The Leadership Conference
February 26, 2010 - Posted by Tyler Lewis
Civil rights advocates in Missouri have successfully kept a proposed ballot initiative that would have amended the state's constitution to eliminate equal opportunity programs in higher education, employment, and contracting off the 2010 ballot.
Political operatives in Missouri affiliated with equal opportunity opponent Ward Connerly filed to withdraw the proposed initiative earlier this week rather than face an ACLU lawsuit challenging the language of the initiative.
"The state of Missouri has a constitutional obligation to ensure that no one is denied opportunity because of unfair and unjust discrimination," said Stephen Douglas Bonney, legal director for the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri. "America is the land of equal opportunity and these proposed initiatives flew in the face of some of our most cherished ideals."
Missouri has been a focus of Ward Connerly and his allies, who have been attempting to qualify similar initiatives all over the country for more than a decade. However, this is the second time in the last two elections that they have failed to qualify their anti-equal opportunity initiative for the ballot in Missouri.
Full Story: http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2010/02/897-missouri-eo.html
Showing posts with label Missouri Civil Rights Initiative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Missouri Civil Rights Initiative. Show all posts
Friday, March 12, 2010
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Carnahan appealing Mo. affirmative action ruling
bnd.com
Posted on Tue, Jul. 07, 2009
The Associated Press
Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is appealing a decision striking down a ballot summary for an initiative limiting affirmative action programs in Missouri.
A judge ruled last month that Carnahan should have rejected the proposal because of a technical flaw in its wording. The judge also said Carnahan's summary of the initiative was inadequate and unfair.
Carnahan spokesman Ryan Hobart says the secretary of state's office is appealing both aspects of the decision.
Full Story: http://www.bnd.com/336/story/835550.html
Posted on Tue, Jul. 07, 2009
The Associated Press
Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is appealing a decision striking down a ballot summary for an initiative limiting affirmative action programs in Missouri.
A judge ruled last month that Carnahan should have rejected the proposal because of a technical flaw in its wording. The judge also said Carnahan's summary of the initiative was inadequate and unfair.
Carnahan spokesman Ryan Hobart says the secretary of state's office is appealing both aspects of the decision.
Full Story: http://www.bnd.com/336/story/835550.html
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Missouri Judge Strike Down Affirmative Action (Amendment)
KSPR (ABC)
By Brad Belote
Story Created: Jun 26, 2009
Story Updated: Jun 26, 2009
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - A state judge has struck down a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to ban many affirmativeaction programs in Missouri.
Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said in a ruling Friday that the secretary of state's office should have rejectedthe proposed initiative because of a technical flaw in how it was drafted.
Full Story: http://www.kspr.com/news/local/49225182.html
By Brad Belote
Story Created: Jun 26, 2009
Story Updated: Jun 26, 2009
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - A state judge has struck down a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to ban many affirmativeaction programs in Missouri.
Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan said in a ruling Friday that the secretary of state's office should have rejectedthe proposed initiative because of a technical flaw in how it was drafted.
Full Story: http://www.kspr.com/news/local/49225182.html
Friday, May 22, 2009
Missouri Anti-Affirmative Action suit heard
KWMU 90.7 News Talk
Marshall Griffin, KWMU JEFFERSON CITY, MO (2009-05-19)
An anti-Affirmative Action ballot initiative is at the center of a lawsuit heard today in Jefferson City.The attorney for the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative argued that Secretary of State Robin Carnahan distorted the original intent of their ballot question.It reads, in part, that it would "ban Affirmative Action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities."Laura Egerdal is Communications Director for the Secretary of State's office."When that ballot summary language is written, it's written so that the people of Missouri can clearly understand the effect of what it is that they're voting on...and in this case, we're confident that our language will be found fair and sufficient by the court," Egerdal said.The Missouri Civil Rights Initiative wants the language changed to read that it would, "ban state and local government affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment in public contracting, employment, or education based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin."Meanwhile, the ACLU is also suing the Secretary of State's office, claiming that Carnahan's language isn't strong enough.
Full Story: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1507815/KWMU.News/Anti-Affirmative.Action.suit.heard
Marshall Griffin, KWMU JEFFERSON CITY, MO (2009-05-19)
An anti-Affirmative Action ballot initiative is at the center of a lawsuit heard today in Jefferson City.The attorney for the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative argued that Secretary of State Robin Carnahan distorted the original intent of their ballot question.It reads, in part, that it would "ban Affirmative Action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities."Laura Egerdal is Communications Director for the Secretary of State's office."When that ballot summary language is written, it's written so that the people of Missouri can clearly understand the effect of what it is that they're voting on...and in this case, we're confident that our language will be found fair and sufficient by the court," Egerdal said.The Missouri Civil Rights Initiative wants the language changed to read that it would, "ban state and local government affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment in public contracting, employment, or education based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin."Meanwhile, the ACLU is also suing the Secretary of State's office, claiming that Carnahan's language isn't strong enough.
Full Story: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1507815/KWMU.News/Anti-Affirmative.Action.suit.heard
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging Asher's Effort To Eradicate Equal Opportunity
ACLU News Release
(12/19/2008)
Proposed Ballot Initiative Is Unconstitutional And Fraudulent
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
JEFFERSON CITY, MO – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Eastern Missouri filed a lawsuit challenging the latest attempt by a political operative to rewrite Missouri's state Constitution and ban equal opportunity programs in the state.
The lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County, charges that an anti-affirmative action ballot initiative proposed by Tim Asher and his Missouri Civil Rights Initiative should not be circulated for signatures because it violates the Missouri Constitution by seeking to trick and defraud Missouri voters in attempting to ban an array of equal opportunity programs.
The Missouri Secretary of State's Office announced last week that it had approved Asher's proposed initiative for circulation.
"This is just the latest attempt to deceive the voters of our state into rolling back important programs that ensure that women and racial and ethnic minorities have fair notice of opportunities and are given an equal chance to compete for them," said Anthony E. Rothert, staff attorney with the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. "Missouri voters weren't fooled by this deception before, and they won't be fooled by this latest effort to perpetrate fraud against them."
Missouri was one of three states – along with Arizona and Oklahoma – in which efforts to qualify anti-equal opportunity initiatives for the ballot during the last election cycle failed. Asher spearheaded that effort in Missouri as well, when he worked as part of a largely unsuccessful national campaign led by millionaire Californian Ward Connerly that targeted a total of five states. Connerly's initiative was defeated by voters in Colorado, and its passage in Nebraska is facing legal challenges that center on whether Connerly's campaign broke the law in order to qualify it for the ballot.
The ACLU lawsuit argues that the initiative confuses voters by forcing them to vote on multiple issues in a single proposition in violation of the Missouri Constitution, and that the initiative's language attempts to intentionally mislead voters into believing it upholds equal opportunity programs while its true purpose is to end them.
The ACLU charges that the proposed changes to the Missouri Constitution would decimate many essential equal opportunity programs, eroding the participation of women and racial and ethnic minorities in public education, state contracting and employment.
"This is an attempt at fraud in its lowest form," said Reginald T. Shuford, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program. "What Asher and his cronies don't want people to know is that initiatives such as this one have been used to challenge a whole host of equal opportunity programs including data collection requirements that help the government identify racial, ethnic and gender discrimination."
Attorneys in the case include Rothert of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, cooperating attorney Arlene Zarembka of St. Louis, Shuford and I. India Geronimo of the ACLU Racial Justice Program and Araceli Martinez-Olguin and Lenora Lapidus of the ACLU Women's Rights Project.
A copy of the ACLU lawsuit is available online at: www.aclu.org/racialjustice/aa/38151lgl20081219.html
Additional information about equal opportunity is available online at: www.aclu.org/racialjustice/aa
Additional information about the ACLU is available online at: www.aclu.org
Additional information about the ACLU of Eastern Missouri is available online at: www.aclu-em.org
http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/aa/38152prs20081219.html?s_src=RSS
(12/19/2008)
Proposed Ballot Initiative Is Unconstitutional And Fraudulent
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
JEFFERSON CITY, MO – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Eastern Missouri filed a lawsuit challenging the latest attempt by a political operative to rewrite Missouri's state Constitution and ban equal opportunity programs in the state.
The lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County, charges that an anti-affirmative action ballot initiative proposed by Tim Asher and his Missouri Civil Rights Initiative should not be circulated for signatures because it violates the Missouri Constitution by seeking to trick and defraud Missouri voters in attempting to ban an array of equal opportunity programs.
The Missouri Secretary of State's Office announced last week that it had approved Asher's proposed initiative for circulation.
"This is just the latest attempt to deceive the voters of our state into rolling back important programs that ensure that women and racial and ethnic minorities have fair notice of opportunities and are given an equal chance to compete for them," said Anthony E. Rothert, staff attorney with the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. "Missouri voters weren't fooled by this deception before, and they won't be fooled by this latest effort to perpetrate fraud against them."
Missouri was one of three states – along with Arizona and Oklahoma – in which efforts to qualify anti-equal opportunity initiatives for the ballot during the last election cycle failed. Asher spearheaded that effort in Missouri as well, when he worked as part of a largely unsuccessful national campaign led by millionaire Californian Ward Connerly that targeted a total of five states. Connerly's initiative was defeated by voters in Colorado, and its passage in Nebraska is facing legal challenges that center on whether Connerly's campaign broke the law in order to qualify it for the ballot.
The ACLU lawsuit argues that the initiative confuses voters by forcing them to vote on multiple issues in a single proposition in violation of the Missouri Constitution, and that the initiative's language attempts to intentionally mislead voters into believing it upholds equal opportunity programs while its true purpose is to end them.
The ACLU charges that the proposed changes to the Missouri Constitution would decimate many essential equal opportunity programs, eroding the participation of women and racial and ethnic minorities in public education, state contracting and employment.
"This is an attempt at fraud in its lowest form," said Reginald T. Shuford, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program. "What Asher and his cronies don't want people to know is that initiatives such as this one have been used to challenge a whole host of equal opportunity programs including data collection requirements that help the government identify racial, ethnic and gender discrimination."
Attorneys in the case include Rothert of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, cooperating attorney Arlene Zarembka of St. Louis, Shuford and I. India Geronimo of the ACLU Racial Justice Program and Araceli Martinez-Olguin and Lenora Lapidus of the ACLU Women's Rights Project.
A copy of the ACLU lawsuit is available online at: www.aclu.org/racialjustice/aa/38151lgl20081219.html
Additional information about equal opportunity is available online at: www.aclu.org/racialjustice/aa
Additional information about the ACLU is available online at: www.aclu.org
Additional information about the ACLU of Eastern Missouri is available online at: www.aclu-em.org
http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/aa/38152prs20081219.html?s_src=RSS
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Parson wants new laws for petitioners (Missouri)
News-Leader
Reform would curb fraud, official says.
Chad Livengood
December 27, 2008
When an interest group wants to gather signatures in Missouri to put a proposed change in the Constitution before voters, they commonly hire people to help.
And those petition circulators typically get paid per signature, heightening the possibility of fraudulent names being signed to the forms.
State Rep. Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, wants to put an end to the practice of people being paid for every signature they gather.
"What's happening is a company or a special-interest group can come in from out of the state, basically unload the signature gathers (from a bus), do a marketing campaign and change the Constitution of the State of Missouri," he said.
Parson said the system is being abused by people who are more interested in making money than making legitimate improvements to the Constitution.
"Let's face it, do they really care what the issue is they're doing? Their job is to gather signatures," said Parson, a former Polk County sheriff. "If we're going to change the Constitution of the state of Missouri, let's have Missourians who are going to do it."
Full Story: http://www.news-leader.com/article/20081227/NEWS01/812270341/1001/RSS01
Reform would curb fraud, official says.
Chad Livengood
December 27, 2008
When an interest group wants to gather signatures in Missouri to put a proposed change in the Constitution before voters, they commonly hire people to help.
And those petition circulators typically get paid per signature, heightening the possibility of fraudulent names being signed to the forms.
State Rep. Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, wants to put an end to the practice of people being paid for every signature they gather.
"What's happening is a company or a special-interest group can come in from out of the state, basically unload the signature gathers (from a bus), do a marketing campaign and change the Constitution of the State of Missouri," he said.
Parson said the system is being abused by people who are more interested in making money than making legitimate improvements to the Constitution.
"Let's face it, do they really care what the issue is they're doing? Their job is to gather signatures," said Parson, a former Polk County sheriff. "If we're going to change the Constitution of the state of Missouri, let's have Missourians who are going to do it."
Full Story: http://www.news-leader.com/article/20081227/NEWS01/812270341/1001/RSS01
Monday, December 22, 2008
Mo. affirmative action proposal prompts litigation
BND.com
By CHRIS BLANK
Associated Press Writer
Monday, Dec. 22, 2008
A proposed constitutional amendment banning many Missouri affirmative action programs again has prompted litigation over the wording of the proposal's ballot summary.
Earlier this month, the secretary of state's office approved for circulation a proposed 2010 ballot measure that would restrict affirmative action programs in public contracting, employment and education. But the measure's description - just like an identical proposition for the 2008 ballot - has prompted a legal fight over the fairness of the ballot summary prepared by the secretary of state's office.
Although supporters of initiative petitions write the language of their own measures, the secretary of state's office writes the summaries that appear on the ballot. So supporters and opponents of controversial measures frequently sue on claims that the state's summary is unfair or insufficient.
The 2010 summary written by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan's office asks whether the state constitution should be amended to: "Ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?"
Petition sponsor Tim Asher said Monday the wording is inaccurate, confusing, unfair and prejudicial. Critics of the ballot measure don't like the state's summary either, calling it insufficient while seeking to have the entire petition declared unconstitutional.
It's a close replay of the legal wrangling that marked Asher's efforts to get an affirmative action petition on the 2008 ballot.
Earlier this year, Cole County Judge Richard Callahan called Carnahan's summary for the 2008 version "troubling" because it could have led voters to believe they were voting for affirmative action programs.
Full Story: http://www.bnd.com/breaking_news/story/588841.html
By CHRIS BLANK
Associated Press Writer
Monday, Dec. 22, 2008
A proposed constitutional amendment banning many Missouri affirmative action programs again has prompted litigation over the wording of the proposal's ballot summary.
Earlier this month, the secretary of state's office approved for circulation a proposed 2010 ballot measure that would restrict affirmative action programs in public contracting, employment and education. But the measure's description - just like an identical proposition for the 2008 ballot - has prompted a legal fight over the fairness of the ballot summary prepared by the secretary of state's office.
Although supporters of initiative petitions write the language of their own measures, the secretary of state's office writes the summaries that appear on the ballot. So supporters and opponents of controversial measures frequently sue on claims that the state's summary is unfair or insufficient.
The 2010 summary written by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan's office asks whether the state constitution should be amended to: "Ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?"
Petition sponsor Tim Asher said Monday the wording is inaccurate, confusing, unfair and prejudicial. Critics of the ballot measure don't like the state's summary either, calling it insufficient while seeking to have the entire petition declared unconstitutional.
It's a close replay of the legal wrangling that marked Asher's efforts to get an affirmative action petition on the 2008 ballot.
Earlier this year, Cole County Judge Richard Callahan called Carnahan's summary for the 2008 version "troubling" because it could have led voters to believe they were voting for affirmative action programs.
Full Story: http://www.bnd.com/breaking_news/story/588841.html
Monday, December 15, 2008
Initiative Petition Relating to Banning Affirmative Action Programs Approved for Circulation for 2010 Ballot
Missouri Secretary of State
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Contact: Laura Egerdal, (573) 526-0949
Contact: Ryan Hobart, (573) 526-4734
Initiative Petition Relating to Banning Affirmative Action Programs Approved for Circulation for 2010 Ballot
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Contact: Laura Egerdal, (573) 526-0949
Contact: Ryan Hobart, (573) 526-4734
Initiative Petition Relating to Banning Affirmative Action Programs Approved for Circulation for 2010 Ballot
JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI - Secretary of State Robin Carnahan announced today that a new initiative petition met state standards for circulation. The petition would amend the Missouri Constitution relating to banning affirmative action programs.
The ballot title for the petition relating to banning affirmative action programs reads:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and
allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?
The total cost or savings to state and local government entities is unknown. Most state governmental entities estimate no costs or savings, however, costs or savings related to future contracts are unknown. Some local governments estimate no costs or savings, but prohibition of certain municipal policies may result in unknown costs.
Before any constitutional changes can be brought before Missouri voters in the November 2010 election, signatures must be obtained from registered voters equal to eight (8) percent of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts.
Signatures on behalf of all initiative petitions for the 2010 ballot are due to the Secretary of State’s office by no later than 5 p.m. on May 2, 2010.
Before circulating petitions, state law requires that groups must first have the form of their petition approved by the Secretary of State and Attorney General. The Secretary of State then prepares a summary statement of no more than 100 words and the State Auditor prepares a fiscal impact statement, both of which are subject to the approval of the Attorney General. When both statements are approved, they become the official ballot title.
The petition relating to banning affirmative action programs was submitted by Tim Asher, Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, P.O. Box 545, Grain Valley, MO, 64029, (816) 812-4929.
-- 30 --
###
The ballot title for the petition relating to banning affirmative action programs reads:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and
allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?
The total cost or savings to state and local government entities is unknown. Most state governmental entities estimate no costs or savings, however, costs or savings related to future contracts are unknown. Some local governments estimate no costs or savings, but prohibition of certain municipal policies may result in unknown costs.
Before any constitutional changes can be brought before Missouri voters in the November 2010 election, signatures must be obtained from registered voters equal to eight (8) percent of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts.
Signatures on behalf of all initiative petitions for the 2010 ballot are due to the Secretary of State’s office by no later than 5 p.m. on May 2, 2010.
Before circulating petitions, state law requires that groups must first have the form of their petition approved by the Secretary of State and Attorney General. The Secretary of State then prepares a summary statement of no more than 100 words and the State Auditor prepares a fiscal impact statement, both of which are subject to the approval of the Attorney General. When both statements are approved, they become the official ballot title.
The petition relating to banning affirmative action programs was submitted by Tim Asher, Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, P.O. Box 545, Grain Valley, MO, 64029, (816) 812-4929.
-- 30 --
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)