THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Activists File Papers to Put Measure Banning Affirmative Action on Michigan's 2006 Ballot

The Chronicle of Higher Education is a nationally-known trade journal based in Washington, D.C., its internet site is subscription-based. This story was published Friday, January 7, 2005. The following is a fair use reproduction due to its relevance to ZR. Original Copyright rests with the Chronicle.

By SILLA BRUSH
News

A Michigan group seeking to enact a state ban on affirmative action in college admissions and government hiring filed petitions on Thursday to put the proposal on the 2006 ballot. Activists file papers to put measure banning affirmative action on Michigan's 2006 ballot

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative submitted what it said were 508,202 signatures of support, starting what is likely to be a controversial two-year campaign, said Chetly Zarko, the initiative's spokesman. The project is backed by Ward Connerly, the University of California regent who has led efforts to abolish affirmative action in California and Washington State. Before the Michigan proposal can appear on the 2006 ballot, the petitions still must be certified as containing enough signatures under state law, about 317,000.

The measure, if passed by the voters, would add an amendment to the state's Constitution prohibiting the use of racial and gender preferences in college admissions as well as hiring decisions by government agencies, including public colleges and universities.

Having lost a series of legal efforts over the last year to stop the initiative, opponents of the ballot measure pledged on Thursday to continue their fight by challenging the petition's signatures and launching a media campaign. "There will be a full-fledged campaign before we're done," said David Waymire, a spokesman for Citizens for a United Michigan, which opposes the ballot initiative. "We're going to scrutinize the petitions very closely." Mr. Zarko said his group had already combed through the signatures for irregularities. "We expect the opposition to do everything they can," he said. "We will be prepared."

Mr. Zarko said polls consistently show that nearly two-thirds of Michigan residents support the ballot's language. "We're not concerned about our popular support," he said. "We know we have the correct position, both morally and with the will of the people."

But Mr. Waymire said that once people realize that the measure would eliminate all affirmative-action programs for women and members of minority groups, they oppose it by 54 percent to 35 percent. Organizers of the ballot measure had originally hoped to put the proposal to a vote in 2004, but a judge said last March that its language was unclear (The Chronicle, April 9, 2004). Mr. Zarko said the group was optimistic after an appeals-court ruling in June that supported the petition drive, but by then it was too late to gather the 317,757 signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot last year. Instead, the group postponed the effort until the 2006 election.

The group was founded after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 upheld the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor's limited use of racial preferences in its law school's admission policy (The Chronicle, July 4, 2003). Jennifer Gratz, who filed one of the original lawsuits against the university, serves as the initiative's executive director. Because the Supreme Court said only that affirmative action in admissions was permitted, not required, its ruling could be superseded by a constitutional amendment like that proposed in the ballot measure. University of Michigan officials have said they worry that the measure's passage could scuttle the efforts they have made since 2003 to increase campus diversity using court-approved affirmative action.

Copyright © 2005 by The Chronicle of Higher Education