![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
And still we wait
Jul. 20th, 2005 10:39 amAs some of you know, there has been an effort to put a constitutional amendment banning affirmative action (race and gender) in college admissions and state hiring and contracts on the 2006 Michigan ballot.
This is a problem for people who are for affirmative action, because this appears to be an issue that voters will go for, just like they did in California (Prop 209).
There have been some pretty ugly PR battles fought between the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (advancing the petition) and By Any Means Necessary (against it).
The petition drive got loads of signatures, more than they needed to get it on the ballot. However, there have been allegations that during the drive, activists misled some signers about the issue and what they were signing.
Yesterday the board of canvassers decided they couldn't certify the petition without further investigation, but the attorney general said the board didn't have the authority to do the investigating. The legislature would, but I don't know if the issue will go there. It may instead go to the appeals courts.
Incidentally Michigan had a similar problem with the same-sex marriage ban in 2004. The board of canvassers was deadlocked, so the appeals court put it on the ballot. It passed by a wide margin.
The upshot of all this is, U-M may have spent numerous man hours and millions of dollars defending its policies through the courts, only to have the decision invalidated by a constitutional amendment a few years later. So while other institutions may benefit from its efforts, U-M itself won't. Or maybe not, if they invalidate the petition.
This is a problem for people who are for affirmative action, because this appears to be an issue that voters will go for, just like they did in California (Prop 209).
There have been some pretty ugly PR battles fought between the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (advancing the petition) and By Any Means Necessary (against it).
The petition drive got loads of signatures, more than they needed to get it on the ballot. However, there have been allegations that during the drive, activists misled some signers about the issue and what they were signing.
Yesterday the board of canvassers decided they couldn't certify the petition without further investigation, but the attorney general said the board didn't have the authority to do the investigating. The legislature would, but I don't know if the issue will go there. It may instead go to the appeals courts.
Incidentally Michigan had a similar problem with the same-sex marriage ban in 2004. The board of canvassers was deadlocked, so the appeals court put it on the ballot. It passed by a wide margin.
The upshot of all this is, U-M may have spent numerous man hours and millions of dollars defending its policies through the courts, only to have the decision invalidated by a constitutional amendment a few years later. So while other institutions may benefit from its efforts, U-M itself won't. Or maybe not, if they invalidate the petition.
