Ward Connerly, Colorado Civil Rights Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative Draws Deception Charges From Opponents

“It is not fraudulent when a person says they believe an initiative will achieve certain results and the opponents happen to disagree. Affirmative action is an amorphous term. It means different things to different people”--Ward Connerly

Last week it was reported that the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative had been approved as Amendment 46 on the November ballot.

So how would the opposition choose to challenge the ballot initiative?

By charging deception of course (in the New York Times no less!):

Freddie Whitney was walking out of a King Soopers supermarket here this winter when she was approached by three young men.

They politely asked if she was against discrimination and, if so, if she would sign a petition that would legally end the practice in the state. After scanning it briefly, Ms. Whitney, a 78-year-old African-American, signed it.

A few weeks later, Ms. Whitney says, she was shocked to learn from a local newspaper that she had unwittingly lent her support to a ballot measure called the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative that seeks to eliminate state programs that give preferential treatment to minorities and women.

The proposal is part of a larger effort organized by the conservative advocate Ward Connerly, whose group, the American Civil Rights Coalition, is seeking to disassemble affirmative action in five states this year: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma.

“My reaction was, ‘Oh, my God, what have I done?’ ” Ms. Whitney said. “I have children and grandchildren who have benefited from affirmative action.”

Several dozen Coloradans, some of them members of minorities, say they were deceived into signing the petitions under the guise of ending discrimination, and have complained to Colorado Unity, a coalition of civil rights groups that is fighting Mr. Connerly’s efforts.

Connerly rejected these claims:

Mr. Connerly, a former regent of the University of California, maintains that it is entirely accurate to present the measure as “ending discrimination,” and that the public has not been misled.

“It is not fraudulent when a person says they believe an initiative will achieve certain results and the opponents happen to disagree,” Mr. Connerly said. “Affirmative action is an amorphous term. It means different things to different people.”

Mr. Connerly, who is black, pointed out that the language of the ballot measure, which seeks to prohibit the state “from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin,” was approved by the state title board and upheld by the State Supreme Court last September.

Mr. Connerly’s supporters have gathered 128,044 signatures in Colorado, more than the 76,000 needed for certification on the state’s ballot in November. But Bill Vandenberg, a co-chairman of Colorado Unity, said his group had fielded complaints over how the signatures were collected and was considering taking Mr. Connerly to court and filing a legal challenge with Colorado’s secretary of state, Mike Coffman.

The 50,000 extra signatures should be more than enough to withstand anecdotal accusations of the public being misled.

We certainly don't condone any deceitful practices on the part of those collecting signatures--the voter should be given full disclosure of the proposed ballot initiative, and an adequate opportunity to read the text before signing. No one should be coerced--or intentionally misled.

But characterizing the signature-gathering process of CCRI as misleading because one's interpretation of the statement that "ending discrimination" is not what the amendment intends is itself both a gross mischaracterization of the wording of the initiative itself (which had passed all required state scrutiny measures designed to prevent such misinterpretation issues), and a rather crude way of calling into question the intent of the amendment and those supporting it.

If you feel uncomfortable with how someone is gathering signatures--too pushy, won't answer questions, won't let you read the text, etc., simply refuse to sign.

What is not surprising is that the Amendment's opponents have already latched on to the meme of deceit as a way of combatting the initiative, rather than arguing on its relative merits.

Anti-Discrimination Colorado Civil Rights Initiative Now Amendment 46

The good news (via Michelle Malkin):

Today the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative received notice that the Secretary of State has determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative has submitted enough signatures to gain access to the November ballot.

"I am delighted that the people of Colorado will have a chance to vote Yes for fairness and equality in November," said Valery Pech Orr, co-proponent of the initiative. Linda Chavez, also a proponent of the Initiative continued, "The people of Colorado will finally have the opportunity to say no to discrimination, ending the decades-long double standard that has been fostered by race- and gender-based preferences."

Ward Connerly, national advocate for equal rights, congratulated the Colorado Coalition on their success, "The people in Colorado who have the desire to end race and gender preferences are to be commended for their success." Connerly continued, "I am delighted that the Super-Tuesday for Equal Rights effort has achieved another milestone towards success in November."

The Colorado Civil Rights Initiative is a state constitutional amendment that will appear as Amendment 46 on the November 2008 ballot. A "Yes" vote on this initiative will ban discrimination and preferences based on race, gender, national origin, color, and ethnicity in state hiring, state contracting, and state education.

Ben DeGrow has a roundup, and includes his endorsement.

More to come as the election season progresses--the key will be to see how the opposition decides to challenge this Amendment in Colorado--attack the messenger (Connerly), or the message. There will be no shortage of vilification and the threat of "opening old wounds," or the cries of "institutional racism" and accusations of "right-wing bigotry."

Also, what effect will teh Democrats' eventual nominee have on this issue, playing as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have on gender and race. The way that Colorado's unaffiliateds break will certainly be crucial, but also important will be the turnout of the base of both parties, for this and any of the other ballot initiatives.

Exit question: will it be the agenda that has coattails, or the parties' respective candidates? Or will the votes be independently decided, not along party lines, but through principles--from a generally "independent" Colorado voting population?

Hard to tell, but an interesting thought experiment, nonetheless!