California Article I (part 1): Liberty, privacy and equality
On this page (14 sections)
- Why the state rights matter
- Section 1: Inalienable rights and privacy
- Section 1.1: Reproductive freedom
- Section 5: The military
- Section 6: Slavery
- Section 7: Due process and equal protection
- Section 7.5: Marriage
- Sections 8–11: Business, contracts, debt, habeas corpus
- Sections 20–22: Noncitizens, separate property, no property test for voting
- Section 31: No preferences (Proposition 209)
- In Williams
- Common misconceptions
- Check yourself
- Sources cited on this page
Article I is California's Declaration of Rights. It's longer than the federal Bill of Rights and often protects more. This lesson covers its liberty and equality sections. Speech and religion, criminal justice, and property are in the next three lessons.
Key takeaways
- California's privacy right is written into §1 and applies to private businesses as well as government.
- §7 gives due process and equal protection under state law, which California courts can read more broadly than the Fourteenth Amendment.
- §7(b) bans special privileges "not granted on the same terms to all citizens."
- §31 (Proposition 209) bans race and sex preferences in public employment, education and contracting, including by cities.
Why the state rights matter
"Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution" (§24) Verified1. The U.S. Supreme Court accepts a state's "sovereign right to adopt in its own constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution" (PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980)) Verified2. See Criminal justice: §24 for the criminal-case exception.
Section 1: Inalienable rights and privacy
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. [New section adopted November 5, 1974.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
- Privacy by initiative. The word "privacy" was added "by an initiative adopted by the voters on November 7, 1972" Verified3.
- Early application. In White v. Davis (1975), police "undercover agents" registered as UCLA students and reported on class discussions. The court held the complaint stated "a prima facie violation of freedom of speech and of assembly as well as of the state constitutional right of privacy" (White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757) Verified4.
- Private actors too. In Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, when the NCAA argued the privacy right couldn't be used against a private organization, the California Supreme Court answered: "We disagree" Verified3. A plaintiff must first identify "a specific, legally protected privacy interest" Verified3.
Section 1.1: Reproductive freedom
The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection. [New section adopted November 8, 2022. Effective December 21, 2022.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
Adopted November 8, 2022, effective December 21, 2022 Verified1, after Dobbs held "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion" Verified5. Our reading: this is the clearest example of California protecting a right the federal Constitution no longer does.
Section 5: The military
The military is subordinate to civil power. A standing army may not be maintained in peacetime. Soldiers may not be quartered in any house in wartime except as prescribed by law, or in peacetime without the owner’s consent. [New section adopted November 5, 1974.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
California's version of the Third Amendment, plus a ban on a peacetime standing army Verified1. See the Third Amendment.
Section 6: Slavery
Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime. [New section adopted November 5, 1974.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
Matches the Thirteenth Amendment, including the exception "to punish crime."
Section 7: Due process and equal protection
(a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation. In enforcing this subdivision or any other provision of this Constitution, no court of this State may impose upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligation or responsibility with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation, (1) except to remedy a specific violation by such party that would also constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and (2) unless a federal court would be permitted under federal decisional law to impose that obligation or responsibility upon such party to remedy the specific violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Except as may be precluded by the Constitution of the United States, every existing judgment, decree, writ, or other order of a court of this State, whenever rendered, which includes provisions regarding pupil school assignment or pupil transportation, or which requires a plan including any such provisions shall, upon application to a court having jurisdiction by any interested person, be modified to conform to the provisions of this subdivision as amended, as applied to the facts which exist at the time of such modification. In all actions or proceedings arising under or seeking application of the amendments to this subdivision proposed by the Legislature at its 1979–80 Regular Session, all courts, wherein such actions or proceedings are or may hereafter be pending, shall give such actions or proceedings first precedence over all other civil actions therein.
Nothing herein shall prohibit the governing board of a school district from voluntarily continuing or commencing a school integration plan after the effective date of this subdivision as amended. In amending this subdivision, the Legislature and people of the State of California find and declare that this amendment is necessary to serve compelling public interests, including those of making the most effective use of the limited financial resources now and prospectively available to support public education, maximizing the educational opportunities and protecting the health and safety of all public school pupils, enhancing the ability of parents to participate in the educational process, preserving harmony and tranquility in this State and its public schools, preventing the waste of scarce fuel resources, and protecting the environment.
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked. [As amended November 6, 1979.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
Subdivision (a) mirrors the Fourteenth Amendment. Most of its length concerns school busing; voters added language limiting state courts to federal equal protection standards on pupil assignment and transportation Verified1.
State due process can protect more. The California Supreme Court held that state due process "must be determined in the context of the individual's due process liberty interest in freedom from arbitrary adjudicative procedures," so even when someone loses a benefit the law doesn't treat as property, they may get a chance to respond (People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260) Verified6.
State equal protection can protect more. In Serrano v. Priest (1971), the court held "that the right to an education in our public schools is a fundamental interest which cannot be conditioned on wealth" (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584) Verified7.
Selective enforcement. A person singled out for prosecution by invidious discrimination has a defense: "such a prosecution must collapse upon the sands of prejudice" (Murgia v. Municipal Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 286) Verified8. Allegations of "a conscious policy of selective enforcement directed against members or supporters of a particular labor organization" were enough to get discovery Verified8.
Subdivision (b): no special privileges. "A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens" Verified1. Our reading: it's California's own text against favoritism in permits, waivers and enforcement.
Section 7.5: Marriage
(a) The right to marry is a fundamental right.
(b) This section is in furtherance of both of the following:
(1) The inalienable rights to enjoy life and liberty and to pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy guaranteed by Section 1.
(2) The rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed by Section 7.
[New section adopted November 5, 2024. Effective December 18, 2024.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
Added November 5, 2024, replacing the former §7.5, which was repealed the same day Verified1. The former section came from 2008's Proposition 8: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" Verified9. The California Supreme Court had held Proposition 8 a valid amendment, not a revision (Strauss v. Horton (2009) 46 Cal.4th 364) Verified9; Obergefell (2015) later held the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license same-sex marriages Verified10.
Sections 8–11: Business, contracts, debt, habeas corpus
A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin. [Former Section 18 of Article XX, as renumbered and amended November 5, 1974.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
A bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts may not be passed. [New section adopted November 5, 1974.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
Witnesses may not be unreasonably detained. A person may not be imprisoned in a civil action for debt or tort, or in peacetime for a militia fine. [New section adopted November 5, 1974.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
Habeas corpus may not be suspended unless required by public safety in cases of rebellion or invasion. [New section adopted November 5, 1974.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
- §8 bans disqualifying people from a business or job because of "sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin."
- §9 copies the federal bans on bills of attainder, ex post facto laws and impairing contracts (Article I, §10).
- §10 bans jail for civil debt. Our reading: unpaid city fees and civil penalties can be collected by liens and lawsuits, not by jailing the debtor.
- §11 limits suspending habeas corpus to rebellion or invasion.
Sections 20–22: Noncitizens, separate property, no property test for voting
Noncitizens have the same property rights as citizens. [New section adopted November 5, 1974.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
Property owned before marriage or acquired during marriage by gift, will, or inheritance is separate property. [Former Section 8 of Article XX, as renumbered November 5, 1974.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
The right to vote or hold office may not be conditioned by a property qualification. [New section adopted November 5, 1974.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
§22 means no one needs to own property to vote or hold office in Williams Verified1.
Section 31: No preferences (Proposition 209)
(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section’s effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.
(f) For the purposes of this section, “State” shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party’s race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section. [New section adopted November 5, 1996. Initiative measure.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
It applies to "any city" (§31(f)) Verified1. San Jose required contractors to reach out to or use minority- and women-owned subcontractors. The court held "the City's Program is unconstitutional because the outreach option affords preferential treatment to MBE/WBE subcontractors on the basis of race or sex" (Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose (2000) 24 Cal.4th 537) Verified11.
In Williams
- City contracts can't use race or sex preferences (§31) Verified111.
- Code enforcement that targets one group or person for improper reasons can be challenged under §7 and Murgia Verified8.
- Privacy limits what the city can collect and disclose, and §3(b)(3) keeps the public-records right from overriding it. See Speech, religion and open government.
- Favoritism. §7(b) is a state-law hook against waivers granted to some and not others Verified1.
Common misconceptions
- "California's equal protection is the same as federal." Often similar, but California courts can and do go further (Serrano) Verified7.
- "Privacy only limits government." §1 reaches private actors too Verified3.
Check yourself
Pick an answer for each question. You will see right away if it is right, and why.
Show the answer and why
November 7, 1972, by initiative Verified3.
Show the answer and why
Yes. "State" includes "any city" (§31(f)) Verified1.
Show the answer and why
Education is a fundamental interest under state equal protection that can't be conditioned on wealth Verified7.
Show the answer and why
A person may not be imprisoned in a civil action for debt or tort Verified1.
Show the answer and why
Answer: City contracts can't use race or sex preferences.
§31 bars the State, which includes any city, from granting preferential treatment on the basis of race or sex in public contracting.
From this lesson: “- City contracts can't use race or sex preferences (§31).”
Sources cited on this page
- Constitutions of California and the United States, 2025-26 edition (PDF) California Constitution as last amended November 5, 2024. ↗
- PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) Opinion text read on Cornell's Legal Information Institute (free copy, not the official U.S. Reports). ↗
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 Opinion text read on a free copy, not the official reporter. Confirm before relying on it. ↗
- White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757 Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
- People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260 Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
- Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584 Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
- Murgia v. Municipal Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 286 Opinion text read on a free copy, not the official reporter. Confirm before relying on it. ↗
- Strauss v. Horton (2009) 46 Cal.4th 364 Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
- Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose (2000) 24 Cal.4th 537 Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
Page last updated: · Site last built: