ACRI Ballot Initiative (Missouri): Group Fails to Collect Sufficient Signatures

Ward Connerly’s group in Missouri is no longer pursuing the anti-affirmative action ballot initiative in Missouri. The reason is that they have not collected enough signatures to withstand a challenge.

Apparently, there were groups that followed signature collectors to inform citizens of the petition they were about to sign.

Now three states of the five remain: Arizona (?), Colorado, and Nebraska.

ACRI Ballot Initiative (Oklahoma): Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative Group Withdraws Initiative Proposal

The Tulsa World reported that the Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative (OkCRI) decided to withdraw its anti-affirmative action initiative proposal. Voters who oppose OkCRI’s initiative proposal filed a challenge in the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The reason for the withdrawal: OkCRI determined that it had not collected enough signatures to get on the November ballot.

‘Based o[n] the number of signatures delivered to the Secretary of State, the validity rate for the signatures would need to be in excess of 90 percent, which is a statistical impossibility given historical validity rates and the limited time to verify the signatures,” the motion says.

The backers “do not want to waste this Court’s efforts nor taxpayer money on pursuing State Question 737 when (the backers) are reasonably certain that it will fail to garner the requisite number of signatures.’

OkCRI’s parent organization, the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) has proposed a similiar initiative proposal in Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska and Missouri (place the state name in the search box in the left column for my other posts on this issue).

ACRI Ballot Initiative (Arizona): Student Columnist Defends Initiative Proposal

A student opinion columnist for the Arizona Daily Wildcat favors the American Civil Rights Institute’s (ACRI) initiative proposal to end affirmative action in Arizona (column titled “Racism by Any Other Name“). [Note: For my previous posts on Arizona's anti-affirmative action initiative proposal, search on Arizona in the search box on the left column.]

The writer writes his column as if social minorities in the United States are in control of social institutions in Arizona. If this were the case, his column would be persuasive.

Reality, though, vehemently contradicts the writer’s assertions. Contrary to the opinion of student writer, power is not measured by wealth alone. The social group that has the most people possesses the most power. As a result, there is no question that Whites have the most power in Arizona and the United States. Whites are, by far, the largest racial group.

Arizona (population: 5,130,632 (2000 Census) [NOTE: high number of “some other race”])

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	75.5%	3,873,611
Black	3.1	158,873
Native American	5.0	255,879
Asian	1.8	92,236

 

United States (population: 281,421,906 (2000 Census)

Race	Percentage of population	Number
White	75.1%	211,460,626
Black	12.3	34,658,190
Native American	0.9	2,475,956
Asian	3.6	10,242,998

 

Thus, neither situation in Zimbabwe nor in Malaysia is equivalent to the United States’ obligation to correct the damage done by its slavery institution. For more information on Zimbabwe, see an article by Dr. Chika A. Onyeani in The Black Commentator.

For Malaysia, see a Reuters article. The purpose of affirmative action in Malaysia is to help the impoverished majority population, the opposite of the goal of the United States, which is to help those who are not part of the powerful majority.

While Bumiputera [ethnic Malays and indigenous people] wealth went from just over 2 percent in 1970 to about 19 percent in 2004, Malays, who make up more than half of the population of 26 million, are still the poorest racial group — well behind the minority ethnic Chinese, who hold about 40 percent of the nation’s wealth.

ACRI’s anti-affirmative action proposal is not needed in Arizona. The small non-White population needs assurances that their ability to live will be respected.

ACRI Ballot Initiative: Direct Democracy Fails When Citizens Feel They Are Ignored By Initiative Process

Professor Marci Hamilton wrote on FindLaw, about her observations of the discontent that members of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights And Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) had for Ward Connerly and his ballot initiatives against affirmative action (click on the ward connerly category in the right column for my previous posts on this subject).

Among Professor Hamilton’s comments, she observed that the fact that affirmative action was forced on the population not in the social majority, the ballot initiative process worsened tensions rather than decreased them.

This was the best example I have witnessed to date of the infirmities of direct democracy. The controversy over affirmative action is obviously a social problem that is hyper-charged with emotion and that plays into deeply-held beliefs and values, and the lawmaking process that ended over one and a half years ago had not succeeded in resolving public tensions. To the contrary, it had only reinforced those disagreements and resentments. The result was a frustrated group of citizens — calling itself By Any Means Necessary in no small part because its members felt disenfranchised by the routine means by which the process operated.

I agree with Professor Hamilton. The ballot initiative process cannot work for social policies like affirmative action where the people outside the social majority do not have the power to prevent the passage of an initiative which is not in the social minority’s interest. I wrote the following in a previous post.

In general, ballot initiatives should be limited to non-controversial items with broad general applicability, for example, approving library bonds, and similar items. Issues that potentially deprive vulnerable citizens of human rights must go to the state legislature.

 

The American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) initiative campaign in several states is unfair to people who are not members of the dominant social group (see my related posts here). The actions sought in ACRI’s ballot initiative has a profound negative impact on a vulnerable portion of the total population.

ACRI Ballot Initiative (Oklahoma): Challenge Filed Against ACRI Initiative in OK Supreme Court

According to the Tulsa World, ten voters in Oklahoma challenged the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) ballot initiative against affirmative action. One contested issue is the signatures collected by the ACRI’s petition sponsors.

Chuck Thornton, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Oklahoma, said the signature-gathering process for the petition is rife with errors.
[...]
“When equal opportunity and the civil rights of our residents are at stake, it is critically important that the electoral process is fair, transparent and honest,” Thornton said.

He expressed confidence the petition would be thrown out of court because of faulty signature-gathering.

Ballot Initiative (Colorado): Title Board Approves Title for Initiative That Counters the ACRI Initiative

[Update: on March 5, 2008 after granting a motion for rehearing, the Title Board denied the title set for Initiative 61 on the basis that the measure does not constitute a single subject.]

The Colorado Title Board approved a title for a ballot initiative (Initiative #61) that uses some of the same language of American Civil Rights Institutes’s (ACRI) ballot initiative (Initiative #31). The key difference with Initiative #61 is that it would allow the state to make decisions in the areas of public employment, public education, and public contracting that is consistent with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The title of Initiative #61, approved by the Title Board, follows.

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a prohibition against discrimination by the state, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting the state from discriminating against or granting 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, and public contracting; preserving the state’s authority to take actions regarding public employment, public education, and public contracting that are consistent with the United States constitution as interpreted by the United States supreme court; and defining “state” to include, without limitation, the state of Colorado, any agency or department of the state, any public institution of higher education, any political subdivision, or any governmental instrumentality of or within the state?

This is an unexpected development. While I do not agree with the inclusion of the phrase “or granting preferential treatment to,” having decisions tied to U.S. Supreme Court decisions is a cautiously* better outcome than ACRI’s vague language.

*I am cautious because the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court could be one that favors the ACRI view.

Regardless, I agree with the move of the proponents of Colorado Initiative #61.

[Note: Regardless of my support of Initiative #61, I still maintain my critique of Colorado's process of amending its Constitution.]

ACRI Ballot Initiative: Despite Ward Connerly’s Claims of Societal Colorblindess, Significant Disparities Remain

While Ward Connerly asserts that the world is colorblind, reality emphatically contradicts his assertion (search on Ward Connerly in the search box on the left to see my posts about this topic).

The Los Angeles Times, in reporting on the ballot initiative drives in five states, identified that there is a significant disparity in household income, benefiting Whites.

Significant disparities in income among races exist in all five states Connerly is targeting, with Asians on top, then whites, then Latinos, then blacks. The exception to that order is Arizona, where blacks earn more than Latinos.

Colorado	Median Household Income
Whites	$55,000
Blacks	$35,000

Nebraska	Median Household Income
Whites	$47,000
Hispanics (national origin)	$37,000
Blacks	$28,000

(information courtesy of the Los Angeles Times)

ACRI Ballot Initiative (Missouri): Missouri Legislators Sponsor Bills to Control Initiative Process

According to the Kansas City Star, State Senator Kevin Engler, a Republican, is sponsoring a bill which would require that Missouri residents have more involvement in proposing initiatives. The Kansas City Star summarized the bill’s requirements.

The proposed bill would require petition circulators to be Missouri residents, prohibit them from being paid by the signature and restrict them to circulating one petition at a time.

Missouri legislators are concerned that wealthy groups from outside Missouri are abusing the initiative process.

More and more initiative drives, however, are coming from out-of-state groups and are being carried out by professional signature gatherers, said Sen. Kevin Engler, a Farmington Republican who’s sponsoring a bill in the Senate. That goes against the original intent of the process and opens it up to fraud, he said.

 

“Petitions are supposed to be rare exceptions backed by a movement of the people,” Engler said.

 

“Now, someone can come in with a couple million bucks, hire these people from out of state, pay them per signature and put something on the ballot that may sound good but isn’t necessarily good for the people of Missouri.”

State Rep. Michael Parson, also a Republican, is also sponsoring a bill in the Missouri House of Representatives.

I am glad the Missouri legislature is moving to control the initiative process. I have written in a related post about my concern about the unfair influence of money in the initiative process.

Moreover, I reiterate my view that the American Civil Rights Institute’s (ACRI) use of the initiative process to prohibit affirmative action in state education, employment, and public contracting is inappropriate. This issue needs to be resolved in the state legislature as the risk of causing a social minority to suffer is high.

ACRI Ballot Initiative (Missouri): In a Potentially Precedent Setting Case, Court Rewrites Ballot Title; Secretary of State Carnahan Plans to Appeal

In Asher v. Carnahan (see this post for background information) , the court rewrote the ballot title for the ballot initiative proposed by the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI). The new ballot title as the court wrote it is:

Shall the Missouri Constitution 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 ?

The court determined that a portion of the ballot title is insufficient and unfair, citing the court case, Missourians Against Human Cloning v. Carnahan. The court reasoned that the second part of the ballot title was not consistent with the first part of the ballot title.

The second bullet point in the Secretary’s summary states that the proposed amendment will:

 

“allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards…”

 

It is this second bullet point which the Court finds troubling because it suggests that the proposed amendment is first going to do away with one class of preferential treatment programs, i.e. affirmative actions programs, and then replace the affirmative action programs with some other kind of preferential treatment programs.

However, in the Human Cloning case, the Missouri Supreme Court also advised that courts must exercise caution in acting in pre-election ballot titling issues.

Our role is not to act as a political arbiter between opposing viewpoints in the initiative process:When courts are called upon to intervene in the initiative process, they must act with restraint, trepidation . . . .

 

Courts are understandably reluctant to become involved in pre-election debates over initiative proposals.

 

Courts do not sit in judgment on the wisdom or folly of proposals. Missourians to Protect the Initiative Process v. Blunt, 799 S.W.2d 824, 827 (Mo. banc 1990). “Before the people vote on an initiative, courts may consider only those threshold issues that affect the integrity of the election itself, and that are so clear as to constitute a matter of form.” United Gamefowl Breeders Ass’n of Mo. v. Nixon, 19 S.W.3d 137, 139 (Mo. banc 2000).

 

[…]

 

The purpose of the ballot title “is to give interested persons notice of the subject of a proposed [law] to prevent deception through use of misleading titles. If the title gives adequate notice, the requirement is satisfied.” Union Elec. Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 606 S.W.2d 658, 660 (Mo. banc 1980).

The court did not address this part of the Human Cloning case in deciding to rewrite the ballot title.

The question now is whether the court’s action to rewrite the ballot title is allowable under the Missouri statutes, sec. 116.190.4, given the Missouri Supreme Court’s rule of caution.

Secretary of State Robin Carnahan stated that her office intends to appeal the court’s decision.

This is an interesting case, as this case represents the first time that a court in Missouri rewrote a ballot title.

Ballot Initiative: Colorado Panel Advises Reform of Constitutional Initiative Process

According to The Rocky Mountain News, a University of Denver panel recommended reform of Colorado’s constitutional amendment process.

I critiqued Colorado’s constitutional initiative amendment process here. One reform that panel recommended I do not believe is sufficient.

Adopting a process for constitutional amendments that requires public hearings and the legislature to recommend that voters approve or reject them. Regardless of the legislature’s opinion, petitioners could still take their proposals to voters.

For public input to be effective, the public should be allowed to propose amendments to ballot initiatives. Otherwise, the whole process would be to provide a seemingly fair procedure to obscure a potentially unfair system. This would be particularly true for a ballot initiative like what the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) proposes.

Regardless, given the activities of the ACRI’s ballot amendment activity in Colorado (click on the ballot initiatives tag in the right column for my other posts on this subject), I believe an effort to reform this system is wise.