Where Ward Connerly's civil rights initiatives have qualified (Nebraska, NCRI, and Colorado, CoCRI), he is facing the sharpest personal attacks yet to be aired on TV against him. The ads get nasty, with stretched claims about how he's made money (so what) working for his causes. Linked is the YouTube video by user "BigMoneyConnerly".

What's interesting is that the ads were put out by the so-called Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC), according to this The Daily Voice story. We recently discovered that the BISC Foundation (the 501c3 tax-deductible arm, as opposed to the 501c4 BISC which is non-tax-deductible) gave money directly to the failed Health Care for Michigan ballot drive.

The irony of BISC's attack on Connerly's funding is that one could equally criticize it for its funding sources. Funding simply has nothing to do with the issue Ward raises - is it right, or wrong, to give preference based on race or gender? In each case, only the voters of the state ultimately decide - if their government doesn't short-circuit the process before they can.

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.

Zarko Research was at Pontiac High School taping a political rally last night. We found this sign to be a particularly ironic thing to see at a school.

In addition to questions raised by a Pontiac city councilman about alleged "threats" made to stop Pontiac school from hosting a political event (the Councilman referred me to his wife, who refused to answer after a political operative told her who he thought I worked for, which ironically isn't true), the sign was about the most interesting thing we saw in a boring three hours. The meeting, advertised as a "Town Hall", was an orchestrated rally. No "Town Hall" style questions were asked, the audience was all partisan and given pre-fabricated "convention-style" signs saying "IMPEACH", and the 5 person panel a hand-picked, lopsided panel all advocating for an anti-war position. When I was asked by an activist/operative from the other side why certain Congressmen (Knollenberg or McCotter) "didn't show up," I clarified that I didn't know what the representatives' thoughts were but asked why Senator Levin didn't show up (answer: how interesting that Carl Levin, who voted to approve money for the war and is also up for re-election, wasn't "invited") and suggested that the event's rules and organization were so biased as to make such an idea ridiculous. This wasn't a "TownHall," as citizens of the 9th District (I am such a citizen) weren't welcome to ask questions and get response -- Bruce Fealk, its organizer, refused (again) to "give me a quote on [my] camera" when I started asking him questions -- I asked him how it was any different from him expecting answers to questions when he barrages into offices and camps out at private homes, but he just walked away. If Fealk really wanted to reach the public and persuade people from both sides of the aisle, he'd take all opportunities to answer questions (and to both Skinner and Peters' credit, they answered questions!).

Finally, I asked Nancy Skinner one question. Is she running. Her response is that she's not in or out and nothing is official yet. For those of you on the Republican-side "itching" for a Democratic primary, I've never been of the opinion that one side should care about whether the other has a primary or not. It's like sports playoffs - if you win too early sometimes the "rest" is good, sometimes the "rest" causes you to lose momentum (Tigers, 2006). Sometimes the "work" of playing into extra games both "steels" you (Piston', 2004) and sometimes it "drains" you (Pistons, in 2005). At best, Skinner adds unpredictability to the race and maybe slightly drains Peters (or even wins), at worst, she could help the Democrats. But it doesn't change the fact that there's a general election in November.

Gary Peters, who didn't give a speech like Skinner, was only available in the lobby afterwards. A Peters operative quickly pointed me out, suggesting I was there as an operative (which simply isn't true, although I have past ties with Knollenberg's son, I do not work for them currently, and am simply an interested 9th District citizen at this point, just as Nancy Skinner claimed of Bruce Fealk in her speech when she asserted that he wasn't paid for his activism). As he walked by, I asked Mr. Peters what his thoughts on the proposed racinos issue was, a reasonable question that I actually have an interest in hearing about from a perspective other than his race for Congress. His response as he walked by hurriedly was that due to Proposal 1 (2004), the people would have to vote on any such expansion and he left it at that.

The sign and councilman's comments prompted this letter and Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Pontiac's superintendent:

Dear Mr. Calvin C. Cupidore, Jr.:

I was at the Pontiac High School last night videotaping a political rally. I took the attached photo of a sign apparently directed toward students.

It is misspelled. It's amazing to me that hundreds of teachers would walk by this and not see to it that it was corrected. Not only does such a sign (errantly) teach students by example, it is embarrassing to find at a school district. I would hope you correct the situation forthwith.

As to the political rally, pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, I request all records related to or that document any threats or communications with the district regarding the rally. A city council person claimed in a speech that threats had been made to stop the rally. Additionally, I request a copy of the contract between the rally organizers and district to lease the space, the school policy on leasing space for non-school purposes, and any check and invoice related to that contract. Finally, I request any e-mail or other communication which you or other administrators, or any member of the school board, received or sent on the topics of the rally, the war in Iraq, or any political candidate for office over the last two months.

Thank you for your time. Documents may be faxed to the number below, and email returned here.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

Diana M. Nash of Kalamazoo has recently formed this ballot question committee. The committee's statement of organization hasn't been scanned in it (oddly, normally its up after this period of time). No activity with the Board of Canvassers and language has been registered yet. If anyone has an idea of what this group is up to, please contact ZR.

Representative Glenn Steil (R), has proposed this Constitutional Amendment through joint resolution, requiring that it be placed to a vote of the people. I post only the summary, since the amendemnt is rather intricate in the sections it affects. The basic idea is this though:

Cut the number of legislators in half, and double term limits. It's a fascinating political compromise, and although I don't officially support or oppose it yet, it is clearly an attempt to get term limit expansion on the ballot in both a winnable way and a way that legislators can go back to their constitutuencies and have something to claim they weren't being self-serving. It would also change the dynamic of elections.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION C
January 22, 2007,
Introduced by Rep. Steil and referred to the Committee on Appropriations
A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the state constitution of 1963, by amending sections 2, 3, and 54 of article IV, to reduce the number of senators and representatives and to increase term limits.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the state of Michigan, That the following amendment to the state constitution of 1963, to reduce the number of senators and
representatives and to increase term limits, is proposed, agreed to, and submitted to the people of the state:

In major news that ZR appears first to report publicly, HB 4024 - HJ2 was read and introduced yesterday and referred to the House Ethics and Elections Committee.

Sponsored by Rep. Dave Hildenbrand (R), HB 4024 is an attempt to place on the 2008 ballot a ballot question that would call for a Constitutional Convention, which would thereby convene in 2009. Hildenbrand may be doing some bidding for former Speaker DeRoche, whom Tim Skubic speculated wanted to chair a convention as a road to the Governor's mansion (mirroring the way George Romney did in 1963). The problem for DeRoche previously was the timing. There will be a 2010 ballot question by law (Michigan's Constitution requires the question be asked every sixteenth year). A 2010 ballot question could only have produced a Convention as early as 2011, doing gubernatorial candidates little good.

Here's the text of the proposed joint resolution to create place the issue on the ballot:

HOUSE BILL No. 4024
January 22, 2007, Introduced by Rep. Hildenbrand and referred to the Committee on Ethics and Elections.
A bill to provide for submitting the question of whether to call a constitutional convention to the electors of this state.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 1. (1) At the 2008 general November election, the question of whether to call a constitutional convention to draft a general revision of the state constitution of 1963 shall be submitted to the electors of this state. The question submitted to the electors shall be substantially as follows:
"Shall a convention of elected delegates be convened to draft a general revision of the state constitution of 1963 for presentation to the state's electors for their approval or rejection?
Yes ____
No ____".
(2) If a majority of electors approve the question presented in subsection (1), a constitutional convention shall be called in accordance with section 3 of article XII of the state constitution of 1963.

With all due respect to the Republican former-Speaker and Representative, ZR opposes this unwise effort that risks major achievements by the people in restraining tax growth, protecting the civil rights of all, defining marriage, and allowing the people access to their Constitution.