Mary Baker, an African-American woman, writes this astonishing piece on "Why I am no longer an African-American" over at the American Thinker. People who know this blog and my work with the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) probably understand where the article is going just based on that title, but her critique is a pretty simple critique of the divisiveness of identity-politics. Here's a clip:

It is these principles that make me proud to just be an American. So, I select for my identity the title of American. The radical ideologies of Blacks involved in the Civil Rights Movement gave birth to attitudes like those of Professor Henry Lewis Gates Jr., the Harvard professor who became livid when his identity was questioned by a white police officer. Those who embrace Professor Gate's sentiments and attitudes today are those who still believe that America owes something to the Black population for the horrors of slavery. They are the ones that continue to stoke the fires of racial hatred toward other races and promote the continued attitude of self pity within the Black community. They also hold to the teachings of Black Liberation Theology, a school of thought that I never knew existed until the presidential campaign of then Senator Barak Obama. The teachings of Black Liberation Theology run counter to the American way. They also are counterproductive to the love I hold for my country.

I began to think about how we all got to be categorized in the first place. I have not noticed on any forms that the category of American is an option to be selected. Is this division amongst us perpetrated by our very own government? It is obvious that the inspiration for the classification of African American has nothing to do with those born of African descent.

In the current legal and political environment, one should never rule a frivolous suit being successful, particularly regarding the civil rights initiatives lead by Ward Connerly. Lawsuits are even repeated exactly verbatim in the same state even after opponents lose, as was the case recently in Missouri challenging MoCRI's attempt to requalify for 2010.

But in Nebraska where voters approved the initiative in 2008, the game clock appears to be winding down with a positive result. NbCRI appears to have won on both late "signature ethics" challenges (the usual meta-"word game" the left plays with "affirmative action" and "deception") and the so-called "single subject rule." In fact, the judge's ruling on that issue is very important, as it represents a common-sense rebuff to the left on an old strategy they played somewhat successfully with the Florida Supreme Court in 2000, and it has bearing on several future states CRI's might appear in.

Below the fold I'm including the raw text of the decision as well as NbCRI's press release. Enjoy.

Read more »

The ACRI blog documents this mastery of frivolous abuse of process in Missouri.

The Missouri Secretary of State Jean Carnahan is submitting the same ballot summary proposal language that a court rejected last year, following a renewed request by MoCRI organizers to qualify for the 2010 ballot. That's an abuse of power of the highest level (reminding us of Doyle O'Connor).

Simultaneously, the ACLU has already stepped up its frivolty by filing a lawsuit based on arguments it also lost in the last legal battles in Missouri.

If this doesn't prove that preference-based affirmative action supporters will willfully abuse the legal system for the illegal and immoral purpose of financially draining opponents, I don't know what does.

It's been a couple months as my regulars here will recognize (hopefully still coming off RSS). Elections and consulting intervene, and most of my online work is reported at www.outsidelansing.com or www.Oaklandpolitics.com. But this is still the place for my thoughts on race issues and anything not fitting within the easy confines of those sites.

Over at the ACRI blog, LaShawn Barber has a nice commentary, with a good discussion thread, on banning VIP and legacy preferences, which originated from a Reason Magazine article early in 2008 by Shikha Dalmia, whom we mentioned ironically in our very last post here immediately below, two months ago, on the O'Bama presidency. Anyway, here's LaShawn's read on that article and the future of movement.

Shikha Dalmia is a Michigan writer formerly with the Detroit News. Here, in Forbes, she opines on how race preferences could be replaced with socio-economic alternatives - and how, if Barack O'Bama did it, he could transform the political landscape. The article was written just before O'Bama expanded his narrow margin, so keep it in that context. With his current margin, I'd expect to see nothing unusual out of his campaign - but that begs the question of whether he should act transformatively. For all the bluster of his change themed campaign, there is little substantively tranformative, especially on race issues, from O'Bama.

This is a topic I've addressed many times, dating as far as a Michigan Bar Journal op-ed I wrote in 2003 and other pieces for regional papers. I've suggested here recently that O'Bama could transform the landscape, as have observers like John Rosenberg over at Discriminations. Dalmia is spot on in her analysis, but, alas, I don't think its in O'Bama's heart and even if it were, we're not likely to see it from him pre-election, because his core constituency would react too harshly.

But imagine it as a mid-term ploy to help O'Bama 2012 re-election?

Alan Foutz, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, points up an attempt by the Michigan Department of Transportation to mis-read and misuse the federal requirement exemption of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2 (2006 - 02), here in a Lansing State Journal column. I encourage readers, despite the passing of the October 1 deadline for comments, to send MDOT and other relevant actors their own comments. The attempt mirrors California's equivalent of MDOT's attempt last year to get the US Department of Transportation to approve race-preferences and then to argue that the approval constituted a "requirement" conditioning federal money, which would thereby exempt the policy from the CCRI (or in this case MCRI). It should be vigorously resisted.

Here's a clip:

All contractors who want their bids evaluated in accordance with Michigan law and without regard to their race or sex, or the race/sex of the competition, should take note. MDOT will most likely continue to seek authorization for its race-conscious programs until it reaches the conclusion that it simply may not employ race- and sex-based preferences. Or until it gets sued.

Taxpayers should likewise be concerned, if not outraged. Studies have shown that race-based preferences result in higher construction costs.

However, there is an alternative. MDOT can comply with the Michigan constitution and remain eligible for its federal funding by committing to accomplish its 10.5 percent disadvantaged businesses participation goal by using race-neutral methods. Also, contractors competing for work on federally assisted projects will have their bids evaluated without regard to race or sex and Michigan taxpayers will be spared the extra costs of race and sex preferences.

MDOT has invited questions and comments that must be submitted before noon on Oct. 1. This is an invitation that should be accepted by anyone concerned with MDOT's race-conscious contracting programs.

If you're a follower of this blog, take heed. If you need help on how to help, contact me (my first name at firstnamelastname.com) and I'll give you some direction.

Ward Connerly and Valery Pech Orr have one less obstacle in Colorado now that the parallel "twin" amendment sponsored by opponents of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) has failed to qualify with enough signatures.

An initiative that would have preserved affirmative action programs in Colorado fell short of the required number of signatures to make November's crowded ballot, the secretary of state's office said Wednesday.

Initiative 82 was nearly 8,000 signatures short following a line-by- line verification of the petitions, according to Secretary of State Mike Coffman.

There are 18 statewide issues on the Nov. 4 ballot, in addition to local ballot questions and races, state legislative contests, and U.S. House, Senate and presidential races.

The technique was an interesting one - the twin amendment copied CCRI in almost every word except for a rider at the end allowing programs that are already allowed by federal law. The rider might effectively nullify CCRI, assuming the twin amendment received more overall votes than CCRI.

Oh, and 18 ballot proposals is ridiculous. Michiganders complain that Michigan's ballot procedure is "too easy" or one that it was one of the "easiest in the country," need only look to Colorado, which truly is among the easiest. Michigan never qualifies more than 5-6, and even in 2006 one of the five was placed on by the legislature. Our average is 2-3.

In a disheartening development, according to Arizona Republic, the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (AzCRI) petitions were, after review by County Recorders (Clerks), rejected because a number of signatures were found to be invalid. AzCRI is the third of five to fail to obtain sufficient signatures, and rumors of paid "blockers" who intentionally signed false signatures on a large scale preceded today's development, suggesting that a new era in blocking and how signature-gathering operations teams will need to respond to it, has emerged. Three other petitions in Arizona apparently failed this year, no petitions in Oklahoma have succeeded since the Democrat Attorney General Drew Edmonson indicted a petition-operation management team for work they did 3 years ago, and others failed in Missouri, to name a few.

The Arizona Civil Rights Initiative initially submitted 334,735 signatures to the state. But following petition reviews by the Secretary of State's Office and the state's 15 county recorders, that number was whittled down to 194,961 valid signatures. That's short of the 230,047 required for a Constitutional amendment.

In positive news though, Nebraska appears to have been sufficient and qualified, according to NCRI's campaign manager Doug Tietz, on KPTM Fox 42's online site reprinting AP wire reports.

Jason Gillman over at Michigan Taxes Too Much raises a nice point about how "non-profits" really exist at the expense of the taxpayer and are "public". While this doesn't change the current interpretation of the law treating non-profits as private entities, it is a valid point philosophically so we reiterated our position generally against the very idea of non-profits (in the sense of government subsidy through by giving tax breaks to donors, not as a concept where someone or group spends after-tax dollars without making a profit).

Regardless, you can catch the full exchange at Gillman's site.

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.

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. 

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.

Whoa, and does he ever.  He accuses this writer's past - and society's continuing - nemesis, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), of "killing our children" (and I can't say that's wrong).
This is why Akindele's Unleashed blog is clearly one of the best in the Michigan blogosphere.

Here's a sample of his powerful critique:

Every now and then I look at what BAMN is doing in the community. Here are a socialist group of bandits that causes more hell than a headache.

First, they were against my friend Ward Connerly and the whole affirmative action thing. Thank God my sister Jennifer Gratz and company won that war. We thought BAMN would go away and crawl back in their cave.

I guess not.

Now, these misfits are having a town hall meeting on solving the crisis of public education in Detroit. [Dec. 6 if you're interested].
...
Again, where is BAMN on these critical issues [charters, parenting, and choice]? Where are those quacks Steve Conn and Heather Miller?
...
BAMN is doing nothing but keeping our children angry. Our children do not need anger. Our children and parents need options.

Having seen the Conn game and Ms. Miller an action, I'm fond of Akindele's use of terms here, even if it is slightly over-the-top. When you incite riots and take your children out of classes for your political machinations and you're a public school teacher, the term "quacks" is has a descriptive truth to it despite its ad hominem nature.