians that English is the state's official language, not that it made much difference. State officials consider Proposition 63 to be advisory, not binding. That would come as a surprise to the 73 percent who voted for it, just as those who rejected Proposition 82 would be stunned if the state defied the people and went ahead with Rob Reiner's government pre-school plan.

The 1986 victory for official English did not change the practice of bilingual education, in reality a kind of instructional apartheid exclusively Spanish. Those programs were damaging the test scores and career prospects of many children but a politically correct education establishment resisted change. Voters finally had their say.

In 1998, Proposition 227 set out to eliminate bilingual education as it had existed in California for 30 years. President Clinton opposed it, and so did the chairmen of the California Republican and Democratic parties, all candidates for governor, most major newspapers, and the education establishment. The people of California took a different view and passed the measure in a landslide, with 61 percent of the vote.

Even former partisans of bilingual education agree that Prop 227 has made a positive difference. But the education establishment tries to get around the measure with waivers and other tactics, and would favor a return to the status quo. So would some politicians, whose views sometimes run contrary to those of the people.

A decade ago, Californians were the first to vote on a system of racial preferences that had been imposed by politicians and bureaucrats. In 1996, Proposition 209 proposed to eliminate racial preferences in state education, employment and contracting. It was opposed by President Clinton, many state politicians, and the education establishment. Californians passed Proposition 209 by 54 percent but did not get a good return on their vote.

Enforcement of Proposition 209 has been lax, with some cities remaining in blatant violation. The University of California has tried to skirt Prop. 209 and rig admissions. The system remains as racially conscious as ever, even though since 2001 there is no ethnic majority in California. Public policy should reflect that reality, along with election results.

The vote against Proposition 82 was not advisory or merely symbolic. Neither were those that made English California's official language, dumped bilingual education, and eliminated racial preferences in state education, employment, and contracting. But discrepancies remain between the voice of the people and politically correct state officialdom.

Responsible government, under the rule of law, involves not only heeding the voice of the people but carrying it out. In California, which so often influences national policy, a vote should have consequences.

K. Lloyd Billingsley is editorial director at the Pacific Research Institute. He can be reached via email at klbillingsley@pacificresearch.org.