Ward Connerly continues to crusade against equal opportunity

The St. Louis American
Monday, December 15, 2008
9:55 AM CST

Ward Connerly, the multi-millionaire California political operative has initiated again his plan to re-write Missouri’s state constitution and outlaw equal opportunity programs after failing in four of five states that he attempted to pass his divisive and deception “civil rights” initiative. On Thursday, the Missouri Secretary of State's office announced that it had approved for circulation Connerly’s proposed initiative.“The people of Missouri joined three other states this year in rejecting Ward Connerly’s out-of state campaign to re-write state constitutions and outlaw equal opportunity programs but he hasn’t learned any lessons from his failure,” said Kristina Wilfore, Executive Director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, “Before he gets started again he needs to take responsibility for the trail of fraud he has left in his path.”This year Connerly spent over $3 million in out-of-state funding to re-write constitutions in five states- Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma. As a result, he failed to qualify for the ballot in Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Connerly’s initiative was defeated in Colorado 51%-49% but passed in Nebraska 58%-42%. However a court decision is still pending on a legal challenge that questions whether Connerly’s campaign broke the law to in order to place the initiative on the ballot in Nebraska.He chose to employ an out-of-state, paid signature gathering firm with a shady past to collect petitions for his initiatives, and was plagued by charges of fraud and deception in every state.

Full Story: http://www.stlamerican.com/articles/2008/12/15/news/local_news/localnews000000001.txt

Petition drive off to misleading start

Tuesday, Jun 10, 2008 - 12:52:25 am CDT

Workers circulating petitions to end affirmative action in Nebraska have dishonored the citizen initiative process by using misleading tactics.The disreputable actions add another to a list of reasons to oppose the measure proposed by Californian Ward Connerly and supporters.Nebraskans commonly report being approached by clipboard-carrying circulators who ask whether they will sign a petition to end gender and race discrimination in Nebraska.It’s a trick.The proposal would amend the Nebraska Constitution to prevent race, ethnicity and gender from being taken into account in hiring, scholarship or contract decisions made by public agencies.Officials from the University of Nebraska and state colleges say the proposed amendment would jeopardize outreach programs aimed at recruiting more minority students.A position for a Latino recruitment coordinator at the University of Nebraska at Kearney, who has been successful in increasing the number of Latino students on that campus, might need to be eliminated, for example.Scholarships designated for African American students would be out. Exchange programs with historically black colleges might be eliminated.Those programs generally falling under the label of affirmative action were designed in many cases out of recognition that minority children too often start out at a disadvantage in life. The negative effect of historical and existing discrimination may have diminished, but it has not yet been erased.The movement promoted by Connerly has roots in situations that are quite different than Nebraska. In California, for example, there are more college applications than the system can handle. In Nebraska that is not the case. Any student who meets admission requirements can attend the University of Nebraska. There are no quotas.The minority recruitment programs also benefit students at the University of Nebraska by providing a more varied and robust educational environment that more closely mirrors the ethnically diverse world that students will encounter after graduation. [To read the entire article, go to: http://journalstar.com/articles/2008/06/13/opinion/editorial/doc484da801e03dc740239896.txt ]

Petition Hopes To Dismantle Affirmative Action

Protesters Hope To Defend State Constitutional Language
POSTED: 8:34 am CST February 27, 2008
UPDATED: 2:31 pm CST February 27, 2008

OMAHA, Neb. -- A renewed debate over affirmative action is finding a new battleground in Nebraska.
A petition is circulating that wants to change the state constitution's stance on discrimination and preferential treatment. Protesters said the language bans affirmative action.
Under fire are seven words in the state constitution: "Discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to." Anti-affirmative action advocates are circulating a petition for a ballot initiative that adds these words: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment public education or public contracting."

On Thursday, California businessman Ward Connerly, who is the man behind the proposal, will speak at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
Dayton Headlee, the student leader who coordinated the event and chair of the Nebraska College Republicans, said the law allows other ways to help people who need it.
"It allows affirmative action, as it's titled to continue based on socioeconomic status and groups that have typically not been well represented," Headlee said. "Giving somebody a leg up always gives somebody else a leg down. (The proposal) removes discrimination by race or gender from the public sphere."
Protestors argued that the amendment would spell doom for University of Nebraska outreach and athletic programs that help develop minority youth. The opposition brought its own big names, including former Health and Human Service Secretary Dr. Louis Sullivan.

"We need to do everything to see that all of our citizens have the opportunity to develop their talents fully," Sullivan said.
Sullivan and his backers said affirmative action is not preferential treatment, but rather levels an unbalanced playing field.
"Affirmative action is necessary," said the American Association for Affirmative Action's Renee Dunman. "It prevents discrimination."
The Connerly petition needs about 115,000 signatures to make it on the November ballot.
Connerly is scheduled to speak at UNO's Milo Bail Center at 4 p.m. Thursday. Protesters said they will gather there an hour earlier. http://www.ketv.com/newsarchive/15423766/detail.html

Affirmative action dissected

By: Matthew Hansen , Midlands News Service

Two national activists landed in Nebraska on Tuesday, searching out voters and delivering starkly different arguments about the future of affirmative action.

Ward Connerly, the California businessman who's leading an effort to ban affirmative action-style practices in Nebraska and four other states, spoke to University of Nebraska-Lincoln students Tuesday night.Affirmative action isn't necessary in 2008, Connerly said, and demeans the racial minorities and women it's supposed to protect.Connerly's group is seeking to put a proposed constitutional amendment on November's ballot. If passed by voters, it would prohibit all consideration of race, ethnicity and gender in hiring and scholarship decisions made by public agencies such as the University of Nebraska.Pointing to the candidacy of Democrat Barack Obama, Connerly said in an interview: "We have a multiracial man selfidentified as black possibly becoming the next president of the United States. How can you argue that a place like Nebraska is institutionally racist, and therefore needs (affirmative action), when you have this kind of dynamic in the country?''

ReNee Dunman, president of the American Association for Affirmative Action, attended a rally at the Omaha Public Schools' headquarters at 30th and Cuming Streets on Tuesday afternoon.Affirmative action has helped women and minorities enter into traditionally white, male-dominated fields, she said, but the playing field remains uneven, and a government policy that promotes diversity remains a necessity."We've made a lot of progress, but there's still a lot of progress to be made,'' Dunman said. "It's the duty of this country to break down barriers that still exist.''

Nebraska voters will likely hear both viewpoints for months to come.Connerly said he is certain that his organization, Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, will get the 115,000 signatures required to place the affirmative action proposal onto November's ballot.Similar ballot measures have passed in California, Washington and Michigan despite opposition from university leaders in each of those states.University of Nebraska President J.B. Milliken and University of Nebraska-Lincoln Chancellor Harvey Perlman have come out strongly against the proposed ban, saying it could damage NU's efforts to recruit minority students and endanger outreach programs that help Native Americans and Hispanic business owners.Connerly said that he's used to fighting against university leaders to enact affirmative action bans and that he doesn't expect Nebraska to be any different.Groups affiliated with Connerly are also trying to pass similar bans in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma this year. http://www.bellevueleader.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19337218&BRD=2712&PAG=461&dept_id=556239&rfi=6

Regents oppose affirmative-action ban

By MELISSA LEE / Lincoln Journal StarSaturday, Jan 19, 2008 - 12:33:09 am CST

The University of Nebraska Board of Regents on Friday gave its unanimous disapproval to a proposed amendment to the state’s constitution that would ban affirmative action in public education and employment.The amendment, which will appear on November ballots if supporters gather enough petition signatures, would end the use of racial, gender and ethnic preferences by public colleges and state agencies.If passed, it could have a dangerous effect on university programs and practices that aim to diversify the campuses, NU officials warned.Scholarships for minority students, women’s commissions, minority recruitment efforts and numerous other programs could be at risk, they said.“And I worry as much about the symbolism as the petition itself,” University of Nebraska-Lincoln Chancellor Harvey Perlman said. “It sends a message that Nebraskans don’t care about diversity.”The initiative is led by Ward Connerly, a California businessman who has successfully spearheaded similar efforts in Washington, Michigan and his home state.Nebraska is one of five states being targeted by Connerly this year. The others are Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma.In Nebraska, supporters need to gather about 115,000 voter signatures by July 4. They’re confident they will do so, and that voters will pass the measure in November.“Nebraskans are fair-minded people,” said Doug Tietz, executive director of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, which supports Connerly’s mission.“They know that people shouldn’t be judged by what they look like. It’s as simple as that.” [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2008/01/19/news/local/doc479141ace1af2220758886.txt]

Notes on the Right: Connerly's Super Tuesday

By Lee Cokorinos
for the Equal Justice Society
Summer 2007

November 2006, when Ward Connerly scored his first state ballot initiative victory against affirmative action in eight years with a lopsided 58-42 percent win in Michigan, speculation has been rife over where he and his wealthy backers would next turn their attention.

In a speech to the Heritage Foundation in March, Connerly declared his intention to expand on the Michigan win by organizing a multi-state “Super Tuesday for Equal Treatment,” calling it “the most high stakes effort that we will ever engage in.”

At the Heritage briefing, Connerly said he would be choosing five states to target from a list of nine, but subsequently cut the number to four. He may have run into difficulty finding the resources and well-connected in-state supporters needed to sustain a coordinated campaign across such a wide field.

In late April, at a high profile event in Denver, Connerly finally declared his intention to target Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma and Arizona with simultaneous initiatives on November 4, 2008. Campaign announcements in the other three states followed. If passed by the voters, these referenda, using identical ballot language, would outlaw state-level affirmative action policies on race and gender in public education, contracting and employment.

The Supreme Court: A “Speed Bump”Connerly has sought to present his initiative as a grassroots effort, a mischaracterization repeated by the Christian Science Monitor. But this is no grassroots movement. The main supporters of his “Super Tuesday” campaign come from the same cozy circle of well-funded conservative political operatives who have been backing the national assault on diversity policies since the early 1990s. In his Heritage talk, Connerly referred to them as “our own vast right wing conspiracy.”

Connerly told his audience that he has formed a twelve member “working group” to “fashion a national campaign” to overturn the “diversity rationale” that the Supreme Court applied in upholding affirmative action at the University of Michigan. Chastising his colleagues for taking too timid an approach to overturning Grutter, Connerly has declared that “a negative court decision should be regarded as merely a speed bump.”

The working group for “Super Tuesday,” which is being run under the umbrella of Connerly’s American Civil Rights Coalition, includes, among others, Linda Chavez and Roger Clegg of the Bradley foundation-funded Center for Equal Opportunity. Clegg has been working for several years on a project to uproot state legislation and regulations that attempt to secure diversity in education, contracting and employment. Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and National Labor Relations Board, was also named by Connerly as being part of the group; as was Manuel Klausner, co-author of California’s Prop 209 and immediate past chair of the Federalist Society’s Free Speech and Election Law Practice Group.

Other members include Terry Pell of the Center for Individual Rights, also funded by Bradley, which litigated the University of Michigan cases for lead plaintiff Jennifer Gratz (now director of state and local initiatives for Connerly); and John Carlson, the Seattle talk radio host who spearheaded I-200, the 1998 initiative banning affirmative action in Washington State.

Abigail Thernstrom, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is also in the working group. Thernstrom has been waging academic warfare against diversity policies and serves on the boards of both the Center for Equal Opportunity and Clint Bolick’s Institute for Justice.

Battleground StatesIn three of the four states targeted by Connerly, leading members of the anti-civil rights infrastructure established over the past two decades by the Right’s major foundations form the core of his support. [To read the entire story, go to: http://www.equaljusticesociety.org/newsletter_10/story2.html]

Judge rewrites Mo. ballot language on affirmative action

By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press Writer
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A judge on Monday rewrote the ballot language for a proposal banning most government affirmative action programs in Missouri, striking down a version originally crafted by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan as unfair.
Supporters of the ballot measure rejoiced in the ruling, but Carnahan vowed to appeal.
Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan called Carnahan's description of the ballot proposal “troubling.” It wrongly gave the impression that voters would be authorizing new kinds of preferential treatment programs, if they passed the measure, instead of doing away with them, the judge said.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by backers of the proposed constitutional amendment. Opponents also had filed a legal challenge against the ballot measure's cost estimate. But Callahan rejected their claims.
The sponsor of the ballot measure had been waiting to gather the petition signatures necessary to make the November ballot. As a result of the ruling, paid and volunteer canvassers will soon begin soliciting signatures from registered voters, said Tim Asher, executive director of the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative.
“Obviously, we're thrilled about it,” Asher said. “It gives us something we can go out and give the voters of Missouri, so they know what they're voting on.”
Carnahan issued a written statement defending her stricken ballot summary as fair and accurate.
The proposed constitutional amendment never uses the words “affirmative action.” But it would prohibit state and local governments from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment, to people on the basis of race and sex in public employment, education and contracts. It includes a few exceptions, such as for program eligibility guidelines necessary to receive federal funding.
Although supporters of initiative petitions write the language of their own measures, the secretary of state's office writes the summaries that actually appear on the ballot. Consequently, supporters and opponents of controversial measures frequently file suit on claims that the state's summary is unfair or insufficient.
In this case, Carnahan's summary said the measure would “ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contacting, employment and education.”
Callahan upheld the general description of the measure as banning affirmative action programs. What the judge cited as troubling was a second bullet point in Carnahan's description, which said the measure also would “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 judge said the language suggested the amendment would do away with one class of preferential treatment programs and then replace it with some other kind.
Callahan ordered new ballot language, which asks whether the constitution should be amended to: “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, unless such programs are necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for federal funding or to comply with a court order.”
Submitted by Lindsay Hanson ... on January 7, 2008 - 12:39pm. http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/9274

ACLU plans pro-affirmative action meeting

Prime Buzz
Kansas City.com
The Star

Pro-affirmative action folks aren’t waiting for anti-affirmative action group Missouri Civil Rights Initiative to get its constitutional amendment banning racial preference on the ballot before they get organized.
The ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri plans a pro-affirmative action coalition meeting for Jan. 11 at 11:30 a.m. at the AFL-CIO office, 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, led by Missourian Tim Asher, and aided by California anti-affirmative action guru Ward Connerly, is in the midst of a legal battle with the Missouri Secretary of State’s office over the ballot language for the proposed amendment. Once that is sorted out, the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative will try to get enough voter signatures to get the amendment on the ballot.
Submitted by Lynn Franey on January 4, 2008 - 1:06pm.
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/9234

Nebraska vote sought on affirmative-action ban

columbustelegram.com
By NATE JENKINS - AP
Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 - 04:44:54 pm CST

LINCOLN, Neb. - A battle over affirmative action will be fought in Nebraska heading into the 2008 presidential election, part of a California group's multistate plan to bar race and gender as a factor in hiring and admissions decisions.
A proposed amendment to the Nebraska Constitution would bar "preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting."
Nebraska is one of five states being targeted by the California group Super Tuesday for Equal Rights. It is backed by Ward Connerly, who has helped squash affirmative action at public institutions, namely colleges and universities, in California, Washington and Michigan over the past decade.
A voter-approved ban in Michigan last year emboldened organizers. Now the group plans to push for voter-approved bans in Nebraska, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma heading into the November 2008 election.
"After the win in Michigan, there's a national momentum for ending our giving preferences to hiring and admitting people born with different physical characteristics," said Doug Tietz of the Super Tuesday organization.
"The average Nebraskans is fair-minded ... and every person should be treated fairly regardless of some physical characteristic they were born with," said Tietz, a Nebraska native and executive director of the Nebraska campaign.
The wording of the proposed constitutional amendment has been filed with Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale. Final language that would appear on the ballot _ if enough signatures are gathered _ still must be approved.
Organizers say they need at least 100,000 signatures to get the initiative on the Nebraska ballot.
The choice of language in the petition in Nebraska and elsewhere _ "preferential treatment" _ is a political tactic designed to arouse opposition to affirmative action programs that might not otherwise exist, said Shirley Wilcher, executive director of the American Association for Affirmative Action.
"If you ask, 'Are you for preferential treatment?', the answer will be no," she said. "If you say 'support programs that provide opportunities for disadvantaged Americans' ... you'll get a different answer."
Tietz said the language is similar to what is being proposed in the four other states.
A University of Nebraska-Lincoln professor filed the petition with the state on behalf of Super Tuesday after being contacted by the group. Marc Schniederjans, who teaches management in the business college, would not give specific examples of people receiving preferential treatment at the university, saying it might embarrass people.
The man supporting the Super Tuesday group, Connerly, is a former University of California regent who has worked to end affirmative action in several states since helping ground the use of race in admissions decisions at the California university system in the mid 1990s. Connerly, who is black, has said that the end of affirmative action in other states is a sign that "the end of an era" is unfolding.
It is difficult to measure how often race or gender figures into hiring and admissions decisions at public institutions in the state, including local government. But one Nebraska affirmative action official suggested it's not as common as some might assume.
The type of affirmative action now commonly used entails reaching out to minorities so they are aware of job and education opportunities _ not accepting or hiring them because they are minorities, said Jose J. Soto, a board member of the American Association for Affirmative Action and vice president for affirmative action at Southeast Community College in Lincoln.
"It's a rare occurrence in admissions, employment and contracting decisions," Soto said.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://www.columbustelegram.com/articles/2007/11/14/ap-state-ne/d8stnkh80.txt ]

The affirmative action provocateur

Boston Globe
By Anita F. Hill
November 5, 2007

GIVEN AN increasing minority population and key locations where minorities are actually the majority, neither Republicans nor Democrats can risk alienating voters by being insensitive to gender or racial concerns. For that reason, both parties should be concerned about how Ward Connerly's "Super Tuesday for Equal Rights" campaign against affirmative action will affect the November 2008 election.
more stories like this
Neither party wants to be seen as resorting to identity politics, but Democratic candidates know they must get a majority of the votes of white women and people of color along with a respectable percentage of white male votes. And Republican presidential candidates are keenly aware that moderate women and Latinos helped give President Bush the edge over John F. Kerry and might have carried other Republicans with him.
Connerly's mission to end affirmative action began in 1995 in California where he succeeded in convincing his fellow University of California regents to end the practice. Since then he has been the face for successful initiatives against it in Washington and Michigan.
From now until next November, Connerly, a Republican, will be campaigning to ban affirmative action in five states - Arizona, Missouri, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Nebraska - all targeted, in part, for their growing anti-immigrant rumblings. According to Connerly, if large numbers of undocumented immigrants are granted legal rights, current affirmative action programs would entitle them to job or educational preferences. By using affirmative action as a proxy for immigration policy, he is taking racial and gender politics to a new level. If he gets his way, voters will associate those who defend granting rights to illegal immigrants with those who support race-based affirmative action.
Connerly counts on anti-immigrant sentiment to attract those who are ambivalent about affirmative action. And white women and blacks, traditional supporters of affirmative action, may think that a vote for affirmative action is a vote for immigrants who will displace them in the job market, and therefore stay home. This tactic may be just enough to affect the election of Democratic candidates. On the other hand, it may also alienate Latino voters who might have voted Republican.
Connerly's true cynicism shows in his decision not to take his initiative to South Dakota, where he recognizes "the Indian tribes are very influential" in bringing in federal programs seen as beneficial to the entire state. That white voters in South Dakota are thus less apt to be polarized by affirmative action and more likely to vote their community interests was part of his calculation.
By exploiting racial distrust, Connerly's campaign employs the kind of identity politics that both conservatives and liberals decry. At the core of his effort is the idea of white male victimization by racial preferences. Moreover, Connerly promotes a fracturing of community interests along racial and gender lines, the very thing he says affirmative action does.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/11/05/the_affirmative_action_provocateur/?page=full ]

Arizona Business execs form group to fight affirmative-action restrictions

The Business Journal of Phoenix - by Mike Sunnucks
Phoenix Business Journal
Friday, November 2, 2007

Some business executives are joining Democratic lawmakers, minority and women's groups, and the American Civil Liberties Union in opposing a 2008 ballot measure restricting affirmative action in Arizona.
The proposal looks to prohibit minority- and gender-based quotas and preferences in university admissions and in government hiring and contracts. It has the backing of conservative and libertarian interests.
The business group, called Protect Arizona's Freedom, was launched Friday. Members include Ron Westad, CEO of Arizona Federal Credit Union and Greenberg Traurig LLP attorney Booker Evans, according to a PAF press release.
The ACLU, Arizona National Organization for Women, NAACP and Chicanos por la Causa are also part of the opposition. So are a number of government officials, including Arizona Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-central Phoenix; Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox; and Manny Cisneros, director of Gov. Janet Napolitano's Office of Equal Opportunity.
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2007/10/29/daily54.html

Anti-affirmative action crusader comes to Missouri

News Tribune

Posted: Friday, Oct 19, 2007 - 08:11:31 am CDT
Anti-affirmative action crusader comes to Missouri
By ALAN SCHER ZAGIERA
ssociated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) - Having conquered California a decade ago and Michigan last year, affirmative action critic Ward Connerly now has his sights set on the Show-Me State.
The former University of California regent was a key force behind that state's successful ballot measure banning consideration of race and gender in public hiring, contracting and school admissions.
Washington state voters passed a similar law in 1998, as did Michigan voters in 2006.
Missouri is one of five states Connerly and his supporters are targeting as part of a concerted effort to strike down affirmative action laws during a so-called “Super Tuesday for Equal Rights” in 2008. Ballot initiatives are also being organized in Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma and Nebraska
On Thursday, Connerly touted his plan at two events in Kansas City, including a lecture at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He was scheduled to speak Friday in St. Louis.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Connerly, who is black, called for an end to “race-based affirmative action” in favor of what he called “socio-economic affirmative action.”
“We're going through a transition in our country,” he said. “We need to help those who need it rather than presuming that all black people or all minorities are in need of some special treatment.”
To get the so-called Missouri Civil Rights Initiative on the November 2008 ballot, supporters must collect roughly 150,000 signatures from registered voters in the state.
Before that can happen, a Cole County judge must rule on dueling legal complaints over a ballot summary - prepared by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan - for the proposed constitutional amendment.
Tim Asher, former admissions director at North Central Missouri College who is leading the ballot effort, filed a suit in July charging that the ballot summary “uses argumentative language” and misrepresents the proposed amendment.
The Carnahan summary says the proposal would “ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against ... women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education.”
Asher's suit wants the state to change the summary to ask voters whether Missouri should forbid “preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin” in those same three areas.
Supporters of current affirmative action laws also have sued Carnahan, noting that the suggested ballot language fails to tell voters the measure would allow discrimination on the basis of religion, disability, age or veteran status.
A combined hearing on the two suits had been set for late October but is now scheduled for Dec. 17.
Connerly said the delay could wind up making for a costly campaign by the American Civil Rights Coalition, the group in Sacramento, Calif., that he leads. He called the ballot summary “prejudicial” and “perverse” and suggested political bias on the part of Carnahan, a Democrat.
A Carnahan spokesman said the secretary of state was simply following the law, not injecting any personal or political beliefs into the process.
“As with all ballot summaries that we submit, our office is confident that this summary is fair, accurate and reflects how the constitution would be changed by this initiative if it got on the ballot and was passed by voters,” said spokesman Ryan Hobart.
Connerly's group initially had targeted several other states as possible affirmative action battlegrounds in 2008, including South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. He rejected any suggestion that the five states were chosen with political considerations in mind.
“There's no political or racial calculus involved,” Connerly said. “We have to entrust our fellow man with the responsibility of passing laws that are presumed to be in the best interests of the whole community.”
Affirmative action supporters say that Connerly and others have distorted the public dialogue and downplayed the historical forces of discrimination that led to such laws as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“It takes more than 30 or 40 years to remedy, or overcome, centuries of direct and indirect forms of discrimination,” said Shirley Wilcher, executive director of the American Association for Affirmative Action and a former Labor Department official under President Clinton.
http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2007/10/19/news_state/073state34connerly.txt

Affirmative action critic trying to end policies in state

By KEVIN ABOUREZK / Lincoln Journal Star
Saturday, Oct 13, 2007 - 12:40:41 am CDT

A prominent affirmative-action critic is targeting Nebraska as one of five states where he hopes to get voters to decide in November 2008 to end the use of racial, ethnic and gender preferences by public colleges and state and local agencies.Ward Connerly, founder of the American Civil Rights Institute, has begun an effort to put an initiative on the Nov. 4, 2008, ballot in Nebraska that would ban the state from granting preferential treatment to people based on race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin. The initiative would affect the areas of public employment, public education and public contracting.Connerly said the ACRI has hired National Ballot Access of Lawrenceville, Ga., to gather signatures for the ballot initiative and plans to submit petition language to the state for review within three weeks.
He said he hopes to have petition circulators working to get signatures within 45 days in Nebraska.“I think by the end of the year, certainly, we will be on the streets … gathering signatures,” he said.In addition to Nebraska, Connerly is targeting Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma as states that would consider ballot measures ending state preferential treatment in November 2008.He said he is focusing on those states because they seem like states that would pass such measures and because of the ease with which measures can be put on ballots in those states.Of those states, only Colorado lacks a history of social conservatism, though that state has a large conservative minority that has managed to win key ballot victories in recent decades, according the Chronicle of Higher Education.
[To read the entire article, go to: http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2007/10/13/news/local/doc47100ca81beb1151541929.txt ]

Signatures sought for Colorado Ballot Initiative

The Denver Post
denver & the west briefing
Article Last Updated: 10/02/2007 02:31:00 AM MDT

Signatures sought for ballot initiative limiting affirmative action
Denver - A ballot initiative to ban "preferential treatment" by the state and local governments in Colorado has entered the signature-collection phase, Secretary of State Mike Coffman said Monday.
The proposal would limit affirmative-action efforts, but opponents say it could prohibit health care programs for women.
Proponents Valery Orr and Linda Chavez must collect the signatures of 76,047 registered Colorado voters for the issue to appear on the November 2008 ballot. Those signatures are due to the secretary of state's office by Dec. 20.

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_7056579

Affirmative-action proposal for Missouri ballot is deceptive

Kansas City Star Editorial
Posted on Mon, Oct. 01, 2007 10:15 PM

Late this month a Cole County judge is to begin hearing arguments in two lawsuits concerning a harmful measure that claims to be a “civil rights initiative.”
Supporters of the proposed amendment to the Missouri Constitution say it would simply ensure fairness. But it would torpedo state-supported affirmative action programs in hiring, contracting and education.
From opposite perspectives, the lawsuits challenge the ballot wording approved by Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan. Supporters of the proposed amendment must obtain 139,181 signatures to get it on the November 2008 ballot.
In their lawsuit, they want Carnahan to use ballot language they originally proposed. That language, however, is deceptive. It steals the words of the 1960s civil rights movement and turns them upside down.
On the other hand, affirmative-action supporters argue in their lawsuit that Carnahan’s ballot language fails to specify all of the victims of past discrimination who would be hurt.
This would include those who have been discriminated against on the basis of religion, disability, age or veteran status. That is a legitimate concern.
Supporters of the initiative point to similar measures that were approved in California and Michigan. Yet they are careful to hide the harm those initiatives have done to African-American and Hispanic communities.
Consider: Since California passed Proposition 209 in 1996, the number of black and Hispanic students annually enrolled in the University of California-Berkeley’s law school has never reached the levels it attained under affirmative action programs.
Ellis Cose, in his book Killing Affirmative Action, argues that affirmative action was never meant to carry the weight society has thrown on its shoulders. It was never meant, he argues, to solve the glaring inequities in education, income or health care in American society.
Affirmative action isn’t perfect. But if the goal is a more equitable society, Missourians and the rest of the country are going to need it for years to come.
http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/298966.html

An anti-bias ballot battle

By Devona WalkerStaff Writer
Fri September 28, 2007

The Affirmative Action Civil Rights Council continued Thursday to provide oversight to state agencies in an effort to increase employment of minorities and women, despite the momentum of a petition campaign seeking to do away with affirmative action in Oklahoma. The California-based American Civil Rights Institute is the brains and dollars behind the Oklahoma Human Rights initiative. The group is seeking to get on the November ballot a vote to end gender and race-based preferences in the hiring of state employees, public contracts and public education.
"This is not a black and white thing,” said state Rep. Mike Shelton, D-Oklahoma City and a member of the council. "The unfortunate thing is that people are signing this, without understanding how devastating this is going to be to women. More than anyone else, this is going to set women back 50 years.”
A similar initiative — backed by the same group — was successful in Michigan during the midterm elections as well as in California and Washington.
Oklahoma, Colorado, Arizona and Missouri were chosen by Ward Connerly, the founder of the American Civil Rights Institute, as the next states where he would push for the change.
"Oklahoma is one of the states that we chose, but there is local support for it,” Connerly said. "That was one of the deciding factors.”
The proposal, State Question 737, also would affect small businesses, as there are programs established to help small businesses run by minorities and women. A minimum of 138,970 signatures of state registered voters must be obtained for there to be a chance of getting it on a general election ballot.
Perceptions citedOklahoma supporters would not speak to specifics in terms of the number of signatures, but say the local effort is doing quite well.
Oklahoma state government has nearly 20,000 women employees and more than 7,000 minority employees.
Peter Schmidt, a novelist and deputy editor for the Chronicle of Higher Education, says criticism against affirmative action is mostly about perceptions.
About half of white people over the age of 18 think they have been passed over by a less-qualified black, he said.
"And that means a lot when you want to get someone to sign a petition,” Schmidt said
[To read the entire article, go to: http://newsok.com/article/3135839/1190960077 ]

Lawyer seeks petition drive to stop use of preferences

Critics say the goal is to end affirmative- action programs.
By BARBARA HOBEROCK World Capitol Bureau
9/11/2007

OKLAHOMA CITY -- An Oklahoma City lawyer filed notice Monday with the Secretary of State's Office of his intent to circulate an initiative petition that some critics say would wipe out state affirmative-action programs. The measure would add a new section to the state constitution. "The new section prohibits discriminating against or granting preferences to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contacting by the state or any of its agencies, institutions, or political subdivisions," the proposed ballot title says, adding that it would not prohibit actions necessary for the state to obtain federal funding. The notice of intent to circulate the petition was filed by Oklahoma City lawyer Devin Resides, a Republican who failed to get elected in 2006 to the state House of Representatives. "This initiative will abolish all preferences based on the way a person looks," Resides said. "I don't think this will impact in any shape or form the reaching out to those Oklahomans that need help." Rep. Mike Shelton, D-Oklahoma City, chairman of the Oklahoma Legislative Black Caucus, said the measure would end state affirmative-action programs. "If that is not the reason, then why offer an initiative petition?" Shelton asked. Under state law, the petitioner has 90 days to gather the 138,970 signatures needed to qualify for a statewide vote. Resides said he doesn't want the measure to be labeled an anti-affirmative-action effort. "It is an anti-preference initiative," he said. If passed, the measure's impact would depend on how affirmative action is defined, Resides said. Affirmative-action policies are generally designed to promote access to education and jobs for historically disadvantaged segments of the population. Supporters say they redress past discrimination and level the playing field for minorities and women. "I think you could find 50 different people with 50 different options of what affirmative action is," Resides said. "I think I could find 50 people who would all agree with me that ending preferences is right for Oklahoma." Resides said he was contacted by Jennifer Gratz of the American Civil Rights Institute in California about the issue. California passed a similar measure.

[To read the entire article, go to: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070911_1_A13_hCrit10185]

Affirmative action supporters fight proposed amendment

By TIM HOOVER
The Star’s Jefferson City correspondent
Kansas City Star
Sep. 08, 2007 10:15 PM

JEFFERSON CITY A proposed Missouri constitutional amendment to bar state programs that give preference based on race or gender has drawn a second lawsuit — this one from affirmative action supporters.
Steve Israelite, former executive director of the Jewish Heritage Foundation of Kansas City, and Greg Shufeldt, political director for the St. Louis-based Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition, are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
The case was filed recently in Cole County Circuit Court against Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and State Auditor Susan Montee.
The proposed amendment would end gender and race preferences in state hiring, contracting and education. However, it would not preclude gender preferences in public housing, education or contracting that are “reasonably necessary,” and it would not apply in instances where federal program funds would be lost.
The most recent lawsuit alleges that the ballot title Carnahan approved is “insufficient and unfair” and “is likely to deceive and mislead voters.” The language Carnahan approved does not say that the measure would allow discrimination on the basis of religion, disability, age or veteran status, the lawsuit argues.
And the fiscal note that Montee approved, which says that state and local government costs are unknown, also is insufficient and unfair, the lawsuit alleges. Montee did not do enough research to determine actual costs, the lawsuit argues.
“I feel very strongly about the disparity that goes on in the nation between blacks and whites,” Israelite said. “Affirmative action is designed to help ameliorate those disparities.”
The lawsuit also alleges that the proposed amendment violates the state constitution because it deals with multiple subjects and would amend more than one section of the constitution. The amendment also runs afoul of rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit argues.
The Missouri Civil Rights Initiative filed the petition for the constitutional amendment and also is challenging Carnahan’s ballot language. Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce has combined the lawsuits, and trial is set for Oct. 30.

[To read the entire article, go to: http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/266882.html ]

Ward Connerly's 'Equal Rights' con

Conservative philanthropy product Connerly launching 'Super Tuesday for Equal Rights' -- a series of November 2008 anti-affirmative action initiatives

In the aftermath of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling severely limiting the use of race in K-12 integration plans, Ward Connerly is feeling his oats. "I believe that we are now poised for a coup de grâce to say that race preferences in the eyes of the public should not be used," Connerly, the chairman of the Sacramento, California-based American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), said in response to the Supreme Court's decision. Since 1997 ACRI has received more than $5.7 million from conservative philanthropies for its anti-affirmative action activities.
If Connerly's new Super Tuesday for Equal Rights campaign is successful, the day after the November 2008 presidential election affirmative action will be one giant step closer to oblivion. The mastermind behind anti-affirmative action initiatives in California, Michigan, and Washington, has set his sights on five new states -- Missouri, Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. "This is going to be Super Tuesday for equal rights," Connerly said. "I think it's very clear that we are witnessing an end to an era."
In 1997, Connerly along with Thomas 'Dusty' Rhodes, co-founded the American Civil Rights Institute (website), a national non-profit organization pro-actively opposed to affirmative action. Connerly rocketed into the national spotlight -- and the hearts of conservatives -- with Proposition 209, the 1996 California ballot initiative that outlawed race and gender preferences in state hiring and university admissions.
Connerly-sponsored anti-affirmative action initiatives have a Frank Luntz-ian bent to them. Luntz is the GOP political consultant/pollster/Fox News Channel contributor who has been debasing language for partisan political purposes for more than a decade. As Diversity Inc.'s Jennifer Millman pointed out in a late-August report, Connerly "makes an easy sell to the public by calling for 'equal opportunity' and a 'colorblind society,' [which is] a distortion of civil-rights language that has duped the public into banning affirmative action in public education, employment and contracting."

[To read the entire article, go to: http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=210]

Race Card Issue Won, Truth Lost

Article Last Updated: 09/02/2007 01:14:22 AM MDT
By Diane Carman
Denver Post Columnist

The juggernaut is in full gallop across Arizona, Oregon, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, Utah, South Dakota and Colorado. Money is being raised, language is being finalized and initiative petitions to get constitutional amendments on the ballot are being readied.
Sponsors from the American Civil Rights Institute have dubbed Nov. 6, 2008, "Super Tuesday for Equal Rights."
Their goal is to end affirmative action, though they rarely say it that plainly. And if their tactics in Michigan are any indication, a wave of voter fraud could be headed our way.
Then, by the time anybody can launch a court challenge, the election will be over, the amendments will be law and there will be no turning back.
It may not be the perfect crime but, hey, it got the job done.
Anti-affirmative action activist Ward Connerly is one of several defendants named in the court challenge of Proposal 2, the Michigan anti-affirmative action law, which was approved by voters there in 2006.
While the federal courts have said it's too late to do anything about it, the evidence of voter fraud in getting the measure on the ballot was abundant.
"... Solicitation and procurement of signatures in support of placing Proposal 2 on the general election ballot was rife with fraud and deception," said the opinion handed down last week by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Michigan. "By all accounts, Proposal 2 found its way on the ballot through methods that undermine the integrity and fairness of our democratic processes."
They lied and lied and lied.
The opinion said the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative engaged in a "highly coordinated, systematic strategy" of misrepresenting the ballot measure to "thousands of voters."
Petition circulators were instructed "to tell potential signers that the petition was a pro-civil rights and pro-affirmative action petition."
Witness after witness testified to the deceptive tactics when the case was heard in U.S. District Court last year.
One woman said she was told by a circulator that he was working "to keep affirmative action on the books." He told her that if affirmative action were abolished, her son would not be allowed to attend the University of Michigan.
At a market in Detroit, circulators said that the petition supported affirmative action and signing it would help black kids get into college.
Ruthie Stevenson, president of the Macomb County chapter of the Michigan NAACP, said she was approached by a circulator who said the measure would "make civil rights fairer for everybody." He also told her that Ruthie Stevenson, president of the NAACP, had endorsed it. When she told him that she was Ruthie Stevenson and she most assuredly did not support it, he walked away.
Even the mayor of Kalamazoo, Hanna McKinney, testified that she was misled and would never have signed the petition if she had known it supported a ban on affirmative action.
The court also criticized Jennifer Gratz, executive director of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, for "evasive testimony" and her group's "use of deception and connivance to confuse the issues in the hopes of getting the proposal on the ballot."
The court said, "It is difficult to determine where the line between wilful ignorance and deliberate deception could be drawn" in her testimony.

[To read the entire article, go to: http://origin.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_6776724 ]