 |
 |
M.C.R.I. REMAINS ON BALLOT WITH JUDGE'S RULING Opponents to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative have lost another court battle to keep the measure off the November ballot, as Detroit U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow refused to remove the proposal from the ballot even though he said its promoters "engaged in systematic voter fraud." Opponents had hoped a finding that supporters of the MCRI engaged in fraud - a charge the organization has vigorously denied - would be enough to disqualify the measure from the ballot under the federal Voting Rights Act. But in his ruling, which came down late Tuesday, Mr. Tarnow said the MCRI "appears to have targeted all Michigan voters for deception without regard to race." That equality of treatment meant the initiative could not be removed under the federal law, he said. The Voting Rights Act is not a general anti-voter fraud statute, Mr. Tarnow said, but prohibits practices that result in unequal access to the political process because of race. "The defendants' conduct, though unprincipled, did not violate the act," Mr. Tarnow said. Jennifer Gratz, the chair of the MCRI, said: "We are obviously happy that the people of Michigan will be able to decide whether our government should be picking winners and losers based on race and gender Officials of By Any Means Necessary, which brought the case joined by Governor Jennifer Granholm and Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, had asked for Mr. Tarnow to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the proposal from the November ballot. George Washington, attorney for BAMN, said the ruling would be appealed by the end of the week. Shanta Driver, another attorney for BAMN, said the findings of the federal judge and the Civil Rights Commission show some legal body has to be able to act to take the issue from the ballot. "Everybody is saying our hands are tied, we can't act," she said. But she argued the fact that people of all races were deceived does not make the action any less discriminatory. "When you direct an action at black people, many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of white people are pulled in the wake of that," Ms. Driver said. Dave Waymire, a spokesperson for One United Michigan, another opponent of the proposal, said Ward Connerly - who led similar drives to ban affirmative action in California and Washington - "was intent on deceiving the public from day one." Mr. Waymire said he hoped the voting public would see through the deceit. Mr. Waymire also said it was now time for the Legislature to look into the question of tricking individuals to sign petitions. "It is time the Legislature look at the growing business of lying to the public to get proposals on the ballot," he said since there are charges supporters of the Stop Overspending proposal also attempted to dupe signers. The measure would outlaw affirmative action at Michigan universities and in governments on the basis of race or gender. In his 34-page opinion, Mr. Tarnow was unstinting in his criticism of MCRI officials and of state agencies that he said could have investigated the alleged fraudulent practices. "All Michigan voters, whether supporters or opponents of affirmative action, should be concerned by the actions taken by MCRI in its attempt to place the proposed amendment on the November 2006 ballot. In particular, opponents of affirmative action should be concerned by what the MCRI has done while purporting to act in their name. If the proposal eventually passes, it will be stained by well-documented acts of fraud and deception that the defendants, as a matter of fact, have not credibly denied," Mr. Tarnow said. "The people of Michigan should also be concerned by the indifference exhibited by the state agencies that could have investigated and addressed MCRI's actions but failed to do so. With the exception of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, the record shows that the state has demonstrated an almost complete institutional indifference to the credible allegations of voter fraud raised by plaintiffs. If the institutions established by the people of Michigan, including the Michigan courts, Board of State Canvassers, Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Bureau of Elections, had taken the allegations of voter fraud seriously, then it is quite possible that this case would not have come to federal court. However, the Court cannot turn back the clock, and can only deal with the facts that are presented to it," he said. When the Michigan Supreme Court refused to take the proposal off the ballot, the court effectively said that each signer had to be responsible for actually reading the proposal. And Ms. Gratz discounted comments from the judge that the state should have taken action to protect voters from misleading statements in circulating the petitions. "The judge's commentary is nothing more than judicial activism," she said. "I call on members of Congress to look into his conduct. He is nothing more than a partisan hack with a robe on." Ms. Gratz expected the ruling would be appealed. "They don't seem to care what judges say, what courts say," she said of BAMN