Jump to content

Michigan Civil Rights Initiative

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peytonbland (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 21 November 2006 (→Voting and Poll Results). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2 (Michigan 06-2), is a ballot initiative in the U.S. state of Michigan that seeks to end programs and policies that give preferential treatment or discriminate based on race or gender in the operation of public employment, education, or contracting. As of midnight on election night, the proposal appears to have passed. Opponents of the proposal label these programs as affirmative action, while proponents suggest that there is a difference between types of affirmative action, arguing that anti-discrimination enforcement, outreach, and non-preferential policies, which were historically considered affirmative action, could continue as long as they were not preferential.

The proposal was passed on November 7th, 2006. Its language derives from the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment that forbids the United States or any state from denying "equal protection of the law" to any citizen. It is modelled after similar laws in California and Washington.

The initiative passed with about 58% of the vote, far higher than pre-election polls indicated (see below). Some observers have suggested that many prospective "yes" voters were reluctant to admit it, considering tactics used by some of the anti-MCRI organizations.

The Michigan Civil Rights Commission, the governmental body charged with investigating civil rights violations in the state of Michigan, recently concluded an investigation of MCRI in which they found that MCRI had committed widespread and systematic racially-targeted fraud in their petition campaign to secure ballot access. [1] [2] The proponents of the initiative issued a multi-page refutation of the report, including notation that it was never signed by the Commission and alleging misconduct by the Commission itself.

In September 2006, federal judge in Detroit dismissed a lawsuit seeking to have the proposal barred from the ballot because of alleged fraud in the collection of petition signatures.

Federal Lawsuit Against MCRI

Oral arguments in a federal lawsuit charging MCRI and the State of Michigan with violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was heard on August 17, 2006 with attorneys presenting their closing arguments on the morning of August 18. The case was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Tarnow, who promised to rule on the matter by September 8, 2006, to give officials enough time to print up the ballot. During the first day of the hearing, hundreds of protesters picketed outside the courthouse chanting among other things, "Racist fraud, hell no! MCRI has got to go!"[3][4][5] The lawsuit was filed by Operation King's Dream, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit City Council, American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, Michigan Legislative Black Caucus, Keep the Vote No Takover, AFSCME Locals 207, 312, and 2920, and UAW 2200 as well as several individual voters.[6] Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.[7]

On August 29, 2006, the case was decided with Judge Tarnow, a Democratic judicial appointee, refusing to remove the initiative from the ballot.[8] However, Judge Tarnow declared that "MCRI engaged in systematic voter fraud by telling voters that were signing a petition supporting affirmative action." However, because the case was not decided on these grounds, this statement is legally characterized as "dicta"--judicial commentary that is not relevant to the outcome of a case. Tarnow also found Jennifer Gratz's (MCRI's executive director) testimony in the court to be evasive and misleading. His stated reason for refusing an injunction to remove the MCRI from the ballot was the MCRI "targeted all Michigan voters for deception without regard to race." He ruled that the Voting Rights Act was not violated because it "is not a general anti-voter fraud statue, but rather prohibits practices which result in unequal access to the political process because of race."

Luke Massie, national co-chair of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights & Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) announced that the plaintiffs will appeal Tarnow's decision to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, saying "It makes no sense to conclude there was fraud and allow the vote to go forward." The 6th Circuit rejected the appeal in mid-September.

Voting and Poll Results

As of November 8, 2006, Proposal 2 was declared to have passed by a margin of 58% to 42% according to MichiganProposal2.org [9].

The most recent poll as of October 15, reported on by the Detroit News shows MCRI to have inched up to a 50-41 lead.

In an Free Press-Local 4 (WDIV) Michigan poll conducted by Selzer & Co. Inc. of Des Moines between October 8 to October 11 of 643 likely voters, it was shown that 41% were in favor of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, while 44% opposed the measure, and 15% of the voter poll were undecided. The poll had a margin of error of 3.9% making the poll a statistical dead-heat.

Another poll, from mid-September 2006, showed MCRI was up 48-37 with 15 percent undecided, with the pollster admitting that his previous polls had not used the exact language of the proposal until the Sept. poll.

Board of Canvassers Meeting

In July of 2005, the Michigan State Board of Canvassers declined to certify the MCRI proposal for Michigan's November 2006 ballot after hearing allegations that a significant number of signatures were obtained by telling supporters of affirmative action that the petition was likewise, in support of affirmative action. However, in October of the same year, the Michigan Court of Appeals ordered the board to certify the petitions.

On December 14, 2005, in Lansing, Michigan, the board's four members were attempting to vote on whether they would certify the petitions for the November ballot at a meeting attended by hundreds of Detroit high school students. The crowd began to shout "No voter fraud" until they got so loud that the members left the room adjourning until 2pm. Chanting, "They say Jim Crow! We say hell no!" the emotion-surged crowd of students continued in their civil disobedience until a table was overturned amidst the commotion and the Lansing police came in to control the situation.[10] Video of the situation can be seen here. [11]

After the protest, the election panel again failed to certify the petitions with a vote of 2-1, falling short of the required three votes. Republican board members Katherine Degrow and Lyn Banks voted in favor with Democrats Paul Mitchell voting no and Doyle O'Connor not voting.

The meeting received considerable media attention because of the protest. In the months following the controversial board meeting, both Mitchell and O'Connor resigned from the board and were fined $250 on contempt of court charges.[12] O'Connor later testified against the MCRI at the August 17 federal court hearing, relaying how he'd witnessed two African-American women circulating the anti-affirmative action petition in Detroit telling signers that it was in support of affirmative action. Proponents counter this claim by arguing that O'Connor, as a member of the Board of Canvassers, had failed to offer this testimony during Board meetings and waited until after the Board had decided and a lawsuit begun to relay his alleged testimony. Proponents suggest that O'Connor had a clear conflict of interest as a first-hand witness, and that he unethically failed to relay that information to the rest of the board and to MCRI officials and recuse himself from the decision-making process, and that his testimony as a result is simply not credible given that he waited so long to relay it.

"Preferential Treatment"

Proponents of the MCRI claim that the initiative will make illegal only those programs and policies, affecting university admissions, public employment, and contracting, that grant what they deem "preferential treatment" to minorities and women. These claims have been disputed by opponents who cite California's Proposition 209, alleging that the language of that proposal which outlawed all affirmative action policies and programs, and MCRI's language is nearly identical. Proponents counter this argument by arguing that while MCRI is nearly identical to California's amendment, neither MCRI or 209 "outlawed all" or any "affirmative action." They point to programs such as California's socio-economic indicators, outreach targeted at the 150 lowest scoring high schools, and traditional anti-discrimination enforcement as some among many race-neutral types of affirmative action.

Post Election

On November 8, 2006, BAMN called a press conference announcing that they'd launched a second lawsuit against Proposal 2 in conjuction with United for Equality and Affirmative Action and Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, claiming that it violates both the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the First Amendment as affirmed by the Supreme Court decision, Grutter v. Bollinger.

That same day, about 2,000 students gathered on the diag at the University of Michigan where University President Mary Sue Coleman gave a speech in which she promised U-M would go to court to defend its efforts to promote diversity.

Opposition

Notable opposition of the MCRI includes:

Notable Endorsers

Notable endorsers of the MCRI include:

  • Michigan Association of Scholars
  • National Association of Scholars
  • Council of Conservative Citizens
  • Ward Connerly: California businessman who led similar campaign in California with Proposition 209
  • Jennifer Gratz: executive director of the MCRI, plaintiff in the Supreme Court case Gratz v. Bollinger
  • Barbara Grutter: plaintiff in Grutter v. Bollinger, co-chair of Towards a Fair Michigan
  • William B. Allen: Michigan State University political science professor, co-chair of Towards a Fair Michigan
  • Dr. Carl Cohen: University of Michigan philosophy professor.
  • Chetly Zarko: former Treasurer/Director of Media, MCRI, political consultant.
  • Doug Tietz: MCRI campaign manager, former MSU YAF Chair.
  • Greg Creswell: Libertarian Candidate for Governor of Michigan

Critical sites:

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michigan_Civil_Rights_Initiative&oldid=89303278"