Post MCRI Passage Posturing?
Today, the Michigan Law Revision Commission (MLRC) took testimony on
what, if any, laws should be changed in light of the passage of Proposal
2 (the Michigan Civil Rights Commission), a measure to ban race-or
sex-based preferences in public contracting, employment, and education.
Presumedly, state government could take a proactive route in changing
policies and practices to line up with Proposal 2 or wait for court
decisions to basically "weed out" policies one-by-one that would be
inconsistent with the proposal.
The commission, which is a creature of the Legislature, is apparently
weighing in as sort of a political counter-balance to the Civil Rights
Commission, which Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM has charged with looking into
what changes may be needed in light of the passage of Proposal 2.
The Michigan Civil Rights Commission is an arm of the administration
and carries out Granholm's policies. In so doing, it was virtually part
of the campaign against Proposal 2, and therefore would not be expected
to use an expansive interpretation of what needs to be changed.
Meanwhile, Richard McLELLAN, chair of the MLRC, told MIRS he's not sure
his panel would even produce a report on changes needed as a result of
Proposal 2, but it was important to look into the situation anyway.
"We may issue a report for this (2006) year, next year or maybe never,"
McLellan said. "Our goal is to help the Legislature understand what
changes, if any, are needed. There is a lot of material and parameters
that could be affected."
McLellan said that Proposal 2 could fit an interpretation of being
"self-executing" that would mean the proposal doesn't affect any
statutes.
"My opinion is that this may affect very few statutes, if any,"
McLellen said prior to today's hearing. McLellan also said this would be
the only hearing the panel would hold on the topic.
Meanwhile, as the panel opened its hearing today at the Capitol, one of
its members, Sen. Hansen CLARKE (D-Detroit) urged the commission to
"hold off."
"The purpose of this commission is to ensure the efficiency and
accuracy of Michigan law, not to wade into controversial policies that
are still being debated," Clarke said. "To take a position on this
issue, at this time, would be an irresponsible departure from our core
mission. Recommendations by the Michigan Law Revision Commission are
supposed to be driven by the Legislature, not the other way around."
Clarke said that it should primarily be the court's job to interpret
what, if any, laws need changing as a result of Proposal 2.
|
