Does article I, section 31 of the California Constitution bar affirmative action from being defined as "affirmative action"?

Relying on Lungren v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 435, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 690 ("Lungren "), the City argues article I, section 31, has a narrower reach. In Lungren, opponents of Proposition 209 asserted that the ballot title, label, and summary were misleading because they failed to identify the initiative as a prohibition of affirmative action. The superior court agreed, but the Third District reversed, holding that the Attorney General had not misled the public because he had merely incorporated the essential terms of the text into the ballot title and summary. To use the words "affirmative action" would have been "overinclusive" because "[m]ost definitions of the term would include not only the conduct which Proposition 209 would ban, i.e., discrimination and preferential treatment, but also other efforts such as outreach programs." (Id. at p. 442, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 690.)