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
Showing posts with label Carnahan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carnahan. Show all posts
Thursday, July 9, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)