I'm not a big fan of the U.N., but found it curious when a google alert came up pointing me to work citing my 1993 honors thesis on military expenditure. The power of the internet. That work has already been cited by the Atlas Foundation (in 2005 I believe) and several other groups, but I'm surprised at the reach & recognition my 1993 paper has received through my simple republication of it on my website.

The original paper was a statistical cross-sectional analysis and meta-analysis of data relating to how third world nations are impacted economically by military expenditure.

The original is in French, but here's the Google translation of the title.

Paper presented at the International Conference organized by ECA and the
CODESRIA sur le thème : CODESRIA on:
« INSTITUTIONS, CULTURE ET CORRUPTION EN AFRIQUE » "INSTITUTIONS, CULTURE AND CORRUPTION IN AFRICA"
Date : 13 - 15 Octobre 2008 Date: 13 - 15 October 2008
Lieu : Centre de Conférence des Nations Unies, Location: Conference Center of the United Nations,
Addis-Abeba, Ethiopie. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Over at Facebook on my personal photos page, I've posted some photos from the 2nd Annual Sam Adams Sammies Awards. The awards reward solid citizen activism and journalism at the local and regional level, and are a worthy cause. Kudos should be given to the citizens honored though - they are fighters for truth and citizen empowerment. I was particularly fascinated by the story of William Carlin Walker of Liberty, Missouri for exposing misuse of credit card accounts by administrators in the local school district. That story is not unique - over OutsideLansing.com, I've reported on Macomb County's own Chippewa Valley school's misuse of credit cards, which has resulted in proposed legislation by Marty Knollenberg and others (HB 4666 is here). And we just learned of this debacle in Flint - for those who suggested our action might be "trivial," I say two things. 1) Do you see a pattern developing? 2) Even if only a small number of administrators do this, and I suspect that somewhat true, reform begins with little change and builds. Further, if the people set a precedent of allowing "minor" indiscretions, the symbolism encourages public employees into larger takings and indiscretions. When you get a speeding ticket, telling the judge that you were the only one caught of hundreds or it was just a few miles over the limit isn't a proper defense.

Paul Jacob, a supporter of Sam Adams, over at CommonSense has this fascinating analysis of Mississippi's fascist attempt to ban restaurants from serving fat people. What's sad is that a Republican embarrassingly co-sponsored this nanny-state bill.

Congratulations to President Barack O'Bama on his historic moment. His inaugral speech hit mixed notes in my mind, I'll point to two.

In my mind, this is the most interesting passage of the speech (which had no "zingers" like "fear itself" or "ask not"):

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

There's a definitely an element of the diversity and multi-cultural "speak" in this, but I'm drawn to the way it is not written. It is not written as an attack on America's past, but as a recognition of the past as perhaps a proof that the "other old hatreds" (Arab-Israeli conflict, the religious battle lines that dominate foreign affairs, and simpler, smaller hatreds that dot the world) can be overcome. His line "the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve" is certainly hopeful and could be construed in a conservative and individualistic light, but it is unclear where O'Bama would deviate the tribalist policies many in his party support or how he intends to get us there.

Here's the second:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

The first sentence is interesting in that while it seems to be an attempt to change the paradigm debate on "big v. small government" to "effective government." But if the question is "whether it works" and the answer is "no" much more often than it is yes, will we truly see the programs end? Of course, the reason small-government conservatives are for small government is not just for the sake of liberty - it is because we believe, more often than not, bigger government doesn't work. He's set himself up for a test here - does government work? Will Barack O'Bama's version of government work? If it does not, then we must "hold to account" the leader. If he fails to "spend wisely", to "reform bad habits", or most importantly do business "in the light of day" - he must be held accountable. As a fervent believer in open records and meetings, I wish him the best of luck in increasing government transparency - if that is what he means. And if he "spends wisely" and does those things, he'll be hard to beat.

That is the test he should be held to in 2012!

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.

Doyle O'Connor, the former member of the Board of Canvassers' that refused to abide by a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling, has evaded sanctions from a 3 person panel in the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission hearings over his misconduct, according to this Detroit Free Press article. Democrats and other interests pushed hard politically against the State Bar for even bringing the charges, and reading between the lines at least one of the two votes on the Commission's panel bought into the political arguments. Here's the key passage, with the most important point emphasized:

O’Connor’s lawyer, Kenneth Mogill, said two of the panelists had said the facts didn’t support the charge against O’Connor. Mogill said one of them said the grievance commission shouldn't be proud of itself for bringing the charge. Voters passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative in 2006, 58% to 42%. It banned race and gender affirmative action in university admissions and in government and public school hiring and contracting.

Proposal 2 got onto the ballot despite complaints that sponsors duped voters, especially blacks, into believing it promoted affirmative action. Supporters denied that.

The grievance commission, which investigates and prosecutes lawyers for alleged misconduct, said O'Connor refused at a July 2005 meeting to approve putting the measure on the ballot despite a state attorney general opinion that canvassers had no legal authority to look into petition fraud. And then, in December 2005, despite a Michigan Court of Appeals order to certify the proposal, he abstained.

O'Connor said he thought he was abstaining on a motion to close debate. The next month, he voted to put the measure on the ballot.

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.

How would O'Connor's attorney have inside access into the thoughts of panel members, even before they issued a written opinion? And the thought itself - that the very bringing of charges is something the AGC "shouldn't be proud of" - demonstrates that that panelists decision was based not "on the facts," but on an emotional and political calculus far outside of the facts.

But when you have the Chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party (Mark Brewer) on your side, and you're taking orders from him as Zarko Research video proved 3 years ago, its only natural he'll pull some strings for you to protect you from the consequences of your corruption.

Seema Mehta of the Los Angelas Times writers this piece about how a man of courage working the University of California, Los Angelas Admissions office left his job and put his career on the line by revealing that he believe UCLA was violating Proposal 209, or the California Civil Rights Initiative. The story has already generated waves and controversy across the country in admissions circles:

Arguing that UCLA admissions policies are being manipulated to circumvent the state's ban on consideration of applicants' race, a professor there has resigned from a faculty committee that he says refused to allow him to study the matter.

Political science professor Tim Groseclose resigned Thursday from the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools, saying high-ranking university administrators and fellow committee members are engaged in a "coverup" to block illegal activity from being discovered.

How did they do it? They swithced to a "holistic" system with "essays," and the essays allowed admissions officers to deduce race based on personal stories. No surprise there.

But Ward Connerly, a former UC regent who helped lead the drive for Proposition 209, said Groseclose's report buttressed his suspicions that university officials may be violating the law in their efforts to boost the number of black students on campus. His organization, American Civil Rights Institute, will probably file suit against the university in coming months, he said.

"They caved under the pressure from the NAACP and others in Los Angeles who want to see an increase in the number of black students," Connerly said. "There are so many ways you can rig the system."

Attempts to reach Groseclose on Friday were unsuccessful, but he wrote in his report that admissions officials often learned of students' race in personal application essays, and factored it into admissions decisions.

"It is obvious that the admissions staff was under intense pressure to admit more African Americans," he wrote.

He noted that black applicants' chances of admission increased with the holistic approach, while acceptance rates of other low-income students declined, particularly among Vietnamese, a point Lifka did not dispute.

Groseclose said in the report that he requested access to student applications to study the matter but was denied because of what he was told were privacy concerns. The university turned to another UCLA professor to conduct the research.

And no surprise that UCLA is with-holding data and using its own "trusted" researchers. When you want to reach a research outcome ahead of time - particularly in social sciences - its' not hard to find researchers to do that. Livelihoods depend on it (even if the bias is only subconscious).

Michigan State University Professor Carol M. Allen has written a rather exhaustive (422 pp) textbook history of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2 of 2006 (06-02), which end racial and gender types of affirmative action in public education, public hiring, and public contracting here in Michigan. The book is mostly written from the point of view of the organization the author, Barbara Grutter, and the author's husband and also MSU professor William B. Allen created shortly following the MCRI Committee's successful submission of 508,202 signatures, so it is missing some of the insider insight that might only a few others might have on that phase of the drive but it still captures a good chunk of that era through interviews, including several with myself. This is the third book I've been cited in to my knowledge and the first this extensively, so I obviously have the bias of having been a participant in the history, but I still recommend the book without reservation to anyone who is making either ballot initiatives or race and gender preferences part of their area of expertise. It is expensive - new averaging $90 dollars - and we've included an Amazon portal link for you. We'll review the book more formally over the next few weeks, but are proud to draw attention to it now.

Zarko Research is publishing a document recently obtained from an unusual source (we won't go into those details). Previous versions of the document though reveal it is a public record and that the policy has been in place since at least 2003. The document is a memorandum from an administrative unit of the Michigan Department of Education to the elected body that oversees the MDE – the State Board of Education (LINK WARNING - 1.1MB PDF) - requesting routine approval of a report containing annual rankings of all Michigan universities in their performance in preparing K-12 teachers. The rankings include a “diversity” measure, which serves to add zero, three, or five points to a university’s overall score. Since the formula is additive, the effective result is that those institutions which may be “underperforming” or “at-risk” on all the “preparation” measures can be bumped up into a “satisfactory” ranking solely based on the racial makeup of their graduating class. Consider for a moment the policy wisdom of that scheme, before we consider the legality under both federal law and Michigan’s proposal two. I would propose that even most on the left would find this policy to be inappropriate, because it results in less reform for those schools that might need it and damages the very minorities it seeks to help by allowing their institutions to evade reform and oversight solely because of higher-racial compositions in student bodies.

The rankings of Michigan universities and review is done because the Higher Education Act, Title 2, Section 208, requires that States implement a review of “teacher preparation” at each university and determine whether the performance of those universities is “satisfactory.” The federal law gives the States almost sole discretion in determining the criteria of the review, and there is no mention of race, gender, or other suspect classifications. The federal law in no way requires any measure of race be used, let alone conditions funding upon it, and appears to be seeking merely that states oversee the quality of teacher preparation.

Looking merely at the charts labeled Appendix A, we see in a column near the far right a category for “diversity”, whereby points are assigned. Since “diversity” policies themselves are not automatically inflexible preference systems, or a measure could be devised say, using socio-economic non-racial criteria, this alone doesn’t demonstrate a violation of federal law or Michigan’s Proposal 2. But the “smoking gun” comes in Appendix B (numbered as Page 7), where we learn exactly how the diversity “points” are determined. Here’s the complete objectionable criteria:

A. Diversity score (5 points): The 2004-2005 Registry of Educational Personnel (REP) indicates that less than 10% of Michigan’s teaching force is represented by ethnic minorities. Ethic minority categories are Black, Hispanic, Native American and Pacific Islander, and multi-racial, as used in other higher education national data.
1. Any teacher preparation institution recommending 10% or more minority candidates in the most recent academic year (irrespective of cohort of individuals) will receive 5 points.
2. Any teacher preparation institution recommending 5 to 9% minority candidates in the most recent academic year (irrespective of cohort of individuals) will receive 3 points.

Ironically, that criteria is more blatantly in violation of federal standards of equal protection than it is Proposal 2 – even in the era following Gratz and Grutter v. Bollinger et al, famously decided in 2003 (which is ironically when this system began, if you put together clues from within the document). In Gratz, the US Supreme Court rejected “point systems” and more generally any inflexible or “mechanized” program, whereas in Grutter v. Bollinger it allowed a program that was “holistic” and allowed flexibility when looking at individuals in the review process. Here, the program is a blatant “point system,” applied rigidly using a criteria that is solely and transparently based on a concept of a “proportional representation” to the Statewide population (and its inflexibility apparent when you consider that local populations in Detroit universities give those schools natural recruiting advantages over rural schools like, say, Central Michigan University). Furthermore, the test under federal law begins with whether a “racial classification” is used, which is then automatically “suspect” and subject to strict scrutiny. Here, there is no question racial classification is used. This program could not withstand federal review, in my opinion.

Regarding Proposal 2, which was passed in Michigan in 2006 through the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) (as a matter of full-disclosure for those who might not be aware, I worked on MCRI from 2004 to early 2006, and as a special consultant thereafter), at first glance I had considered the possibility that since no “preference” was given directly to an “individual”, this classification might not apply. Nonetheless, a review of Proposal 2’s actual language reveals that it prohibits preferences to (or discrimination against) “individuals or groups” based on race or gender. Clearly, the points amount to a preference, and clearly the impact of those points is significant on individuals down-stream (the inadequately prepared teachers and students of those teachers, the future teachers who may attend an institution that evades reform through the preference, and the adequately prepared teachers whose hiring decisions might have been affected by any prestige this ranking carries among the ordering of the top schools). Clearly, the points are in the areas of “public education” and “public hiring”, so the preference should be prohibited under Proposal 2. The only thing that is odd about the preference, and I have been told this may be among the first of its type to be discovered in recent years, is that it is an “output preference” rather than an “input preference”. Whereas the University of Michigan argued in the Gratz and Grutter cases that the plaintiffs couldn’t prove damages or a claim because they couldn’t know for sure whether they were victims (note that the university could pretty fairly determine beneficiaries at least under the infamous point system, but privacy law would prohibit it from publishing those identities), one could argue that there is no clear individual beneficiary in this case, merely the undefined groups. And while I could see this confusion being used in an attempt to protect the program legally, it doesn’t matter under federal law and shouldn’t matter under Proposal 2 since the target of the preference or discrimination there was written wisely to include “individuals or groups” – since universities and their student bodies are directly groups (and indirectly composed of individuals who’d probably have standing anyway) – I can not see how this policy would survive a Proposal 2 challenge.

Finally, the policy should not withstand the review of common-sense and good policy. A look at the chart shows its consequences. For example, Olivet is "on-the-bubble" and receives an at-risk categorization at 54 points, but without the 3 points from diversity, it would fall to 51 and be "low-performing." This would subject it to review and consequences, and presumably some level of reform, by the MDE. LSSU (Lake Superior State) would fall into the At-Risk, which, if combined with another year of At-risk, would subject it to changes. Other schools would have their prestige orders changed, as well. Look at U-Michigan's Flint Campus. One point and its diversity points separate it from Satisfactory and At-Risk.


Click image for full-size version.

MDE – State Board Response – Initiation of Attorney General investigation by MDE.

Last Friday, I gave Reginald Turner, an outspoken opponent of Proposal 2 in 2006 who coincidentally won election to the State Board of Education that same year, an opportunity to respond. As of print time, he did not reply to our e-mail (very similar but slightly different than the one printed below). On Tuesday, I initiated an exchange with Martin Ackley, Director of the Office of Communications with the Michigan Department of Education, with a series of questions and an opportunity for open comment (obviously, both e-mails preceded the questions with a background similar to what I’ve written above):

My questions and/or comments to you:
1) has this policy been considered in light of Michigan's Proposal 2? it appears to "give preference" (and potentially penalize or discriminate against non-compliers) directly to "individuals or groups" (universities) based on a racial point system, and indirectly to individuals that are part of universities that receive favor or disfavor from the preference to the group.
2) it appears to have been created in 2003, or least last revised then.  It more clearly involves the use of a racial classification system, and hence, more pointedly, should be evaluated in light of both Grutter and Gratz v. Bollinger et al., which prohibited mechanized systems such as this. Has the program ever been evaluated in the context of Grutter & Gratz?
3) is using any diversity indicator in a score that is supposed to measure satisfactory quality and performance by schools appropriate?  Could the inclusion of any diversity measure artificially create low expectations in universities that have naturally higher minority populations.  Is this measure a disservice to minorities in those districts, by potentially delaying necessary reforms in those districts?
4) would SBE consider revising the policy?
5) I would like to give you, and anyone on the Board an opportunity to comment in any way you'd like before I publish something on this, preferably by tomorrow morning although if you give me a reasonable timeline I may delay initial publication for a short-period.  If I do not receive a response by tomorrow morning, I will proceed as if you declined the opportunity to comment.

Ackley availed himself of a comment for MDE without following the format of my questions (some questions are indirectly addressed and others unanswered). MDE’s first reply on Tuesday was to thank me for the opportunity to research the matter before publishing it and to self-refer the issue to the Attorney General (a positive step, which surprised me somewhat but could be interpreted a number of ways).

Mr. Zarko,

I am forwarding this inquiry to our Office of Professional Preparation Services for their review, in addition to the Attorney General’s office for its review. Thank you for allowing us time to research this issue before publishing your article.

Martin Ackley, Director
Office of Communications
Michigan Department of Education

When I followed up with an e-mail that my delay in publication was only temporary and that I didn’t plan on waiting the length of time an AG investigation would take, I received the following additional response:

Dear Mr. Zarko,
 
We appreciate the time you took to contact us regarding Teacher Preparation Institution Performance Scores.  As you may be aware, Title II, Section 208(a) of the Higher Education Act (HEA) requires each state to establish criteria, identify, and assist teacher preparation institutions that are not performing at a satisfactory level.  In order to receive funds under the HEA, states are required to have a procedure to identify and assist low-performing programs of teacher preparation within institutions of higher education.  
 
It is our understanding the Department of Education's current procedure was reviewed as part of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission's review of state educational institutions and programs pursuant to Governor Granholm's Executive Directive No 2006-7.  We did not receive notification from the Michigan Department of Civil Rights that the procedure violated Proposal 06-02. We will look into your questions and concerns to ascertain whether it is necessary to take any further action to modify or clarify the procedures currently in place. 
 
Respectfully,
 
Martin Ackley, Director
Office of Communications
Michigan Department of Education

The Denver Post reports on this remarkable phenomenon - Democrats in Colorado are supporting Ward Connerly and Valerie Pech Orr's Colorado Civil Rights Initiative (CoCRI) at a higher rate than Republicans. Now remember these support rates don't include undecideds (before you worry too much about the seemingly low Republican support), so the results may be a bit skewed, without actually the raw polls.

The most recent poll, released Aug. 13 by Rasmussen Reports, showed that likely Colorado voters supported the measure 55 percent in favor to 23 percent against. But the poll showed that 71 percent of Democrats supported the measure while only 34 percent of Republicans supported it.

To those of who follow the issue, that isn't surprising. But Democrats are in a tizzy trying to explain it all:

"On the surface, this amendment sounds like something most Democrats would want to vote for; it gets rid of what sounds like racial favoritism," Loevy said. "It takes a while to explain to people that there are certain implications to this — doing away with certain affirmative action programs."

Well, CoCRI would not just end "racial favoritism" on the "surface." That's what it is designed to do. But Pat Waak, Colorado's Democrat Chair, has to figure something out to explain this strangeness:

"My guess is that if you're seeing numbers that high (among Democrats), people are misunderstanding what a yes vote means, because this is the party of affirmative action," said Pat Waak, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party.

CoCRI's Executive Director offers a good counter-explanation:

Jessica Peck Corry, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, the campaign in support of the initiative, said she didn't think there was any confusion about the ballot measure. She said the high support among Democratic voters reflected "a huge divide between the Democrat elites" and the party's rank and file.

"For the average Democrat voter, he or she is concerned about their kids getting into college," Corry said. "They don't have time for lofty political debates that many elite Democrats can afford to have. The liberal elites already have their (college and employment) connections, whereas ordinary blue-collar voters don't."

But let me offer two other explanations:

First, the Colorado Democratic Party has followed an odd-strategy to defeat CoCRI - they are running a parallel petition that would end preferences with an additional clause allowing preferences already allowed by the US Supreme Court, essentially nullifying itself and preserving preferences. I suspect this has created confusion within some of the Democratic Party's own ranks - certainly it makes there own arguments that CoCRI is deceptive seem odd, and it also just sows the seeds of complex confusion.

Second, the rise of O'Bama may expose the division Peck-Corry highlights and ironically increase Democrat support of CCRI's. The truth is certainly going to be a combination of all those factors, but I don't really think people are all that confused about equality. When they read a ballot measure that guarantees equality, they support it. Equality means equal. When they see preferences, toward or against anyone, the don't support it. Pretty simple.

In a short follow-up to the last post, where I noted that the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative (NCRI) "appeared" to be sufficient in signature total, I can now declare for certainty the Nebraska Secretary of State has found enough signatures valid and put it on the ballot.

Click More for NCRI's full press release.

Read more »

There's been much talk of a private fundraising effort to give race and gender based scholarships in the wake of Michigan's 2006 passage of Proposal 2. That effort is now officially the "Imagine Fund," based no doubt out of the liberal wealth-well-spring of Kalamazoo, where Jon Stryker Promise Zones and other similarly misguided social-engineering efforts often begin (I love Kalamazoo, by the way, it was my home for nearly a year).

Imagine this. Private money is going to replace public money in race-based scholarships. And there's nothing intrinsically wrong that - except perhaps its prudence as an investment. Paula Davis at the Kalamazoo Gazette reports:

A new organization called The Imagine Fund plans to offer college scholarships beginning in fall 2009 that will consider an academically qualified student's race, gender or other characteristics.

Considering race or gender in awarding a scholarship is a practice that in late 2006 was banned at the state's public universities and colleges.

The private nonprofit -- established in 2007 and now beginning its first public fundraising campaign -- was formed in response to that voter-approved measure outlawing some forms of affirmative action in Michigan.

``The Imagine Fund was conceived, quite frankly, because a small group of us were very concerned, angry, annoyed at the passage of Proposal 2,'' Nanette Reynolds, The Imagine Fund president, said Tuesday in a meeting with Kalamazoo Gazette staff.

Since taxpayers aren't forced to sponsor such disparate treatment against their will, and since it is private, one could say MCRI has succeeded. This was an intended consequence. If private actors want to give race-based awards, it is within their rights, even though not necessarily wise.

And as to wisdom, the fund, naturally, expands it "special interests" pandering to more than just race and gender categories. That's the nature of special interest pandering. Check this out:

But organizers of The Imagine Fund believe there's a market for this kind of giving. The fund's scope expands beyond race and gender to donors who wish to finance the education of gays, someone who is disabled or holds a particular religious faith.

Even those on the extreme left should see the danger of giving money away based on particularized religious faith (of course, we're sure none of the Imagination will reach students on the "religious right" or of the Christian faith, because that is obviously "over-represented"), and no one would have tried such a stunt at a public university even prior to Proposal 2. The other inclusions are obviously attempts to expand the fundraising capabilities of the organization. But the whole idea is unwise. If the true purpose were honestly as stated here ... :

``We want to see Michigan have an educated work force and that there's equity and access for all Michigan residents,'' she said.

... then the Imagine Fund would imagine giving to "all Michigan residents" based on objective socio-economic criteria measuring need. For that, I'll at least give Stryker's Promise Zones a large chunk of credit. It's based on geography and anyone of any race or creed can qualify.

If Oregon weren't perhaps the hardest state in the union among petitioning states, it would be a ripe target for Ward Connerly. Yesterday, Oregon's governor decided to enhance preference programs in state contracting, according to this OregonLive report:

He's issued an executive order asking 11 agency directors to step up their efforts to recruit minority- and women-owned businesses for state contracts.

What makes Oregon particularly difficult though in petition terms is that it is the home of the strongest union and so-called progressive (flipping the graves of those progressives of the early 20th Century who founded the petitioning rights movement) "blocking" movement. Some credit the birth of modern highly aggressive and organized blocking to Oregon in 2004, although the technique certainly has existed as long as petitioning in some form.

Still, Ward Connerly will have to eventually move on to some harder targets after the 2008 election cycle ends, and I'd place Oregon on the list at the top in terms of need.

The Tuscon Citizen reports here on some interesting challenges by opponents of the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (ACRI), or Proposition 104 as it is called there. Some of this will sound familar and some technical, but here's a clip:

Violations included petitions circulated by felons whose civil rights hadn't been restored, petitions circulated by ineligible individuals who misrepresented their identities or addresses, and petition sheets not properly notarized, according to the lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court on behalf of two university students.

It's interested that so-called liberals who have consistently advocated that felons have their civil rights (that is voting rights, in particular) "restored" are quick to use that argument against ACRI, but I guess anything goes. And certainly technicalities are important in the process, but a first glance at those filing the suit suggests its more to annoy and drain ACRI than actually true:

"This lawsuit is a message to Ward Connerly," Sinema said, adding that Arizonans won't tolerate cheating.

Max McPhail, the initiative campaign's executive director, expressed confidence the measure will qualify for the ballot despite "the technical issues" cited in the lawsuit. It's ridiculous to think that felons collected many signatures, he said.

"It's the only way they have of making sure this doesn't pass," McPhail said. "Once it's on the ballot, it will pass overwhelmingly," he said.

"This lawsuit is a message ..." That's the sign of a frivolous suit, folks. Lawsuits aren't supposed to be messages - they are supposed to address substantive issues.

UPDATE: IC Arizona contains this press release about ACRI offering a $10,000 reward for information on alleged BAMN signature infiltration, if it leads to a conviction. Not knowing Arizona law, its hard to conclude whether the actions were illegal, but they are certainly an interesting tactic in signature obstruction.

Colorado is facing a decision similar to Michigan's in 2006 - this one called Amendment 46. Interestingly, the Rocky Mountain News has done a "good thing" in reposting the raw video of Ward Connerly when he came in to visit their editorial board. Here's the YouTube video and link.

While the editing suggests that something may have been cut, the idea that newspapers might actually post the actual words of their interviewees on YouTube is both interesting, and offers more depth and fairness than you'd normally get out of the print environment. Some of that is simply human and the nature of a format that needs to be highly cut - but part of it is the establishment bias against certain causes like ending preferential treatment.