Analysis
This story is based upon a federal judge’s decision to allow the Michigan Civil rights Initiative, ballot Proposal 2, to be allowed to appear on the November 7 ballot. Does the article state the judges decision clearly? The judge, a representative from the MCRI and BAMN, a group opposed to the ballot initiative were cited in the story. The article also mentions the report from the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and that other state government representatives had “almost complete institutional indifference to the credible allegations of voter fraud.” Why were there no responses from state officials to the judge’s comments? There was a section of the original AP story that was omitted in the GR Press version. Why did the Press omit this section? Does it change your understanding of the story?
Article Text
DETROIT (AP) — The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative misled voters to get its anti-affirmative-action proposal before voters, a federal judge said.
But U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow said he can’t strike it from the ballot, as opponents had asked him to do. People believing they were hoodwinked have recourse — by voting against it in November, he wrote in a ruling issued Tuesday.
Opponents argued that the MCRI sought to defraud black voters in particular. “However, the MCRI appears to have targeted all Michigan voters for deception without regard to race,” Tarnow said in his 34-page opinion.
And that means the MCRI didn’t violate the federal Voting Rights Act by depriving minorities of equal access to the political process.
“Voters who were induced by fraud into signing the petition still have an opportunity to participate in the political process by voting against the proposal in the general election,” Tarnow said.
If approved by voters, the MCRI’s proposal would amend the state constitution to ban race and gender preferences in government hiring and public-university admissions in Michigan. Lawyers representing the MCRI and state elections officials told Tarnow last month that Michigan residents would be harmed if they were not allowed to vote on the issue.
Opponents said the MCRI misrepresented the referendum’s ultimate aims while petitioning to put the issue on the ballot. Witnesses testified before Tarnow that they were tricked into signing or collecting signatures on petitions circulated by the MCRI.
Tarnow sharply rebuked state officials whose “indifference to valid allegations of voter fraud” allowed the MCRI proposal to make its way to the ballot — allegations investigated only by the relatively powerless state Civil Rights Commission.
“With the exception of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, the record shows that the state has demonstrated an almost complete institutional indifference to the credible allegations of voter fraud raised by Plaintiffs … However, the Court cannot turn back the clock, and can only deal with the facts that are presented to it,” Tarnow wrote.
Jennifer Gratz, executive director of the MCRI, praised Tarnow’s ruling but criticized his conclusion that fraud was committed.
“We are happy that he’s ruled that the people are allowed to decide this issue,” said Gratz, of Lansing. “However, the rest of his commentary is judicial activism at its worst.”
Opponents, including an affiliate of the pro-affirmative-action group By Any Means Necessary, said they would ask the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to keep the MCRI proposal off the ballot.
“Everything we’ve been saying for the last year and a half, we have the (Michigan) Civil Rights Commission, and now a federal judge, saying it’s true,” BAMN attorney George Washington said. “There are people who are against affirmative action who should be outraged at what’s being done in their name. This should not be a con game.”
The federal lawsuit was based in part on a report from the Civil Rights Commission, which said MCRI misrepresented its purpose to get voters to sign its petitions.
State courts ruled earlier that the MCRI proposal should be allowed on the ballot.
The MCRI submitted more than 508,000 voter signatures in support of its ballot drive, far more than the 317,517 required by state law. The ballot wording approved by state elections director Chris Thomas refers twice to a ban on “affirmative action,” a phrase that does not appear on the petitions MCRI circulated.
Article Ommitted from The Grand Rapids Press Version
The MCRI was formed after the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2003 upheld a general affirmative action admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School. The high court also struck down the university’s undergraduate formula as too rigid because it awarded admission points based on race. Gratz was one of two plaintiffs in the undergraduate admissions lawsuit.
A spokesman for One United Michigan said the bipartisan coalition of business, labor, religious and civic groups would continue fighting to defeat the MCRI proposal in November, regardless of the court battle.
“Their goal is to mislead Michigan about the true nature of this campaign, which would roll back progress for women as well as minorities,” David Waymire said.
Supporters, likewise, were ready to argue for MCRI on its merits, Gratz said.
“We hope now that our opponents will debate the issue, rather than talk about everything but,” she said.
Related posts:
- Judge Refuses to Remove Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Ballot Proposal Despite Finding “Systematic Voter Fraud”
- Judge Rules MCRI Fraudulent But Keeps it on Ballot
- Court denies injunction over affirmative action proposal
- Civil Rights Commission Finds Fraud in Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI)
- Court Orders Affirmative Action Proposal on 2006 Ballot
