Posted on 11/08/2006 5:01:51 AM PST by Kieri
DETROIT (AP) — Courts could play a major role in figuring out the effects of Michigan's Proposal 2, a voter-approved measure to end race and gender preferences in some government and public university affirmative action programs.
With 98 percent of precincts reporting early Wednesday, 58 percent, or 2,090,066 people voted "yes" on Proposal 2, and 42 percent, or 1,519,942 voters, were opposed.
The University of Michigan, the most high-profile public institution affected by the constitutional amendment, scheduled a Wednesday news conference to discuss the proposal's ramifications. The university might again have to alter how it includes race in determining which students it admits, according to a pre-election analysis by the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan.
The proposal was prompted by a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a general affirmative action policy at the University of Michigan's law school but struck down the undergraduate admission formula as too rigid because it awarded points based on race.
The Citizens Research Council review said it does not appear the proposal's impact would be as significant for undergraduate admissions at other Michigan public universities, but it's harder to tell if preferences are used for graduate schools and law schools. If a university has gender-based preferences within specific programs — such as a nursing school program that favors male applicants — those likely would be banned.
The research council said it's likely lawsuits will be filed to test the boundaries of certain state and local government programs that may use affirmative action. That could include some local government contracting programs that give preferences to women and minorities.
"We know there will be lawsuit after lawsuit filed," said David Waymire, a spokesman for an opposition group called One United Michigan.
The ballot drive was led by Jennifer Gratz, a white student from suburban Detroit who says she was turned away from the University of Michigan in 1995. She says if she had been black, American Indian or Hispanic, she would have been admitted. Gratz was involved in the initial lawsuit against the university.
Early Wednesday, Gratz said she expected her fight to end race and gender preferences in Michigan would continue within the next few days. She also suggested that other states could be targeted for similar proposals.
California and Washington have passed similar measures in the past decade.
"I take it as the people of Michigan told big business, big labor and big government — judge us on our merits. Don't judge us on our skin color," Gratz said. "We will continue this fight across the nation."
Gratz heads a group called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. The effort was aided by Ward Connerly, a Californian and one of the nation's most visible opponents of race and gender preferences.
Connerly's Sacramento-based group, the American Civil Rights Coalition, was a major financial backer of the proposal.
A majority of voters who said their families were getting ahead financially supported the proposal, according to a statistical analysis of the vote from voter interviews conducted for The Associated Press by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International. A majority of those who said they were falling behind financially were opposed.
Voters who identified themselves as Republicans tended to favor the proposal. Those who considered themselves Democrats tended to oppose it.
The proposal was opposed by both Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Republican challenger Dick DeVos. The opposition group One United Michigan drew wide support from a coalition of business, labor, education, religious and other groups.
Supporters of Proposal 2 said affirmative action programs based on preferences had strayed from their original purpose or were no longer needed.
"I think they helped," said John Williams, 70, of Holt, who voted in favor of the proposal. "It's sort of like unions. They were essential at one time but have outlived their usefulness."
Other voters disagreed, saying women and minorities have not reached equality with white men and the affirmative action programs were needed.
Janet Wimberly, a 50-year-old who owns a consulting and training business in Royal Oak, said she voted against the proposal. She cited her past experience working as an engineer for General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group.
"I was the only black and the only female in both positions," she said. "So that right there lets you know something."
The campaigns squabbled over what would and would not be banned by Proposal 2.
Gratz's group said single-sex public schools, as long as opportunities exist for both boys and girls, would be OK. Math and science outreach programs that target girls would have to be adjusted to include opportunities for boys.
The proposal doesn't ban affirmative action programs based on geography or income. Programs that are needed to qualify a local government for federal funding may not be affected. It does not ban any affirmative action programs at private businesses or organizations, although opponents worry employers would scrap their programs if government is forced to do so.
But judging by what happened in California, courts will have to sort out gray areas and deal with many challenges that likely will be dismissed.
One United Michigan ran an ad saying that in California, funding for cervical and breast cancer screenings were put at risk because they were for women only.
A lawsuit filed in California by a group not affiliated with the ballot proposal sought to challenge a wide variety of programs for women, but it was dismissed by the court. The cancer screening programs continue in California.
___
On the Net:
Michigan Civil Rights Initiative: http://www.michigancivilrights.org
One United Michigan: http://www.oneunitedmichigan.org
This is a HUGE bright spot this morning! :D
The democrats won in congress but conservatives won on proposals.
When my husband got out of the Navy, he had to find a new job of course. And we were discussing it at a large family gathering. My husband reiterated the point that he would NEVER work for a union... he'd seen enough union workers in the shipyard and they caused no end of grief. So, he is just opposed to unions.
My ditzy sister was in SHOCK! How could anyone dislike unions? Her husband worked for Ford and unions are wonderful.
Interestingly enough, ten years later her husband was basically forced out of his job due to lack of revenue and he has taken a huge cut in pay.
My husband found his own niche without any union protection and has doubled his income.
I'm grateful for personal choice.
More to the point the courts lost big time. All the pro-marriage amendments won (except in Arizona where they don't believe in marriage anyway), as did the anti-eminent domain proposals.
Yeah, with the proposals there is no one person to vilify. In the races for office, far too many people still rely on MSM lies and spin and/or MSM talking points repeated by Democrats.
I think the US has gone schizophrenic. Vote in conservative principles but vote conservatives out.
I blame the MSM. They have successfully deceived the public on what each party stands for.
You and me both. I really thought we had a chance but there is still more to be done. The alternative media is just starting to drive in the stake, we can't let this get us down. It's just the beginning of the end for the MSM and they are doing the most damage they can on their way out.
Not to rain on your parade, but don't forget that the courts will probably throw it out.
Do you mean the lawsuit or the ballot results itself??? On what grounds?
The Michigan Supreme Court is conservative. This proposal was placed on the ballot even though legal challenges were filed against it all the way to the election. There aren't any grounds left on which to file a challenge. Oh, they'll try, but there's nothing left to argue. The newspapers railed and smeared Prop 2 left and right over the past two weeks -- all of them -- and it won anyway. What is a judge going to say, "Michigan voters are stupid"???
BAMF and their ilk don't have a legal leg to stand on.
"Michigan Supreme Court is conservative"
Hope you are right. I am used to liberal courts here in Colorado.
And a related anecdote, a young friend who (in the late 1990s) was looking at various colleges, didn't even bother with U of M because, as she said, the quotas for white students were too low (despite her high GPA).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.