AB 52 Codifies Racial Preferences in State Agriculture Policy

The California Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom have once again divided Californians by race. AB 52, chaptered as Chapter 495 of the Statutes of 2026, authorizes the Secretary of Food and Agriculture to create two advisory committees, one of them explicitly named the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) Producer Advisory Committee. The measure adds Section 513.5 to the Food and Agricultural Code to give this race-labeled body, along with a Small-Scale Producer Advisory Committee, formal standing to advise the secretary and the Department of Food and Agriculture on programs, policies, education, outreach, technical assistance and general needs under the Farmer Equity Act of 2017.

According to the official Legislative Counsel digest, the BIPOC committee's members must be small-scale or medium-scale socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers. The digest ties the new structure directly to the 2017 act's focus on "socially disadvantaged" producers, a category long understood to rest on race, color and ethnicity. The bill passed the Assembly 63-7 and the Senate 28-10 before the governor approved it on Sept. 27, 2026. It is now law.

This is not equal protection. The core principle of American governance, enshrined in the 14th Amendment and California's own Constitution, is that the law must treat every individual the same without regard to race. AB 52 discards that principle. It creates an official state-sanctioned voice for producers of certain racial and ethnic backgrounds while offering no parallel committee for producers who do not fit the BIPOC label. Every Californian who farms, regardless of ancestry, pays the taxes that fund the Department of Food and Agriculture. Yet the department is now statutorily encouraged to give preferential advisory access to one racial category over another.

The legislation's sponsors, led by Asm. Aguiar-Curry, chose to double down on identity politics rather than pursue race-neutral solutions. They could have created advisory committees based on farm size, production type, geographic region or actual economic need. Instead, they wrote a statute that literally names a committee after racial and ethnic identities. That choice sends a clear message: in Sacramento, skin color remains a qualifying credential for official influence. We reject that message. Merit, experience and equal citizenship should determine who advises state government, not melanin content or ancestral origin.

Supporters will argue the committees are merely advisory. That misses the point. Once government establishes a race-based body with statutory authority to shape policy, outreach and spending priorities, it institutionalizes the idea that some citizens' voices count more than others because of race. The likely result is that department resources, grant programs and regulatory attention will tilt toward the favored racial category. Even if the committees never cast a single binding vote, their very existence pressures officials to demonstrate they are listening to the BIPOC committee, creating an unequal seat at the table that taxpayers of all backgrounds are forced to subsidize.

This editorial board believes in colorblind equality. The law should not sort Californians into racial boxes labeled "BIPOC" and "non-BIPOC" and then hand one box an official microphone. Farmers of every background face weather, markets, labor costs and regulation. The proper role of the Department of Food and Agriculture is to serve all of them impartially, not to act as an arbiter of racial equity claims. By embedding a racially defined advisory committee in statute, AB 52 turns a government agency into an engine of identity-based preference.

The votes tell the story. Only seven Assembly members and ten senators were willing to stand against this racial classification. That thin resistance reveals how normalized race-conscious policymaking has become in Sacramento. Yet the principle at stake is too fundamental to shrug off as routine. When government declares that a farmer's race entitles him or her to a special advisory committee, it abandons the promise of equal treatment. It tells every child that their government's first question about their future career in agriculture may be "What race are you?" rather than "What can you produce?"

Taxpayers have every right to object. Their dollars will support an administrative apparatus that officially sorts beneficiaries by race. The Farmer Equity Act of 2017 already required inclusion of "socially disadvantaged" producers. AB 52 goes further by creating a permanent racial caucus inside the policymaking process. We fear this will not be the last such committee. Once Sacramento accepts that it is legitimate to name government bodies after favored racial groups, the logic invites endless replication across every state department.

California's strength has always come from treating individuals as individuals. Our agriculture sector, one of the most productive in the world, grew because talent, hard work and innovation were rewarded without regard to ancestry. AB 52 weakens that foundation. It replaces the standard of equal rights with a standard of racial balancing. That is bad policy, bad law and contrary to the colorblind ideal that every Californian deserves the same rights and the same opportunity under government.

The Newsline Editorial Board urges lawmakers to repeal the racial component of this statute and replace it with advisory structures based on neutral criteria that serve all producers equally. Until that happens, AB 52 stands as a statutory reminder that Sacramento still believes some citizens should be governed differently because of the color of their skin. We will continue to oppose every such measure. Equality under the law is not optional. It is the foundation of a just society, and it must apply to every Californian without exception.