 |
 |
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.