5News
Ft Smith - Fayetteville, AR
By Associated Press
3:14 PM CDT, May 14, 2010
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — A 55-year-old Oklahoma man has been sentenced to 160 days time served for falsely swearing to signatures he collected for a ballot proposal in Nebraska.Mark Brown of Tulsa, Okla., had pleaded no contest in Lancaster County District Court to three felony counts of false swearing to a circulator's affidavit. He had been paid per signature to circulate petitions to get a measure to ban affirmative action on the November 2008 ballot.
Full Story: http://www.kfsm.com/news/sns-ap-ne--circulatorsentenced,0,4740717.story
Showing posts with label nebraska civil rights initiative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nebraska civil rights initiative. Show all posts
Friday, May 14, 2010
Monday, March 16, 2009
City unveils post-affirmative action contracting program
Omaha.com
BY MATTHEW HANSEN
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
Published Friday
March 13, 2009
A change sparked by Nebraska's affirmative action ban will transform the way Omaha companies receive slices of the city contracting pie.The Small Emerging Business Program, unveiled Friday by Mayor Mike Fahey, will greatly expand the number of businesses that qualify for special government subcontracts to do things like build libraries, repair fire stations and clean community centers.But it's unclear how the new program will affect minority- and female-owned businesses as well as extremely small companies.Those groups benefited from two now-defunct contracting programs — one that shuttled work to companies owned by minorities and women and another that sent work to tiny subcontractors.The previous programs became unconstitutional when Nebraska voters passed the affirmative action ban in November.Fahey called the affirmative action ban "unfortunate" but said the new Small Emerging Business Program was one that could help small businessmen and businesswomen of any color."We're opening the door for many more small businesses," Fahey said.
Full Story: http://omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1208&u_sid=10585766
BY MATTHEW HANSEN
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
Published Friday
March 13, 2009
A change sparked by Nebraska's affirmative action ban will transform the way Omaha companies receive slices of the city contracting pie.The Small Emerging Business Program, unveiled Friday by Mayor Mike Fahey, will greatly expand the number of businesses that qualify for special government subcontracts to do things like build libraries, repair fire stations and clean community centers.But it's unclear how the new program will affect minority- and female-owned businesses as well as extremely small companies.Those groups benefited from two now-defunct contracting programs — one that shuttled work to companies owned by minorities and women and another that sent work to tiny subcontractors.The previous programs became unconstitutional when Nebraska voters passed the affirmative action ban in November.Fahey called the affirmative action ban "unfortunate" but said the new Small Emerging Business Program was one that could help small businessmen and businesswomen of any color."We're opening the door for many more small businesses," Fahey said.
Full Story: http://omaha.com/index.php?u_page=1208&u_sid=10585766
Friday, March 13, 2009
Group: Omaha rules violate affirmative-action ban
Nebraska TV
Associated Press - March 12, 2009 2:35 PM ET
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - A legal group is calling for Omaha to repeal rules that give preference to minority and female contractors, saying the rules violate Nebraska's affirmative-action ban.
The California-based Pacific Legal Foundation sent a letter to city officials on Wednesday.
It says Omaha's contracting ordinance lets female- and minority-owned businesses submit bids 30 days before other businesses. It also requires 10% of the city's contracting dollars to be awarded to female- and minority-owned businesses.
Full Story: http://www.nebraska.tv/Global/story.asp?S=9995559&nav=menu605_2
Associated Press - March 12, 2009 2:35 PM ET
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - A legal group is calling for Omaha to repeal rules that give preference to minority and female contractors, saying the rules violate Nebraska's affirmative-action ban.
The California-based Pacific Legal Foundation sent a letter to city officials on Wednesday.
It says Omaha's contracting ordinance lets female- and minority-owned businesses submit bids 30 days before other businesses. It also requires 10% of the city's contracting dollars to be awarded to female- and minority-owned businesses.
Full Story: http://www.nebraska.tv/Global/story.asp?S=9995559&nav=menu605_2
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Anti-affirmative action group opposes bill
Omaha World-Herald
Published Tuesday
March 3, 2009
BY MARTHA STODDARDWORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN — Backers of the ban on affirmative action in Nebraska objected Monday to a bill meant to bring the state's student diversity scholarship program in line with the ban.Marc Schniederjans, a local leader of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, argued that complying with the intent of the constitutional amendment that voters approved last year should mean that the scholarships are ended rather than altered.The amendment bars public agencies such as universities and city governments from considering race, gender or ethnicity when handing out contracts, hiring employees or awarding scholarships.Legislative Bill 440 would eliminate all reference to "racial, ethnic and cultural diversity" in the law creating the scholarships and would require that the scholarships simply promote "diversity" in the state's public colleges and universities.
Full Story: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10577435
Published Tuesday
March 3, 2009
BY MARTHA STODDARDWORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN — Backers of the ban on affirmative action in Nebraska objected Monday to a bill meant to bring the state's student diversity scholarship program in line with the ban.Marc Schniederjans, a local leader of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, argued that complying with the intent of the constitutional amendment that voters approved last year should mean that the scholarships are ended rather than altered.The amendment bars public agencies such as universities and city governments from considering race, gender or ethnicity when handing out contracts, hiring employees or awarding scholarships.Legislative Bill 440 would eliminate all reference to "racial, ethnic and cultural diversity" in the law creating the scholarships and would require that the scholarships simply promote "diversity" in the state's public colleges and universities.
Full Story: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2798&u_sid=10577435
Thursday, January 22, 2009
(Neb.)-Neb. Judge Rejects Affirmative Action Ban Lawsuit
By: Nick Jakusz
Posted at: 01/22/2009 12:39 PM
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -
A Nebraska judge has rejected a lawsuit that challenged the petition that led to a statewide ban on affirmative action. Voters approved the initiative in November. The lawsuit, filed in Lancaster County District Court before the vote, challenged the validity of petition signatures. Opponents said some signatures were gathered using a "pattern of fraud and illegality." But Judge Karen Flowers rejected that argument and decided in favor of the state. If the lawsuit had been successful, it could have invalidated the law. The constitutional amendment prohibits state and local governments from giving preferential treatment to people on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity or national origin. Similar bans have passed in California, Michigan and Washington.
Full Story: http://www.chadrad.com/newsstory.cfm?story=12938
Posted at: 01/22/2009 12:39 PM
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -
A Nebraska judge has rejected a lawsuit that challenged the petition that led to a statewide ban on affirmative action. Voters approved the initiative in November. The lawsuit, filed in Lancaster County District Court before the vote, challenged the validity of petition signatures. Opponents said some signatures were gathered using a "pattern of fraud and illegality." But Judge Karen Flowers rejected that argument and decided in favor of the state. If the lawsuit had been successful, it could have invalidated the law. The constitutional amendment prohibits state and local governments from giving preferential treatment to people on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity or national origin. Similar bans have passed in California, Michigan and Washington.
Full Story: http://www.chadrad.com/newsstory.cfm?story=12938
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Nebraskans approve affirmative action ban
The Cavalier Daily
Colorado voters faced similar proposition; University will continue to practice affirmative action in admissions decisions
Shea Connelly, Cavalier Daily Senior Associate Editor
Published: Monday, November 10 2008
On Election Day last week, 58 percent of voters in Nebraska supported a measure to end the practice of affirmative action in public employment, public education and public contracting.
Colorado voters faced a similar choice on their ballot this year, and although votes are still being counted, the votes to keep the practice currently outweigh the alternative, 51 to 49 percent.
Bill Harvey, University vice president and chief officer for diversity and equity, noted that he was pleased that voters in Colorado looked at the proposition on their ballot carefully enough to understand that “there is a need and opportunity for us to provide a chance for people who are historically not represented to get a chance to be involved in higher education and employment.”
Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity based in Falls Church, Va., which supports banning some kinds of affirmative action, however, holds a different perspective. He noted that his organization recently conducted and released a study showing the “heavy weight” the University of Nebraska College of Law gives to race in its admissions policies.
“African-Americans and, to a lesser extent, Latinos were admitted with much lower qualifications than whites and Asian-Americans,” Clegg said. “We think that’s unfair and divisive and really serves no one’s interests, so we oppose that.”
Clegg noted, however, that the term “affirmative action” means different things to different groups of people, and his organization does not oppose all forms of affirmative action. He cited President John F. Kennedy’s reference to the term affirmative action in a 1961 executive order in which he urged employers to take “affirmative action” to avoid engaging in prejudicial policies as an example of a type of affirmative action that his organization approves.
On the other hand, he said, “we think that actually taking race or ethnicity into account in deciding who gets admitted into a school or who gets hired or who is awarded a government contract is discrimination, and it’s wrong no matter what racial or ethnic group is being discriminated against,” Clegg said. “In 2008, it is untenable to have a legal regime where people are sorted according to skin color and some people are treated better and others worse on that basis.”
In contrast with Clegg, Shirley J. Wilcher, executive director of the American Association for Affirmative Action, said affirmative action is still necessary.
“Until we have no evidence of discrimination, affirmative action will continue to be necessary,” she said. “Diversity is still a compelling interest with demographics indicating that by 2042, a majority of Americans will be minorities. It is important to ensure colleges and universities have qualified students of all backgrounds.”
Wilcher also said people supporting the bans on affirmative action have been engaging in “deceptive practices” in order to convince other people to also support the bans.
“People thought they were signing an initiative that was pro-civil rights,” she said, when they were actually signing a petition to ban affirmative action.
Wilcher said the future of the United States depends on qualified people of all races being able to graduate from college and to ascend to positions of leadership. [Full story: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/news/2008/nov/10/nebraskans-approve/]
Colorado voters faced similar proposition; University will continue to practice affirmative action in admissions decisions
Shea Connelly, Cavalier Daily Senior Associate Editor
Published: Monday, November 10 2008
On Election Day last week, 58 percent of voters in Nebraska supported a measure to end the practice of affirmative action in public employment, public education and public contracting.
Colorado voters faced a similar choice on their ballot this year, and although votes are still being counted, the votes to keep the practice currently outweigh the alternative, 51 to 49 percent.
Bill Harvey, University vice president and chief officer for diversity and equity, noted that he was pleased that voters in Colorado looked at the proposition on their ballot carefully enough to understand that “there is a need and opportunity for us to provide a chance for people who are historically not represented to get a chance to be involved in higher education and employment.”
Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity based in Falls Church, Va., which supports banning some kinds of affirmative action, however, holds a different perspective. He noted that his organization recently conducted and released a study showing the “heavy weight” the University of Nebraska College of Law gives to race in its admissions policies.
“African-Americans and, to a lesser extent, Latinos were admitted with much lower qualifications than whites and Asian-Americans,” Clegg said. “We think that’s unfair and divisive and really serves no one’s interests, so we oppose that.”
Clegg noted, however, that the term “affirmative action” means different things to different groups of people, and his organization does not oppose all forms of affirmative action. He cited President John F. Kennedy’s reference to the term affirmative action in a 1961 executive order in which he urged employers to take “affirmative action” to avoid engaging in prejudicial policies as an example of a type of affirmative action that his organization approves.
On the other hand, he said, “we think that actually taking race or ethnicity into account in deciding who gets admitted into a school or who gets hired or who is awarded a government contract is discrimination, and it’s wrong no matter what racial or ethnic group is being discriminated against,” Clegg said. “In 2008, it is untenable to have a legal regime where people are sorted according to skin color and some people are treated better and others worse on that basis.”
In contrast with Clegg, Shirley J. Wilcher, executive director of the American Association for Affirmative Action, said affirmative action is still necessary.
“Until we have no evidence of discrimination, affirmative action will continue to be necessary,” she said. “Diversity is still a compelling interest with demographics indicating that by 2042, a majority of Americans will be minorities. It is important to ensure colleges and universities have qualified students of all backgrounds.”
Wilcher also said people supporting the bans on affirmative action have been engaging in “deceptive practices” in order to convince other people to also support the bans.
“People thought they were signing an initiative that was pro-civil rights,” she said, when they were actually signing a petition to ban affirmative action.
Wilcher said the future of the United States depends on qualified people of all races being able to graduate from college and to ascend to positions of leadership. [Full story: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/news/2008/nov/10/nebraskans-approve/]
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CELEBRATES THE ELECTION OF BARACK OBAMA
American Association for Affirmative Action
Celebrates the Election of Barack Obama, First African-American President;
Denounces the Passage of Nebraska Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative
“Change has truly come to America”
The American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA), a national membership organization of equal employment opportunity (EEO), affirmative action and diversity professionals, congratulates Barack Obama on his historic election as President of the United States of America. AAAA President ReNee S. Dunman stated: “We who have devoted our careers to the inclusion of all who are able and qualified to serve in America’s workplaces celebrate the fact that a son of Africa and America, of Kenya and Kansas will ascend to the presidency of these United States.” America affirmatively acted to select leadership, talent and ability, without regard to the superficial trappings of race and color. “This is the promise of America, whose spirit is embodied in the Constitution. This is the future of America. Barack Obama has also shown us that hope is not a vain exercise. The investment and sacrifice made in the anti-slavery and civil rights movements by all who gave their lives -- black, white, men and women, young and old, have yielded a momentous dividend today, she added.” While we observe the historic significance of Barack Obama’s success, Ms. Dunman emphasizes that the struggle for opportunity has not ended, however. “Where there is inequality and exclusion, affirmative action remains essential in promoting equal opportunity in the workplace, higher education and contracting.”
AAAA denounces the passage of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, “Initiative 424.” “We are troubled by Mr. Connerly’s scorched-earth campaign to end equal opportunity in America,” said Ms. Dunman. “At a time when we are celebrating the election of the first African-American president in the history of the United States, we must continue to fight to keep the doors of opportunity open in the states.” AAAA commends the valiant efforts of the Nebraska Board of Regents and other agencies and groups who fought to resist the passage of this initiative. “The Michigan Proposal 2 has not been able to defeat the course of opportunity, diversity and excellence there and we firmly believe that the Nebraska initiative will be equally ineffective.” Overall, Ward Connerly’s “Super Tuesday” effort to pass anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives in five states was “a colossal failure.” “We must commend the national organizations as well as the local efforts to defeat these regressive measures,” stated Ms. Dunman.
Founded in 1974, the American Association for Affirmation Action (AAAA) is a national not-for-profit association of professionals working in the areas of affirmative action, equal opportunity, and diversity. AAAA helps its members to be more successful and productive in their careers. It also promotes understanding and advocacy of affirmative action to enhance access and equality in employment, economic and educational opportunities.
##
American Association for Affirmative Action
888 16th Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-349-9855
202-355-1399
www.affirmativeaction.org
Celebrates the Election of Barack Obama, First African-American President;
Denounces the Passage of Nebraska Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative
“Change has truly come to America”
The American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA), a national membership organization of equal employment opportunity (EEO), affirmative action and diversity professionals, congratulates Barack Obama on his historic election as President of the United States of America. AAAA President ReNee S. Dunman stated: “We who have devoted our careers to the inclusion of all who are able and qualified to serve in America’s workplaces celebrate the fact that a son of Africa and America, of Kenya and Kansas will ascend to the presidency of these United States.” America affirmatively acted to select leadership, talent and ability, without regard to the superficial trappings of race and color. “This is the promise of America, whose spirit is embodied in the Constitution. This is the future of America. Barack Obama has also shown us that hope is not a vain exercise. The investment and sacrifice made in the anti-slavery and civil rights movements by all who gave their lives -- black, white, men and women, young and old, have yielded a momentous dividend today, she added.” While we observe the historic significance of Barack Obama’s success, Ms. Dunman emphasizes that the struggle for opportunity has not ended, however. “Where there is inequality and exclusion, affirmative action remains essential in promoting equal opportunity in the workplace, higher education and contracting.”
AAAA denounces the passage of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, “Initiative 424.” “We are troubled by Mr. Connerly’s scorched-earth campaign to end equal opportunity in America,” said Ms. Dunman. “At a time when we are celebrating the election of the first African-American president in the history of the United States, we must continue to fight to keep the doors of opportunity open in the states.” AAAA commends the valiant efforts of the Nebraska Board of Regents and other agencies and groups who fought to resist the passage of this initiative. “The Michigan Proposal 2 has not been able to defeat the course of opportunity, diversity and excellence there and we firmly believe that the Nebraska initiative will be equally ineffective.” Overall, Ward Connerly’s “Super Tuesday” effort to pass anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives in five states was “a colossal failure.” “We must commend the national organizations as well as the local efforts to defeat these regressive measures,” stated Ms. Dunman.
Founded in 1974, the American Association for Affirmation Action (AAAA) is a national not-for-profit association of professionals working in the areas of affirmative action, equal opportunity, and diversity. AAAA helps its members to be more successful and productive in their careers. It also promotes understanding and advocacy of affirmative action to enhance access and equality in employment, economic and educational opportunities.
##
American Association for Affirmative Action
888 16th Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-349-9855
202-355-1399
www.affirmativeaction.org
Nebraska Bars Use of Race in Admissions
Inside Higher Ed
November 5, 2008
Nebraska on Tuesday became the fourth state to ban the consideration of race in admissions decisions by public colleges and universities. California, Washington State and Michigan have previously approved such bans.
With more than 90 percent of votes counted in unofficial results, 58 percent of Nebraska voters were backing the ban. A similar measure in Colorado was narrowly behind, with just over half of the vote counted early Wednesday and without a clear indication of the final outcome.
Even if Colorado also bans the consideration of race, the 2008 elections will end up inflicting a lesser blow to affirmative action than many originally believed would be the case. Ward Connerly, the anti-affirmative action activist who led the fight against the consideration of race in California and then took his campaign national, had hoped Tuesday would be a “super Tuesday” for his movement — and at one point planned for referendums to take place in Arizona, Missouri and Oklahoma in addition to Colorado and Nebraska. But difficulties with getting petitions on the ballot led to defeats for his effort before the measures could go before voters — and that’s crucial because, when given the chance, voters have tended to approve such measures.
Educators in Nebraska and Colorado — as have educators in the other states that have passed these measures — warned that passage would make it more difficult to recruit and retain diverse student bodies.
Advocates for affirmative action and for curbing affirmative action split as expected on Tuesday’s results.
“We had terrific success this year in keeping it off the ballot in three states,” said ReNee Dunman, director of equal opportunity and affirmative action at Old Dominion University and president of the American Association for Affirmative Action. She said that state activists were growing more aware of the “deceptive tactics” used to promote such referendums — and were giving ballot petitions more scrutiny.
While the Nebraska vote will “squelch opportunity,” she said that 2008 was overall a successful one for those defending affirmative action. [Full story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/05/affirm]
November 5, 2008
Nebraska on Tuesday became the fourth state to ban the consideration of race in admissions decisions by public colleges and universities. California, Washington State and Michigan have previously approved such bans.
With more than 90 percent of votes counted in unofficial results, 58 percent of Nebraska voters were backing the ban. A similar measure in Colorado was narrowly behind, with just over half of the vote counted early Wednesday and without a clear indication of the final outcome.
Even if Colorado also bans the consideration of race, the 2008 elections will end up inflicting a lesser blow to affirmative action than many originally believed would be the case. Ward Connerly, the anti-affirmative action activist who led the fight against the consideration of race in California and then took his campaign national, had hoped Tuesday would be a “super Tuesday” for his movement — and at one point planned for referendums to take place in Arizona, Missouri and Oklahoma in addition to Colorado and Nebraska. But difficulties with getting petitions on the ballot led to defeats for his effort before the measures could go before voters — and that’s crucial because, when given the chance, voters have tended to approve such measures.
Educators in Nebraska and Colorado — as have educators in the other states that have passed these measures — warned that passage would make it more difficult to recruit and retain diverse student bodies.
Advocates for affirmative action and for curbing affirmative action split as expected on Tuesday’s results.
“We had terrific success this year in keeping it off the ballot in three states,” said ReNee Dunman, director of equal opportunity and affirmative action at Old Dominion University and president of the American Association for Affirmative Action. She said that state activists were growing more aware of the “deceptive tactics” used to promote such referendums — and were giving ballot petitions more scrutiny.
While the Nebraska vote will “squelch opportunity,” she said that 2008 was overall a successful one for those defending affirmative action. [Full story: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/05/affirm]
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Initiative petition to prohibit affirmative action programs approved
Omaha World-Herald
November 5, 2008
BY MATTHEW HANSENWORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
Nebraska voters approved a constitutional amendment that would ban race- and gender-based affirmative action programs.The amendment, known as Initiative 424, seeks to bar the University of Nebraska from offering minority scholarships. It also would end the City of Omaha's contracting program that pushes a certain percentage of city work to minority - and woman-owned businesses.The Nebraska Supreme Court will likely need to rule in the affirmative action ban's favor before Initiative 424 can become law. [Full story: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10478162]
November 5, 2008
BY MATTHEW HANSENWORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
Nebraska voters approved a constitutional amendment that would ban race- and gender-based affirmative action programs.The amendment, known as Initiative 424, seeks to bar the University of Nebraska from offering minority scholarships. It also would end the City of Omaha's contracting program that pushes a certain percentage of city work to minority - and woman-owned businesses.The Nebraska Supreme Court will likely need to rule in the affirmative action ban's favor before Initiative 424 can become law. [Full story: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10478162]
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Senators encourage opposition to affirmative action ban
By: Rachel Albin
Posted: 10/2/08
Student leaders at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln hope affirmative action is here to stay.
On Wednesday, the Association of Students of the University of Nebraska passed a resolution stating its opposition to the affirmative action ban on the November ballot. The resolution also urges students to research affirmative action and vote against banning it in Nebraska.
All but one senator voted in favor of Senate Resolution #5, and one senator abstained from voting.
"I'm kind of 'Heineman' on this issue," said Katie Madsen, a senior business administration major and external vice president of ASUN. "I'm not going to say yes. I'm not going to say no. I'm just going to smile."
Madsen refused to take a stance because her position doesn't allow her to vote with the senate. But she reminded senators to think of their constituents, some of which support the affirmative action ban.
Nate Skaggs, a senior marketing major and senator for the college of business administration, said he abstained from voting because he felt he didn't know his constituents' opinions well enough to make the decision.
"Gov. Heineman said that because this is not going to come to his desk, he's not going to take a stance," said Emily Zimmer, a senior political science major and president of ASUN. "This is coming to our campus."
Zimmer and several senators pressed others to approve the resolution and oppose the ban because they said it would cripple equal-access and certain university-enriching programs.
The ban would eliminate scholarships that consider race or gender, including private scholarships the university has ties to, said Sarah Fech, a senior political science and French major and chair of the ASUN Government Liaison Committee.
Programs such as a mentor-matching for minority students and facilities including the Women's Center and the Multicultural Center could also be at risk, she said.
Posted: 10/2/08
Student leaders at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln hope affirmative action is here to stay.
On Wednesday, the Association of Students of the University of Nebraska passed a resolution stating its opposition to the affirmative action ban on the November ballot. The resolution also urges students to research affirmative action and vote against banning it in Nebraska.
All but one senator voted in favor of Senate Resolution #5, and one senator abstained from voting.
"I'm kind of 'Heineman' on this issue," said Katie Madsen, a senior business administration major and external vice president of ASUN. "I'm not going to say yes. I'm not going to say no. I'm just going to smile."
Madsen refused to take a stance because her position doesn't allow her to vote with the senate. But she reminded senators to think of their constituents, some of which support the affirmative action ban.
Nate Skaggs, a senior marketing major and senator for the college of business administration, said he abstained from voting because he felt he didn't know his constituents' opinions well enough to make the decision.
"Gov. Heineman said that because this is not going to come to his desk, he's not going to take a stance," said Emily Zimmer, a senior political science major and president of ASUN. "This is coming to our campus."
Zimmer and several senators pressed others to approve the resolution and oppose the ban because they said it would cripple equal-access and certain university-enriching programs.
The ban would eliminate scholarships that consider race or gender, including private scholarships the university has ties to, said Sarah Fech, a senior political science and French major and chair of the ASUN Government Liaison Committee.
Programs such as a mentor-matching for minority students and facilities including the Women's Center and the Multicultural Center could also be at risk, she said.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
TV ads target supporter of affirmative action ban
bnd.com
Sunday, Sep. 28, 2008
Associated Press
A new television and online ad questions the motives of a California businessman who is pushing a ban on most types of affirmative action in Nebraska and Colorado.
Kristina Wilfore, executive director of the liberal Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, said the ads started running Wednesday in Omaha and Denver. They question Ward Connerly's salary and millions of dollars paid to him in speaking fees.
Wilfore said Connerly's compensation from his group, the American Civil Rights Coalition, is "out-of-whack with any nonprofit industry standards."
Her group bases its figures on IRS tax records between 1997 and 2006, concluding that Connerly "lined his own pockets with over $7.6 million."
Connerly points out that the money doesn't all go to him. The group's board sets compensation, and the $7.6 million referred to includes salaries for other staff including attorneys, Connerly said.
Before he started this job, Connerly said, he made more than $2 million a year with his consulting firm, so suggesting he's in it to make money is false.
And he questions what he calls a personal attack.
"You'd think that I was on the ballot," Connerly said.
Banner ads from the group were running on the Omaha World-Herald Web site. A representative of Omaha's NBC affiliate, WOWT, said the group had bought two spots this week.
[To read the entire story, go to: http://www.bnd.com/news/politics/story/485242.html ]
Sunday, Sep. 28, 2008
Associated Press
A new television and online ad questions the motives of a California businessman who is pushing a ban on most types of affirmative action in Nebraska and Colorado.
Kristina Wilfore, executive director of the liberal Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, said the ads started running Wednesday in Omaha and Denver. They question Ward Connerly's salary and millions of dollars paid to him in speaking fees.
Wilfore said Connerly's compensation from his group, the American Civil Rights Coalition, is "out-of-whack with any nonprofit industry standards."
Her group bases its figures on IRS tax records between 1997 and 2006, concluding that Connerly "lined his own pockets with over $7.6 million."
Connerly points out that the money doesn't all go to him. The group's board sets compensation, and the $7.6 million referred to includes salaries for other staff including attorneys, Connerly said.
Before he started this job, Connerly said, he made more than $2 million a year with his consulting firm, so suggesting he's in it to make money is false.
And he questions what he calls a personal attack.
"You'd think that I was on the ballot," Connerly said.
Banner ads from the group were running on the Omaha World-Herald Web site. A representative of Omaha's NBC affiliate, WOWT, said the group had bought two spots this week.
[To read the entire story, go to: http://www.bnd.com/news/politics/story/485242.html ]
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Neb. ballot wording on preferential treatment OK'd
Sioux City Journal.com
September 3, 2008
LINCOLN (AP) -- Supporters of a proposed ban on preferential treatment to minorities and women will essentially get the message they wanted on ballots expected to be read in voting booths across the state.But opponents of the ban can claim at least one small victory that they hope will sway voters in November: A language change approved by a judge could increase awareness among voters that the ban could create more lawsuits."Voters might say 'I don't want to do all of this,"' said J.L. Spray, attorney for the plaintiffs that challenged the ballot language.On Friday, Lancaster County District Court Judge Steven Burns mostly upheld ballot language for the controversial proposal that has ignited a bitter fight between supporters and opponents of the ban.A lawsuit from a University of Nebraska-Lincoln student who is a member of Nebraskans United, a group opposing the proposal, alleged the current wording is misleading and could confuse voters.The language says government entities in the state "shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, individuals or groups based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin" in public hiring, education and contracting.Nebraskans United had wanted voters to be asked if the state constitution should "ban state and local programs designed to improve opportunities for and eliminate discrimination against women and minorities in public education, employment and contracting."Burns essentially kept the original wording proposed by supporters of the ban and approved by Attorney General Jon Bruning. Bruning decides how ballot measures are worded and was the target of the lawsuit.Opponents have said voters wouldn't know by reading the ballot language that they could be voting to get rid of affirmative action. [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/08/30/news/nebraska/bf6d530cfed4d909862574b50014cf01.txt ]
September 3, 2008
LINCOLN (AP) -- Supporters of a proposed ban on preferential treatment to minorities and women will essentially get the message they wanted on ballots expected to be read in voting booths across the state.But opponents of the ban can claim at least one small victory that they hope will sway voters in November: A language change approved by a judge could increase awareness among voters that the ban could create more lawsuits."Voters might say 'I don't want to do all of this,"' said J.L. Spray, attorney for the plaintiffs that challenged the ballot language.On Friday, Lancaster County District Court Judge Steven Burns mostly upheld ballot language for the controversial proposal that has ignited a bitter fight between supporters and opponents of the ban.A lawsuit from a University of Nebraska-Lincoln student who is a member of Nebraskans United, a group opposing the proposal, alleged the current wording is misleading and could confuse voters.The language says government entities in the state "shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, individuals or groups based upon race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin" in public hiring, education and contracting.Nebraskans United had wanted voters to be asked if the state constitution should "ban state and local programs designed to improve opportunities for and eliminate discrimination against women and minorities in public education, employment and contracting."Burns essentially kept the original wording proposed by supporters of the ban and approved by Attorney General Jon Bruning. Bruning decides how ballot measures are worded and was the target of the lawsuit.Opponents have said voters wouldn't know by reading the ballot language that they could be voting to get rid of affirmative action. [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2008/08/30/news/nebraska/bf6d530cfed4d909862574b50014cf01.txt ]
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Affirmative action ban initiative headed toward ballot
August 22, 2008
BY MATTHEW HANSEN
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
A campaign to ban most forms of affirmative action in Nebraska has enough petition signatures to reach the November ballot.Doug Tietz, director of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, the group advocating the ban, said this morning that the Nebraska Secretary of State's office had informed him that the petition had "more than enough" valid signatures after a county-by-county check of those signatures.The initiative needed 112,152 valid signatures – equal to 10 percent of registered voters statewide – to be placed on the ballot. Signers must be registered Nebraska voters.John Gale, Nebraska Secretary of State, announced the official number of valid signatures this afternoon. With all 93 counties completing the verification process, the initiative had 136,589 valid signatures of registered voters."We have it by a comfortable margin," Tietz said this morning. "Nebraskans signed it, and now they want to vote on it, period."The Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative is seeking to change the state constitution to bar public agencies such as city governments and the University of Nebraska from considering applicants' race or gender when enrolling students or hiring workers. Those practices are commonly known as affirmative action.Nebraskans United, the group opposing the affirmative action ban, has alleged misconduct by the petition gatherers as they collected signatures through the spring and summer. [To see the entire story, go to: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10413224 ]
BY MATTHEW HANSEN
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
A campaign to ban most forms of affirmative action in Nebraska has enough petition signatures to reach the November ballot.Doug Tietz, director of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, the group advocating the ban, said this morning that the Nebraska Secretary of State's office had informed him that the petition had "more than enough" valid signatures after a county-by-county check of those signatures.The initiative needed 112,152 valid signatures – equal to 10 percent of registered voters statewide – to be placed on the ballot. Signers must be registered Nebraska voters.John Gale, Nebraska Secretary of State, announced the official number of valid signatures this afternoon. With all 93 counties completing the verification process, the initiative had 136,589 valid signatures of registered voters."We have it by a comfortable margin," Tietz said this morning. "Nebraskans signed it, and now they want to vote on it, period."The Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative is seeking to change the state constitution to bar public agencies such as city governments and the University of Nebraska from considering applicants' race or gender when enrolling students or hiring workers. Those practices are commonly known as affirmative action.Nebraskans United, the group opposing the affirmative action ban, has alleged misconduct by the petition gatherers as they collected signatures through the spring and summer. [To see the entire story, go to: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10413224 ]
Monday, August 18, 2008
Connerly group refuses to name donors
OmahaNews.com
By: Matthew Hansen , Midlands News Service
08/15/2008
The out-of-state group bankrolling the campaign to ban affirmative action in Nebraska refuses to divulge the names of its biggest donors. That decision by California businessman Ward Connerly and his American Civil Rights Coalition ignores the written opinion of Nebraska's campaign finance commission.It undercuts the state's disclosure laws, which are meant to shine light into a corner of the political process and allow the public to follow the flow of money, campaign finance experts say.But because of a loophole in state law, that secrecy might be perfectly legal.The result: Donors behind roughly 83 percent of the $609,350 the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative has received are anonymous."I think it's a major problem,'' said Robert Stern, a campaign finance expert at the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. "Part of the idea is to know who is ultimately funding the campaign, and in this case Nebraska doesn't know.''State law requires out-of-state organizations pouring large amounts of money into a campaign to identify individual donors who have given them more than $200.But Connerly and the American Civil Rights Coalition appear to have worked around that requirement in part by creating a second group, called Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, which donates money to the Nebraska, Colorado and Arizona campaigns to ban affirmative action.A campaign statement filed with the state this week says Super Tuesday for Equal Rights has received almost $2.1 million -- roughly 99 percent of its total donations -- from the American Civil Rights Coalition.The other 1 percent comes from a list of 38 individual contributors, including a Texas doctor, a Michigan dentist, a University of Arkansas professor and several Florida retirees who donated a total of $24,900.This arrangement might allow large donors to the American Civil Rights Coalition to remain nameless because they are two steps removed from donating to the Nebraska campaign -- even though they ultimately fund the majority of that campaign.The Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission sent the California group an advisory opinion in March stating that the donors of both groups should be revealed.Since then, the commission has sent the California groups several letters requesting clarification of their organizational structure and donor records. The groups have responded through their attorney Don Stenberg, the former Nebraska attorney general, arguing that they are complying with Nebraska law.Frank Daley, executive director of the Accountability and Disclosure Commission, said he remains uncertain about the legality of moving money through a second group in order to keep donors to the first group anonymous. [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.lavistasun.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20019138&BRD=2712&PAG=461&dept_id=556239&rfi=6 ]
By: Matthew Hansen , Midlands News Service
08/15/2008
The out-of-state group bankrolling the campaign to ban affirmative action in Nebraska refuses to divulge the names of its biggest donors. That decision by California businessman Ward Connerly and his American Civil Rights Coalition ignores the written opinion of Nebraska's campaign finance commission.It undercuts the state's disclosure laws, which are meant to shine light into a corner of the political process and allow the public to follow the flow of money, campaign finance experts say.But because of a loophole in state law, that secrecy might be perfectly legal.The result: Donors behind roughly 83 percent of the $609,350 the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative has received are anonymous."I think it's a major problem,'' said Robert Stern, a campaign finance expert at the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. "Part of the idea is to know who is ultimately funding the campaign, and in this case Nebraska doesn't know.''State law requires out-of-state organizations pouring large amounts of money into a campaign to identify individual donors who have given them more than $200.But Connerly and the American Civil Rights Coalition appear to have worked around that requirement in part by creating a second group, called Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, which donates money to the Nebraska, Colorado and Arizona campaigns to ban affirmative action.A campaign statement filed with the state this week says Super Tuesday for Equal Rights has received almost $2.1 million -- roughly 99 percent of its total donations -- from the American Civil Rights Coalition.The other 1 percent comes from a list of 38 individual contributors, including a Texas doctor, a Michigan dentist, a University of Arkansas professor and several Florida retirees who donated a total of $24,900.This arrangement might allow large donors to the American Civil Rights Coalition to remain nameless because they are two steps removed from donating to the Nebraska campaign -- even though they ultimately fund the majority of that campaign.The Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission sent the California group an advisory opinion in March stating that the donors of both groups should be revealed.Since then, the commission has sent the California groups several letters requesting clarification of their organizational structure and donor records. The groups have responded through their attorney Don Stenberg, the former Nebraska attorney general, arguing that they are complying with Nebraska law.Frank Daley, executive director of the Accountability and Disclosure Commission, said he remains uncertain about the legality of moving money through a second group in order to keep donors to the first group anonymous. [To read the entire article, go to: http://www.lavistasun.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20019138&BRD=2712&PAG=461&dept_id=556239&rfi=6 ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)