“In Sacramento, Gov. proposed sweeping legislation to end racial discrimination in housing. ‘No man should be deprived of the right of acquiring a home of his own because of the color of his skin,’ Brown asserted. ” George Skelton, “Pat Brown Stood Firm on Civil Rights, ” Times, July 28, 2013 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-housing-20130729,0,5447474.column

As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington, a signal moment in the national struggle for civil rights, we recollect an historic event here in in that same year when Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown signed the Rumford Fair Housing Act. The Rumford Act was designed to eliminate racial discrimination in housing, five years before the federal Fair Housing Act. It was a landmark in the history of racial equality in America. The Pat Brown Institute at Cal State Los Angeles has commissioned a new historical essay by CSULA Emeritus Professor of History Professor Martin Schiesl on the creation of the Rumford Act. Professor Schiesl is a noted expert on Pat Brown’s governorship and in particular his deep commitment to racial equality. Dr. Schiesl’s essay makes clear that Governor Brown pushed hard for the law even when others, even within his own political camp, feared the political consequences. A year later voters approved Proposition 14 to overturn the Rumford Act, an action that was itself reversed by the courts. The law survived. The Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs was established at Cal State Los Angeles in 1987. The PBI is a nonpartisan, applied public policy center dedicated to the quest for social justice and equality of opportunity, enlightened civic engagement, and an enhanced quality of life for all Californians. It sustains the vision and legacy of the former governor through convening public policy forums, engaging multi-sector stakeholders and diverse communities, and conducting timely policy research and community-driven initiatives. To learn more about the Institute, see www.patbrowninstitute.org

With best regards,

Raphael Sonenshein Executive Director

5151 State University Drive Los Angeles, CA 90032 | T 323.343.3770 | F 323.343.3774 HISTORICAL ESSAY THE EDMUND G. “PAT” BROWN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS | California State University, Los Angeles

Residential Opportunity for All Californians: Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown and the Struggle for Fair Housing Legislation, 1959-1963

By Martin Schiesl Professor Emeritus of History California State University, Los Angeles

August, 2013

Discrimination and segregation in housing existed newcomers, of whom some had arrived to work in technical throughout metropolitan California in the 1950s. Most real estate jobs in defense firms, only found housing in the northern part brokers kept African- Americans and other racial minorities away of Pacoima.4 Urban housing in was equally from white neighborhoods and restricted them to districts where segregated. Nonwhite residents lived in the central, oldest, and minorities already lived. Many landlords also refused to rent to poorest parts of and other cities.5 Even if they people of color.1 Los Angeles was the most segregated city in the could afford housing in outlying communities, most of the new state. The black population rose from 171,209 in 1950 to 334,916 homes were not available to them. Some 335,000 homes were in 1960; ninety-four per cent of them lived in the south central built in six San Francisco Bay Area counties from 1950 to 1958, of part of the city.2 Many of the houses were deteriorated and which only 3,000 were sold to nonwhite buyers.6 dilapidated through age and neglect. The residents also suffered Such segregation would face strong opposition from much overcrowding, a lack of public services, and an unhealthy liberal leaders of the Democratic party in California. Running in mixture of industrial and residential land use.3 1958 on a platform partly devoted to racial reform, Attorney General Edmund G. “Pat” Brown defeated Republican Senator William F. Knowland by a million votes and carried 54 of the state’s 58 counties. The Democrats also won control of both houses of the legislature for the first time since 1878. Governor Brown called for a law that would end employment discrimination.

African Americans were kept out of many residential areas of Los Angeles in the 1950s.

There was also considerable housing discrimination in the San Fernando Valley. The Valley’s population jumped from 311,106 to 739,570 in the 1950s. Most private builders and developers chose not to sell homes to nonwhite families and isolated them from numerous residential tracts. Black Assemblymen (left) and Augustus F. Hawkins (right) discuss legislative matters, ca 1960.

Policy briefs are available on the Pat Brown Institute website: www.patbrowninstitute.org Assemblymen Augustus F. Hawkins and William Byron Rumford, Act, could hire a lawyer and pursue litigation until a remedy was available. This the only African-American members of the legislature, secured passage of the process, however, was a heavy burden on many minority citizens who could not Fair Employment Practices Act in April, 1959. The Act prohibited discriminatory afford the litigation. The new bill provided that the FEPC would enforce the practices in the workplace and established the Fair Employment Practices discrimination ban. The Commission was authorized to receive complaints Commission (FEPC) to guard against such behavior. Racial injustice was also of of discrimination and to do its own investigation. In cases where there was much concern to Democratic Assemblyman Jesse Unruh. Marv Holen, a member clear evidence of discrimination, the commission could ask for a court injunction of Unruh’s staff, met with Lee Nichols, a local television reporter and graduate against those responsible for such behavior.12 of a school in Los Angeles that had denied admission to a black child. They The California Committee for Fair Practices held a rally for the fair drafted an extensive civil rights bill for Unruh. He inserted in the measure an housing bill in Sacramento in April, 1961. Delegates from civic organizations amendment to the California Civil Code that extended sanctions against throughout the state attended the event. Among the speakers were Governor discrimination to all public accomodations. It also forbade discrimination in Brown, Assemblymen Hawkins and William Byron Rumford, and Tarea Hall business dealings, including all real estate transactions. Anyone who suffered Pittman, regional director of the NAACP. Brown promised that he would “put this practice could recover damages in the courts. With substantial support from the full power of government behind the effort to eliminate discrimination in Governor Brown, Unruh moved his civil rights bill through the legislature in the field of housing.”13 The bill passed the Assembly by a margin of 44 to May, 1959.7 31. It moved on to the Senate and was reviewed by the Committee on Another racial issue in housing practices involved the federal Governmental Efficiency. Headed by conservative Democrat Luther Gibson, government. Many of the houses built in white suburban districts were the committee added amendments that restricted the discrimination ban financed with mortgage insurance from the Federal Housing Administration and to publicly-assisted housing and sent the measure to the Governor’s Advisory loans from the Veterans Administration. Together, these agencies insured about Commission on Housing Problems for further study.14 sixty per cent of new homes in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1950s.8 Leaders The Commission decided to examine the Unruh Civil Rights Act and of the California branch of the National Association for the Advance- the Hawkins Fair Housing Act. It concluded that both laws, while major advances ment of Colored People (NAACP) strongly objected to these practices and in the regulation of housing, did not cover the “bulk of the housing in which asked Assemblyman to take action. Hawkins drafted a fair discrimination is practiced.” It proposed that they be amended to prohibit housing bill that prohibited discrimination in all publicly-assisted housing. discrimination in “all real estate operations” and recommended that Backing the measure were the NAACP, the Mexican American Community enforcement authority be assigned to the FEPC.15 Service Organization, some labor unions, and many church councils. It carried The real estate industry also came under attack by state Attorney in the Assembly by a vote of 67 to 9 and passed unanimously in the Senate General . In the spring of 1962, the Chicago Commission on Human in May, 1959.9 “Frankly speaking, some of us (Democrats) were afraid that an Relations did a survey of the racial composition of local boards of the National act which included private housing would not pass, and we wanted a half loaf Association of Real Estate Boards in major cities. Of forty-two boards, five had rather than lose everything,” Hawkins declared at a hearing on racial problems in two black members, four had one member, and twenty-eight had none. In California held by the United States Commission on Civil Rights in early 1960.”10 California, only Berkeley and San Francisco admitted blacks. Announcing that Governor Brown, however, insisted on the whole loaf. Housing “discriminatory practices bear no relation to the legitimate ends and purposes discrimination, he believed, would continue unless the state took steps to for which realty boards are organized,” Mosk ruled that all boards in the state guarantee residential opportunity for all California residents. He told the must admit black realtors.16 Civil Rights Commission that government could no longer “hide behind the Pat Brown pushed action against housing discrimination to a reactionary and discredited folk tale that segregation and discrimination are higher level. Running for re-election in November of 1962, he defeated former natural and tolerable because minorities prefer to be restricted in the ghetto.”11 Vice President by almost 300,000 votes. Democrats also won a He persuaded Hawkins to draft a new housing bill in early 1961. It extended number of contests and retained their majority in the legislature.17 “When the ban on discrimination in publicly-assisted homes to private housing. It also discrimination exists in private housing, the disadvantages to our whole society provided different enforcement. A complainant, under the Unruh Civil Rights are obvious,” Brown told the legislature in February, 1963. “Tensions are

2 aggravated. Our American principles of equality are ignored.” Drawing on the Political developments in Berkeley created a difficult situation for report of the Advisory Commission on Housing Problems, he called for an Rumford. In January, 1963, the city council, in an effort to dismantle segregated expansion of the Hawkins Act to cover most housing on the market for rental neighborhoods and establish integrated schools, passed an ordinance that or sale and urged that the FEPC “be given the same authority with respect to prohibited discrimination because of color, race, religion, national origin, or housing that it has with respect to employment.”18 ancestry in the rental, sale, or leasing of housing accomodations. It also provided a fine and jail sentence for violation of the law. Several homeowner groups, backed by the Berkeley real estate board and the California Real Estate Association, gathered enough signatures to hold a citywide referendum, giving voters an opportunity to overturn the ordinance.20 Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh saw the referendum as a danger to Democratic legislators and the Rumford housing bill. “I don’t want to hoist a storm warning on this (Berkeley referendum),” he told a group of reporters. “There is still a great deal of discrimination in California and legislation may be needed to fight it but we have also come a fair way in this field. I would not like to jeopardize what we have done already by precipitous action in the future.”21 Leading NAACP attorney Loren Miller strongly disagreed. He had long fought against housing segregation in Los Angeles. “California cannot and should not rest in the halfway house on the road to equality,” he wrote in a letter to Unruh in February, 1963. “It must be either move forward or it will regress. Refusal of the legislators to consider and enact housing legislation will not constitute a ‘breathing spell’ but rather a turning back from a task undertaken four years ago.”22 One month later, several prominent persons attended a hearing of the Assembly Committee on Efficiency and Economy and forcefully endorsed Assemblymen William Byron Rumford confers with Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, ca 1960. the Rumford measure. Among them were Attorney General Stanley Mosk, NAACP director Tarea Hall Pittman, and Thomas Pitt, executive secretary of the Few legislators could meet Brown’s request better than William California Federation of Labor. The committee added a few amendments and Byron Rumford. He had considerable experience in dealing with racial issues. returned the bill to the Assembly with a recommendation that it be passed.23 Elected from Berkeley to the Assembly in 1948, Rumford won passage in 1949 The next hurdle was the Ways and Means Committee. Some of a bill that barred discrimination in the state National Guard. He served on the members of the committee objected to the penalty provision of the bill. The Civil Service Committee which addressed issues of discrimination in government housing controversy in Berkeley didn’t help matters. In April, voters overturned employment and co-authored the 1959 Fair Employment Practices Act. Augus- the fair housing law and elected a mayor and two council members who tus Hawkins was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1962. had opposed integrated housing.24 Worried about the impact of the When Hawkins left Sacramento for Washington, D.C., Rumford replaced him Berkeley election on the legislature, Unruh persuaded Rumford to add two key as the chief legislative strategist in fair housing. He took sections of the amendments to his bill. One removed the penalty provision and gave the FEPC Unruh and Hawkins’ Acts and put them in a new fair housing bill. The new bill power to issue restraining orders. The other changed the coverage of housing provided that the FEPC would enforce the discrimination ban. The commission without public assistance from a single unit occupied by the owner to “not more was authorized to receive complaints of discrimination and to do its own than four units occupied in whole or in part by the owner as his residence.” investigation. Rumford presented the bill in the Assembly. After some debate, it The Ways and Means committee returned the bill to the lower house with the was referred to the Committee on Economy and Efficiency for review.19 recommendation that it be passed with the amendments. The bill met

3 with criticism and hostility from some conservative legislators. The Assembly of the session, Rumford persuaded Luther Gibson to return it to the full Senate approved the measure by a vote of 47 to 25, with all Democrats and three on July 21. Assembly Speaker Unruh provided vital support. He announced that Republicans voting for it.25 there would be no vote on senate bills until the upper house acted on the The bill moved on to the Senate. Albert McKee, head of the Rumford measure.29 Associated Real Property Brokers, an organization composed mostly of At 11:00 P.M., an hour before adjournment, Democrat Edwin J. black realtors, attended a hearing of the Committee on Governmental Regan asked for a vote. Senate president Hugh Burns, a conservative Efficiency in May and spoke strongly in favor of the measure. Arguing Democrat, refused his request. Regan demanded a vote on his motion, got it against it were member of several financial institutions and suburban real passed by 20 to 16, and cleared the way for a vote on the Rumford bill. estate agencies. Chairman Luther Gibson announced that the committee would The Senate passed the bill by a margin of 22 to 13 and sent it back to the lower vote on the bill the following week. The meeting was postponed.26 This delay house. The Rumford Fair Housing Act carried in the Assembly by 63 to 9, just ignited much discontent in the chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in minutes before the 1963 legislative session ended. It covered all publicly-assisted Sacramento. Several members of the group occupied the second floor rotunda housing and seventy per cent of private housing.30 between the Senate and Assembly and vowed to stay until the Rumford bill was Rumford received a standing ovation from the Assembly and the passed. Governor Brown, who was giving two of his grandchildren a tour of the CORE demonstrators who had slept on the floor for three weeks broke into a Capitol, visited some of the CORE demonstrators and thanked them for backing victory song. Governor Brown called the measure “an historic step toward giving the bill.27 every Californian the right to live where he pleases” and signed the bill with Brown was upset with the delay over the measure. He asked the much pride one month afterwards.31 Years later he stated that the Rumford Act Democratic organization, both the official party and the numerous volunteer was “one of the great victories” of his career.32 activists, to get more directly involved in the campaign for fair housing. Under Pat Brown’s dynamic leadership, California emerged in 1963 Members of the State Central Committee and leaders of the California Democratic as the model of racial reform in the western United States. It became the fifth Council, an organization composed of volunteer political clubs throughout the state to have a fair housing law.33 The Rumford Act moved California far down state, met in Sacramento and demanded passage of the Rumford bill. The the road of social equality. It provided African Americans and other racial Governmental Efficiency Committee held another meeting on June 14 and minorities with an enormous legal wall against housing discrimination and invited Rumford and several other legislators. Luther Gibson spoke against the segregation. bill. He claimed that it infringed upon the property rights of individual homeowners and stated that his committee would “never approve a bill prohibiting discrimination in private housing.” Several CORE members were in the room and loudly protested against his opposition. Gibson proposed an amendment that provided that the measure apply to single-unit homes only if they had publicly-assisted financing. Rumford informed him that such loans accounted for just twenty-five per cent of new single unit dwellings in the state. He rejected the amendment and insisted that private housing remain part of his bill.28 Pressured by Governor Brown, the Governmental Efficiency Committee resumed review of the measure. The committee added some minor amendments and returned it to the upper house. The bill moved on to the Senate Finance Committee, which returned it to Gibson’s committee with a recommendation that it be approved. Many other measures, however, were scheduled ahead of the bill. Fearful that his bill might be shelved until the end

4 END NOTES

1. Davis McIntire, Residence and Race: Final Compre- Institute of Government Studies, , hensive Report to the Commission on Race and Housing (Berke- Berkeley, 1967), 14-15. ley: University of California Press, 1960), 239-241; Herbert Hill, 15. Governor’s Advisory Commission on Housing “Demographic Change and Racial Ghettos: The Crisis of American Problems, Report on Housing in California (San Francisco, Cities,” Journal of Urban Law 44 (1966): 249; Robert W. Cherny, 1963), 67-68. Richard Griswold Castillo, and Gretchen Lemke-Santangelo, 16. “Mosk Rules California R E Boards Must Open Competing Visions: A History of California (Boston: Houghton Rosters,” Trends in Housing 6 (September-October 1962): 2. Mifflin, 2005), 324-325. 17. Ethan Rarick, California Rising: The Life and Times 2. Los Angeles County Commission on Human of Pat Brown (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 246. Relations, Population and Housing in Los Angeles County: A 18. “Statement of Governor Edmund G. Brown on Study in the Growth of Residential Segregation (Los Angeles: Los Civil Rights,” February 14, 1963, Journal of the Assembly, Angeles County Commission on Human Relations, 1963), folder Legislature of the State of California, Regular Session, vol. 1, 7 “Housing,” box 19, Mervyn M. Dymally Papers, John F. Kennedy January-21 June 1963, 625. Memorial Library, California State University, Los Angeles, 1. 19. William Byron Rumford, “Legislator for Fair 3. Commission on Race and Housing, Where Shall We Employment, Fair Housing, and Public Health,” Live? Report of the Commission on Race and Housing (Berkeley: Oral History Project, conducted by Joyce A. Henderson, Amelia University of California Press, 1958), 4-5; Cherny, Castillo, and Fry, and Edward France, Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft Lemke-Santangelo, Competing Visions, 325. Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1973, 39-42, 55-56, 4. Los Angeles County Commission on Human 114; Casstevens, Politics, Housing and Race Relations, 20, 22. Relations, Population and Housing, 3; Daniel Hosang, “Race and 20. Thomas W. Casstevens, “The Defeat of Berke- the Mythology of California’s Lost Paradise,” Boom: A Journal of ley’s Fair Housing Ordinance,” in Lynn W. Eley and Thomas W. California 1 (Spring 2011): 37. Casstevens, eds. The Politics of Fair Housing Legislation: State 5. McIntire, Residence and Race, 38-39; Commission and Local Case Studies (San Francisco: Chandler, 1968), 207, 216-17. on Race and Housing, Where Shall We Live?, 4. 21. “Unruh Sees Implications in Housing Bias Vote,” 6. Hill, “Demographic Change and Racial Ghettos,” 251. Los Angeles Times, February 26, 1963. See also Bill Boyarsky, 7. Martin Schiesl, “The Struggle for Equality: Racial Big Daddy: Jesse Unruh and the Art of Power Politics (Berkeley: Reform and Party Politics in California, 1950-1966,” in Martin University of California Press, 2008), 98. Schiesl, ed., Responsible Liberalism: Edmund G. “Pat” Brown 22. Josh Sides, L.A. City Limits: African American Los and Reform Government in California, 1958-1967 (Los Angeles: Angeles from the to the Present (Berkeley: Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Institute of Public Affairs, California State University of California Press, 2003), 99; Loren Miller to Jesse University, Los Angeles, 2003), 104-107. Unruh, February 26, 1963, folder 3, box 12, Loren Miller Papers, 8. Hill, “Demographic Change and Racial Ghettos,” 251. Huntington Library, San Marino, California. 9. “Fair Housing Bill Wins Crucial Vote,” folder “Press 23. Casstevens, Politics, Housing and Race Relations, Releases. 1959,” box 99, Augustus F. Hawkins Papers, Department 23-24. of Special Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library, Univer- 24. Casstevens, “Defeat of Berkeley’s Fair-Housing sity of California, Los Angeles; Schiesl, “The Struggle for Equality,” Ordinance,” 226. 107. 25. Rumford, “Legislator for Fair Employment,” 115- 10. Hearings before the United States Commission 116; Lawrence W. Crouchett, William Byron Rumford: The Life on Civil Rights (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, and Public Services of a California Legislator (El Cerrito, CA: 1960), 124. Downey Place Publishing House, 1984), 65. 11. Ibid., 633. 26. Crouchett, William Byron Rumford, 66; Casste- 12. Schiesl, “The Struggle for Equality,” 108. vens, Politics, Housing and Race Relations, 30-31. 13. “Rally for Fair Housing. The Hawkins Bill ( A.B. 27. “Race Equality Body Stages Sit-in,” Sacramento 801),” folder 2-5, box 2, Max Mont Collection, Urban Archives Bee, May 29, 1963; “Brown Thanks Sit-in Group,” San Francisco Center, California State University, Northridge; “Address by Gover- Chronicle, May 31, 1963. nor Edmund G. Brown,” April 15, 1961, ibid. 28. Crouchett, William Byron Rumford, 66; A. E. Ly- 14. Thomas W. Casstevens, Politics, Housing and Race ons, “Chances for Fai Housing Bill Collapse Amid Verbal Battle,” Relations: California’s Rumford Act and Proposition 14 (Berkeley: Sacramento Bee, June 14, 1963.

5 29. Casstevens, Politics, Housing and Race Relations, 34-36. 30. Ibid., 37. 31. “Applause Resounds in Capitol,” Sacramento Bee, June 22, 1963; Rarick, California Rising, 265-267. 32. Edmund G. Brown, Sr., “Years of Growth, 1939- 1966: Law Enforcement, Politics, and the Governor’s Office, an oral history conducted 1977-1981 by Malca Chall, Amelia R. Fry, Gabrielle Morris, and James Rowland, Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1982, 493. 33 “Calif. and Conn. Enact Fair Housing Statutes,” Trends in Housing 7 (May-June 1963): 1, 4.

Martin Schiesl is Professor Emeritus of History at California State University, Los Angeles. His specialties are the history of urban America in the twentieth century and the social, political, and governmental histories of Los Angeles and California since 1900. He is the author of The Politics of Efficiency: Municipal Administration and Reform in America, 1880-1920, co-editor of 20 th Century Los Angeles: Power, Promotion, and Social Conflict,editor of Responsible Liberalism: Edmund G. “Pat” Brown and Reform Government in California, 1958-1967, and co-editor of City of Promise: Race and Historical Change in Los Angeles. He is currently writing a book on the policies, programs, and achievements of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in California from 1940 to 1980.

6