Last I looked, I couldn't tell what someone's thoughts were based on how they looked. And I know its a bad idea to try. But in the never-ending battle of the left to invent great stories of fraud and deception by one of the Civil Rights Initiative (this time Missouri), we have yet another admission by a lefty that its ok to pre-judge people on how they look. St. Louis Today reports:

"He looked like a progressive — he had tattoos, he had an earring, he may have had a mohawk," McKoy said of the petitioner. "He seemed like a left-wing hippie type guy. And he almost got me."

Apparently progressives can spot another progressive when they see them. I didn't know mohawk, tattoos, or earrings were definite signs of progressivism. I know a ton of libertarians, classical liberals, and others who might have such identifying things and are far from modern-day liberals.

What's fascinating about these fraud allegations is how they prove the point the CRIs are trying to make.

But get this - Lee Albright, owner of National Petition Management, a Michigan-firm that is the giant of the industry and being paid to simultaneously block MoCRI (they are strong-arming their circulators not work for their upstart competitor circulating MoCRI) and circulate a casino petition simultaneously, got a taste of the fraud allegations. Here's the story, from the same paper:

Dave Maus, a retired salesman from Oakville, said a young woman approached him about two weeks ago with the casinos petition. He recalled her saying the measure would raise $105 million for schools.

It wasn't until he got home that he realized the initiative would also do away with wagering caps and limit the number of casinos in the state.

"I know we should always read a petition, and that's nobody's fault but my own," he said.

You have to love the honesty and responsibility the signer took though. But the point - that the left is just as capable of using deception - in this case outright bait and switch - is effectively made here.

Finally, the Columbia Tribune reports that evil "out-of-state" opponents of MoCRI have been imported from guess where? Michigan. Guess who? BAMN.

It’s tough going, though, with collectors reporting they averaged four to 10 signatures per hour. For some it’s even tougher. A Michigan group, By Any Means Necessary, dispatched members to Columbia to disrupt the efforts of people collecting signatures for the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, a proposed constitutional amendment that would end affirmative action in the state.

For the past two weeks, a cat-and-mouse game has played out as signature gatherers have tried to stay one step ahead of BAMN members, who have discouraged people from signing.

That's right - BAMN has no active connection to Missouri - but it seems they believe its OK now to do things in other states. Shoe on another foot? Of course, the Columbia Tribune didn't make that point quite the way I just did - but ...

Ah. It's a bit more clear why the Detroit News opined against 10% plans.

According to the Michigan Daily, Rep. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) proposed it in legislation recently. His idea, while I understand it is well-motivated, is misguided. MCRI's goal was never to dictate exactly how universities would respond - only to set the guidelines. Let's allow universities some time and flexibility in their response and see where that puts us before adopting anything like this.

Send Jones a (polite) note opposing this proposal at this time.

We missed covering it here during our upgrade of blog software, but this one is priceless.

Priceless.

If you're a regular, you'll remember Doyle O'Connor, former Board of Canvasser member who refused to follow a court order to place the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2, on the ballot.

Well, the State Bar remembers him too, and they are investigating him for disciplinary action in his behavior on MCRI, according to this March 14, 2008 Livingston Argus-Press story. Zarko Research has known of the complaint for some time for various reasons, but we couldn't go into it because of our own involvement in the matter (which includes the video link below).

The priceless part? Obviously forces are rallying to call Doyle a hero and say the Bar should drop charges. One them is Michigan Democratic Party ruler Mark Brewer, known for his own iron-fist within the party (honest Dems will tell you many a story).

More than a dozen individuals and groups, including the Michigan Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters of Michigan, have urged the state Attorney Discipline Board to drop the charges. The board tries and disciplines lawyers for alleged misconduct.

"It's really an outrage," said state Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer. "If lawyers are going to be subjected to this kind of second-guessing for acts as a public official, why would any lawyer want to serve in public office? This is a political vendetta."

Wait. That's the same Mark Brewer that swatted at our cameras 2.5 years ago when he was giving the same Doyle O'Connor "orders" on how to vote. I guess he doesn't want anyone second-guessing O'Connor's "acts as a puppet-err-public official" while operating under comrade Brewer's orders.

Here's Brewer (check him out 28 seconds in), caught red-handed giving Doyle his marching orders, and not so happy at my camera.

In its "quick hits" editorials, the Detroit News opines that a 10% plan for Michigan in the wake of Proposal 2 is a bad idea. I didn't catch where this was being seriously considered, but I agree with the Detroit News here. The inflexible % plans create other issues that aren't worth it, particularly when, in Michigan, far improved local outreach and increased selectivity among the national pool of minority applicants, would be at least 75% effective. Add socio-economic tools and simply focusing on long-term repair of troubled K-12 districts, and U-Michigan should be able to accomplish what it needs in a decade. Of course, that implies that U-M policy makes will actually commit to a long-term program, rather than seek a short-term "fix", and such an implication is always dangerous in that ivory tower.

Rarely does this site do pitches for advertisers, but Ward Connerly's special to us.  Yes, I worked for him in the past - but this site is an activist site in addition to providing original investigative news and opinion analysis. And Ward Connerly certainly has relevance to Michigan - even though the battle is currently joined in Missouri.  And National Review Online considers Ward's "call to action" news as well, over at the Corner.

At right, I've created a clickable banner ad at the right while the offer lasts.  Ward realizes that when he asks people to work they need at least some compensation - even while they are ideologically motivated. Even left-wing petitioners and blockers pay their people - and in Missouri, the blockers are getting heavily paid, or are permanently payrolled union and BAMN thugs.  The anti-equality forces are throwing all they can at Ward, and he needs committed individuals to go to Missouri to help him collect signatures.  Missouri is a "non-residency" state, so anyone can petition.  And Ward's PAYING TRAVEL and you can easily make a thousand or more a week.

Great opportunity for college students, under-employed, or anyone wanting a couple of weeks "working vacation" learning the politics of another state and what petitioning is all about.  I've create this auto-forwarding e-mail - send your name, phone, and other contact info and it will get to Ward's staff immediately, or call the number on the ad and mention you saw the ad here. 

Took some finagling, but we're back up. The database is fixed and linking to us is possible again, using the perma-links.

There are some browser sizing issues, so if its too wide for your screen, I apologize. I'm working that bug out later.

While I have a difficult time saying that a 55 page decision is well-written, I must give Judge David Lawson credit where it is due, and apologize for pigeon-holing him as a Clinton-appointee (although he does give unnecessary deference to really bad arguments, he doesn't take nearly as much liberty in wasting space on attacking the personal character of litigants like Judge Arthur Tarnow did in September 2006). Other than nitpicks, I'd have a hard time really trashing this opinion, which gets it (mostly) right, and certainly right in result.

Been reading the Judge Lawson 55 page tome on why BAMN's (and a novel new ACLU generated argument) convoluted, but I guess creative in its own perverse sense, arguments on why MCRI should be unconstitutional.

What's interesting is this new argument by the ACLU - that amending the Constitution is too hard and that MCRI, by amending the Constitution, has "changed the political structure" in a somehow unfair sort of way such that groups can no longer (as easily) lobby their universities for policy change. By changing the political structure, MCRI has violated equal protection.

These (ed: the "Cantrell"/ACLU) plaintiffs support their claim that obtaining a voter-approved constitutional amendment is more difficult than successfully petitioning individual university governing bodies to alter admissions policies by alleging, inter alia, the fact that access to the state ballot requires gathering signatures totaling “‘not less than eight percent . . . of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding general election.’” Id. at ¶ 53 (quoting Mich. Const. art. 2, § 9).

Of course, it is true, in an off-hand way, that petitioning individual university governing bodies is "easier" when you happen to control all the lobbying buttons in that arena (from professors to university administrators). The question is - does the ACLU, rife with resources, have equal access to the ballot system? Of course it does. But when you play on an unequal playing field for years, and control all the decision marbles at universities - save one, the voter who ultimately owns the universites - you might suddenly come to think that the world got awfully uneven.

But here's what I take from this perverse ACLU argument, by its own admission - what we accomplished at MCRI was awfully hard. Really, really hard. Of course, that's beside the point, and Judge Lawson thankfully saw through this - everyone has the same obstacles to face in amending the Constitution.

But here's another upshot - a contradiction. It was often argued, and indeed cited as a justification for legislation to make signature gathering even more difficult or impossible (through "buttons" identifying paid status, prohibitions on payment by signature, etc.) -- it has been repeatedly said that "signature gathering is too easy" and rules should be put in place to slow it. Well, from none other than the liberal "Ballot Initiative Strategy Center," a Soros operation that supports liberal ballot drives and helps (try to) utterly crush conservative or libertarian drives, Kristina Wilfore, says that the Michigan process is tough. Really tough.

There is also some ambiguity concerning just how onerous it would be to secure an amendment repealing Proposal 2. Kristina Wilfore, executive director of Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Inc., a non-profit organization that researches and trains people in the ballot initiative process, has submitted a declaration on behalf of the Cantrell plaintiffs positing that state-wide ballot initiatives are typically expensive and time-consuming and often unsuccessful. She has also suggested that repealing Proposal 2 would be particularly difficult due to unique features in Michigan’s ballot initiative process and specific factors inherent in the subject matter of affirmative action. According to Wilfore, Michigan poses obstacles because (1) it is a “politically competitive state . . . with a large number of initiatives vying for voters’ attention on any given ballot”; (2) its media market is expensive when compared with other states; (3) the state constitution requires filing of petitions.” Cantrell Mot. for Summ. J, Ex. C, Wilfore Decl. at ¶¶ 29-32. In addition, she says that Proposal 2 would be particularly challenging to repeal due to the fact that (1) polling data regarding affirmative action is unreliable, i.e., individuals often behave differently when they get to the voting booth; (2) affirmative action is a tough cause to market because it is complex and elicits emotional responses; and (3) “[t]here is no single obvious financial benefactor who would support the pro-affirmative action policy.” Id. at ¶¶ 36-37.

Other than blatant and bold lied (no "obvious financial benefactor who would support the pro-affirmative action policy") at the end, Wilfore makes amending the Michigan Constitution sound sufficiently difficult. Add that to a list of contradictions MCRI opponents have uttered.

And while I'd admit the process is difficult, it is no more or less difficult than anything else in politics. In fact, in the case of this issue, the pro-Proposal 2 side faced a far more difficult signature-gathering task than a pro-repeal Proposal 2 petition-drive would ever face, at least on the signature end. That one side or the other might face a harder time with the voter is a political question - not judicial one.

Amanda Hamon of the Ann Arbor News picks up the irony with this priceless quote from BAMN member Kate Stenvig, who spoke out against Ward Connerly's appearance as a guest on a Federalist Society panel in Ann Arbor on Saturday.

"We are saying forcefully that he's not welcome in Michigan. We're asserting that every minority and woman student on campus deserves to be here and is equal to any white or male student,'' said U-M graduate student Kate Stenvig, a member of the U-M chapter of the pro-affirmative action group BAMN and the campus' Defend Affirmative Action Party.

If you apply the rules of English, you might think Stenvig was on the pro-equality (anti-preference) side, but ... I mean, if you are "asserting that every minority" deserves to be there, and that they are "equal", then I'd both agree, and point out that ending preferences would and should change nothing.

There's no question that we talk about the same word in quite different ways.

Check this out. The 501c3 version of One United Michigan - "Michigan United" - chugs along despite Proposal 2's 2006 victory. The race industry thrives even in defeat.

This month - a Diversity Summit in Lansing with a rather non-diverse roster of speakers. I see no Carl Cohen's, no William B. Allen's, no Ron Edwards', or any other Michigan figures opposing preferences, or advocating alternatives. To truly find other means of creating diversity without preferences, you might expect some dialog, and some people who supported the bill. If for no other reason than to be Michigan "United".

Of course, this not about genuine unification, nor about real diversity, and certainly not tolerance. It's dogma. A religion of division by skin color to consolidate power and perpetuate the politics of victimization.

Cross-posted at EqualityTalk.com.

In an irony trumping most ironies in the defense of the race preference industry, the Oklahoma Secretary of State and liberal critics of the Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative (OkCRI) are attacking poor, homeless people in an effort to derail the petition drive. According to this AP article relayed by AOL, the OkCRI petitioners submitted a razor thin margin of roughly 2200 more signature than the necessary 138,970 signatures to qualify for the Oklahoma ballot.

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Many names and addresses found on an initiative petition to ban government-sponsored race and gender preferences, or affirmative action, in Oklahoma were duplicated, Secretary of State Susan Savage said.

Her office tallied 141,184 signatures on the petition, which needs at least 138,970 valid signatures of registered voters to get on an election ballot if it also can survive any legal challenges.

"The petition signature pages are replete with duplicate signatures and duplicate addresses," Savage wrote to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

"Replete" and "many names". Hmm. While that margin of 2200 is razor thin, let's look at the numbers Savage thinks are "replete":

The irregularities were reported to the attorney general to obtain guidance to ensure consistent compliance with the law during the count, she said.

The signature count resulted in an "unprecedented situation" where numerous duplications of names and addresses were discovered well into the signature counting process, Savage said.

The petition had 92 signatures that listed 415 Archer, 415 W. Archer, 415 E. Archer or 415 Ocher in Tulsa as an address, Savage told the court. The signatures were counted unless there was a signature found that didn't comply with the law, she said.

Another 28 signatures listed 800 W. California, Oklahoma City, as an address, she said. Those signatures also were counted, she said.

Folks. That's a 120. Less than 10% of the margin. And less than one-one-thousanth of the total number of signatures. Savage is right. OkCRI's collection was unprecedented. Most petition drives in the past have had 10% or higher error rates. The best the SoS could do here is find only one-tenth of a percent. Anything short of perfection, and OkCRI is "replete" with fraud.

But let's look at those 120 "duplicate addresses". The Tulsa World relays the same AP story but has a comments section. Someone chimed in that one of those addresses was a homeless shelter. Well, it turns out both were (the Oklahoma City address is the City Rescue Mission, the Tulsa one a Day Center for Homeless) if you do a simple internet search.

That's the rub - certainly the Oklahoma Secretary of State could or should be able to figure that out. And since most Democrats advocate for no identification voting access laws, primarily to allow the homeless and minorities easier access to vote; its easy to appreciate the irony and contradiction here. When its a drive run by "conservatives" or disliked by the liberal-establishment, and when they have control over the organs of governmental power and enforcement (the situation in Oklahoma is that the Democratic Attorney General and appointed Supreme Court "referee" control the process - with the AG actually prosecuting petitioners from a 2005-2006 anti-tax petition drive for "fraud" based on allegations circulators were "out-of-state" non-residents), the rights of homeless voters to sign or circulate petitions don't matter. So here, you have a situation where the Democrats are simply abandoning their defense of open and unsecure voting in favor of the highest security. Hypocrisy doesn't come better than that.

But OkCRI's 2200 signature margin is light, and I'll make the editorial prediction that regardless of how good its verification system was (which appears to have been as tight as you can get), politics means it won't matter. The referee would reject it if one signature had a glitch. And while you might blame OkCRI for not submitting a mammoth cushion like MCRI did in 2005, keep in mind the environment. As noted above, the fascist Attorney General in Oklahoma - Drew Edmondson - is prosecuting Paul Jacob and two other organizers for criminal fraud based solely on the notion that they brought out-of-state petitioners into Oklahoma in 2006. In that chilling environment, its a miracle any signature was collected 2007.

The State News at Michigan State University gets this priceless quote from one of the MSU Trustees:

Joel Ferguson, chairman of the MSU Board of Trustees, said he hopes Proposal 2 is overturned, but isn’t optimistic.

“I don’t necessarily think they can succeed,” he said. “Anybody can file a lawsuit.”

True indeed.

It's too bad he hopes Proposal 2 is overturned, but you know the lawsuits are mighty frivolous when the cheering section says that.

Of slight note is the non-response by Lou Anna Simon (now earning over $420K a year), and the wierd "equality-is-non-equality" argument from former Democratic Party co-chair Melvin Hollowell, now relegated to plaintiffs attorney in frivolous filings:

Melvin Butch Hollowell, counsel to Detroit’s chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, is on the plantiffs’ legal team. He said the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

“We believe that this is the most important civil rights case,” he said. “We are seeking the lawsuit to place students of color on equal footing as all other students in the admissions process.”

MSU President Lou Anna K. Simon said she was unable to comment on the case because the litigation is ongoing and it targets universities.

Orwell would be proud. War is peace. Unequal is equal.

Someone pointed this one out to me the other day. Wayne State has decided to put Ward Connerly "on trial" - a mock trial intended to coincide with BAMN's federal lawsuits against MCRI which will be heard next week.

What's unusual about this trial? It appears to have no advocate for Ward. That is, its a trial without fair representation. We've asked the Dean of Students what they've done to balance the trial, and even offered them the assistance of Zarko Research. As a reminder, Zarko Research will speak to public audiences on the issue of MCRI or affirmative action generally, and we've been invited by moderates on both the right and left of this issue - including Reginald Turner, former State and National Bar Association president and current Board of Education member for the state of Michigan, who unfortunately favors preferences.

Here's WSU's entire calendar entry on this matter:

Ward Connerly on Trial: The Road to the Supreme Court
Wednesday, February 6, 2008 from 8:45 AM to 1:45 PM
The event will include the premiere viewing of video taped excerpts from the day long BAMN deposition of Ward Connerly who was the spokesperson for Proposal 2. Interspersed with debate and discussion of his arguments against affirmative action and the plaintiffs arguments in favor of affirmative action.
Category:
Other
Location:
Ballroom of the Student Center Building
Contact:
DOSO Dean of Students Office
313-577-1010
doso@wayne.edu
Permalink | Print This | E-mail This

I put this here because it is most in line with the mission of this blog, as opposed to my main Michigan and local news blogs. The Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) - that University of Michigan "student government" that can tax and spend small little bits of tuition away for the whims of a few student wannabee bureuacrats - narrowly avoided funding a blast e-mail that would blast Proposal 2.

Yes. Proposal 2 has been passed for 15 months now. And BAMN infiltrants into student comm... government wanted to send out a rhetoric e-mail to all students. Wiser moderates on the MSA narrowly voted against it, according to this Michigan Daily article. That's a first - its a surprise - and it shows waning BAMN power.

Next week, the Federal District Court in Detroit will hear arguments on whether to hold a full trial for the lawsuits challenging the constitutional amendment. The e-mail would encourage students to attend the hearing, scheduled for Feb. 6 in Detroit.

Several MSA representatives who opposed the resolution said they did so because the specific language of the e-mail was unavailable when the vote took place.

"If the e-mail text was there, I probably would have voted for it," said Rackham representative Michael Benson, chair of the Rules and Elections committee.

Art and Design representative Liana Mulholland, who sponsored the resolution, said MSA President Mohammad Dar would write the e-mail if the vote had passed.

MSA representative Ashley Schwedt, who voted for the resolution, said it was important for MSA to remain neutral on the issue of affirmative action.

"As a Democrat and as a minority I feel uncomfortable taking a stance on this issue because I feel that we should be an unbiased group," she said.

LSA junior Maricruz Lopez, co-chair of the Defend Affirmative Action Party, spoke on behalf of the resolution. She said the decision showed MSA representatives were afraid to represent their constituents and work in favor of the interests of students.

BAMN is willing to do anything.

Christine Barry of Blogging for Michigan (BFM) reports on how she hired us to be a surrogate FOIA requester to the Shiawassee County Sheriff's department.  The local news - the Argus - seems to be taking recognition of the value of the local story. We have no opinion on whether the Sheriff's actions were inappropriate, but have no problem helping anyone get public records to draw conclusions for themselves. But the questions Barry asked were specific, and specific enough to get good FOIA results. And the response of the Sheriff publicly in the newspapers suggests some nerve was touched.

Sometimes the "surrogate FOIA" is an appropriate tool for credibility reasons, and will get a job done faster than other methods.  If you need similar work, contact us.

Cross-posted at OutsideLansing.com.