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.