Affirmative Action Vote Sought - Appellate Court: Citizens Should Decide on Ballot Whether Race Should Be Factor in Hiring, Admissions

The Detroit News

Mark Hornbeck

November 1, 2005

LANSING -- A constitutional amendment banning racial preferences in university admissions and government hiring was ordered on next year's statewide ballot by an appellate court Monday.

A three-member panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals directed the Board of State Canvassers to place the controversial proposal on the November 2006 ballot.

After an emotional seven-hour debate in July, the board deadlocked over certifying a half-million petition signatures gathered to put the affirmative action ban before voters.

"We had faith in the process. We knew we would prevail," said Jennifer Gratz, who is heading the campaign on behalf of the proposal.

"Voters should have a say over whether government can use race as a factor in public employment, education and contracting."

By Any Means Necessary, a national group that opposes the racial preference ban, vowed to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.

"The irony is that in the week when the country is paying tribute to Rosa Parks, this is an effort to turn Michigan civil rights efforts back to pre-1950 levels," said David Waymire, spokesman for One United Michigan, a coalition of business, labor, religious and political groups opposed to the plan.

Challengers argued that petition circulators misled voters into believing that the proposal would strengthen affirmation action programs.

Backers denied the charge and insisted that the scope of the canvassers' duty is limited to determining whether enough valid signatures -- 317,757 -- were collected.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the initiative supporters.

"We find that the board does not have the authority to investigate the allegations asserted by the challengers," the order reads. "The board breached its legal duty to certify the petition, because the petition was in the proper form and had sufficient signatures."

The constitutional amendment was prompted by a mixed Supreme Court ruling on the use of racial preferences in University of Michigan admissions. Gratz, a white student denied admission to U-M Law School, filed suit against the college.

What's next

Y Opponents of the racial preference ban say they'll appeal the ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Y If the appeal is unsuccessful, the constitutional amendment goes on the November 2006 general election ballot.

News and Announcements | AAD Home Page

Carl Gutiérrez-Jones,
Department of English
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Email: carlgj@english.ucsb.edu