Affirmative Action Ban up to Voters Now
Affirmative Action Ban up to Voters Now
Battle over change to state constitution likely to be tough one
Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060331/NEWS06/603310302/1056/SPORTS06
By Dawson Bell / Free Press Staff Writer
March 31, 2006
Michigan voters will make the next decision in what is shaping up as an emotional and divisive campaign to ban race and gender preferences in university admissions and government hiring and contracting.
On Thursday, the Michigan Supreme Court put an end to the long, litigious and occasionally raucous fight over whether the issue should go on the Nov. 7 ballot. The court decided not to hear arguments on whether the backers of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative misled people who signed their petitions.
The ballot initiative would amend the state Constitution "to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin" in government hiring, contracting and university admissions.
What that would mean in practical terms is a matter of intense disagreement. Backers generally argue it would end the use of race in college admissions decisions like those made regarding applicants to the University of Michigan, and require the government to make race- and gender-neutral decisions. Opponents say the effects would be far-reaching, preventing any consideration in government to provide opportunity to minorities and women.
But the emotional heat generated by the affirmative action debate often is about much more than the immediate, everyday reality.
The Rev. Franklin Raines III, pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Detroit, said he worries that the ballot fight will add to the racial divide in an already politically polarized country.
"I think it will be a great detriment to our society," said Raines. "I do believe that if the playing field were equal, then one would not need affirmative action. Our society is not an equal playing field, and until we are all looked upon and respected as equals then we will not have a level playing field."
Jennifer Gratz, the director of the initiative who is formerly of Southgate, said the playing field won't be level as long as it is official government policy to treat people differently based on race.
Rejected in 1995 when she applied for admission as an undergraduate to the University of Michigan, she became a lead plaintiff in a lawsuit that charged that less-qualified minority applicants were admitted. The U.S. Supreme Court narrowly decided the case in favor of U-M in 2003.
A day after that ruling, the leading national figure in the fight over affirmative action, Ward Connerly, announced he would take the case to Michigan voters. Connerly, a businessman, had led a successful California state ballot campaign to ban affirmative action.
Michigan, Connerly then said, "has become the center of gravity for determining whether this nation is going to be color blind or whether it's going to classify and divide people on the basis of race."
MCRI collected more than 500,000 signatures early last year in an effort to qualify for the 2006 election. That was after the organization pulled the plug on a petition drive aimed at the 2004 election. That effort, too, was the subject of many, ultimately unsuccessful court challenges, but was abandoned because organizers decided they wouldn't have enough time to marshal a winning campaign.
Thursday, the state Supreme Court rejected an appeal from affirmative action supporters, removing the last serious legal barrier to a vote.
Gratz said the ruling "really doesn't change anything. The only thing I would hope is that our opposition would finally begin to talk about the issue instead of trying to distract and scare people."
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit, led by the group By Any Means Necessary, or BAMN, claimed that MCRI misled tens of thousands of people who signed the petitions to place the issue before voters.
Shanta Driver, one of the BAMN attorneys, said the Supreme Court's decision "sends a message ... that they won't defend the rights of blacks, Latinos and other minorities."
But Wayne State University Law Professor Robert Sedler, who opposes the measure, said Thursday's ruling was not a surprise. Michigan has a long tradition of resolving legal disputes in favor of those seeking access to the ballot, he said.
"Once people have signed, you're not going to get a court to throw it out," he said.
Opponents of the proposal include a virtual Who's Who of Michigan religious, business, labor and public institutions.
They also include BAMN and more radical allies.
Late last year, the group brought busloads of Detroit schoolchildren to a meeting of the state elections board in Lansing, prompting a near riot. Another rally is scheduled for today at the state Capitol.
BAMN attorney Driver said the group will call on Gov. Jennifer Granholm, an opponent of MCRI, to keep the measure off the ballot.
Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said, however, "No one has identified any clear legal authority that would allow the governor to do that."
Granholm will focus on "encouraging people to oppose" the initiative, Boyd said.
Contact DAWSON BELL at 313-222-6604 or dbell@freepress.com . Staff writer Patricia Montemurri contributed to this report .
Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page