Posted on 04/17/2002 7:23:55 PM PDT by heleny
Racial privacy initiative heading for state ballot
Ward Connerly wants March 2004 vote
By William Brand
STAFF WRITER
SACRAMENTO -- Backers of the proposed Racial Privacy Initiative say they intend to submit enough signatures of registered voters Friday to ensure the measure qualifies for the California ballot.
But they also hope the measure won't be placed before voters until the March 2004 state primary. "There's already a lot of controversy concerning the governor's race this fall," Ward Connerly, the University of California regent who is the initiative's chief sponsor, said Tuesday.
The initiative would ban state and local governments from collecting data concerning race, ethnicity or national origin from individuals.
"This initiative gives voters a unique opportunity -- it's the first initiative of its kind in the country for people to vote for the right to racial privacy," Connerly said. "We don't want to crowd it in with a lot of other issues."
The delay also would give Connerly's American Civil Rights Institute more time to collect funds to publicize the measure.
He said so far the institute has spent well more than $1 million on the petition drive. "Donations have ranged from $2 to a $100,000 contribution from Joseph W. Coors," Connerly said.
Officially race-blind state
The initiative would be another step toward the officially race-blind state Connerly envisions. He was the leading supporter of Proposition 209, which bans the use of race preferences by state and local governments.
The latest initiative has drawn strong criticism across the state. Among groups opposing it are the NAACP, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
They argue it would hinder funding for special programs aimed at low-income, mostly minority residents. Grants usually are determined based on data showing race and ethnicity, liberal opponents argue.
Sean Reeves, the state Republican Party secretary and an NAACP officer, also opposes the measure, calling it divisive.
Connerly counters that old prejudices are dying and identification of race hinders citizens as often as it helps. The plan also deals nicely with the problem facing growing numbers of mixed-race Californians -- it avoids the problem entirely, he said.
670,000 signatures needed
Connerly said the initiative needs 670,000 valid signatures of California registered voters to qualify for the ballot. The deadline for filing is Friday.
"If we turn in more than 110 percent of the number needed, the secretary of state can check a sampling and determine the initiative qualifies," Connerly said.
Connerly's American Civil Rights Institute intends to turn in 939,000 signatures -- enough to qualify for the ballot, but not enough for quick certification. Each of California's 58 counties will have to either count the signatures or at least do a sampling.
Connerly said he hopes the counting will delay certification beyond the June 27 deadline for the November ballot. "We don't know if it will, but we're hoping."
Alfie Charles, spokesperson for Secretary of State Bill Jones, said it's uncertain whether Connerly's strategy will result in a delay.
"There are so many variables," Charles said. "There's only one other initiative that will need certification. The counties could move rapidly."
I missed most of the interview today, but Roger Hedgecock (who has been encouraging his listeners to sign the RPI petition the last few weeks) asked Kevin Nguyen (somehow affiliated with ACRC) whether Simon's campaign had anything to do with the potential delay of the RPI until the March 2004 ballot, instead of on the November 2002 ballot. He denied it, and said they were not contacted by Simon or Davis or anyone on their behalf, but he also said that the RPI might encourage people to vote -- both conservatives and the gimme-more-handouts crowd -- so it would have had an unknown effect on this fall's gubernatorial election. He did not want the RPI to become a wedge issue, either.
He also said the ACRC might be better prepared in March 2004, and might get more attention then than it would this fall, when the other races would distract voter attention.
They have finally come up with a way to end the racial divide, and look who opposes it !!! Gee, go figure.
Call me a loon, but isn't providing grants by race and ethnicity discriminatory?
It certainly is discriminatory. Unfortunately, certain groups that claim to represent minority interests want to keep the money flowing toward them.
If the NAACP and Rainbow/Push were truly successful in helping colored/black people, those organizations would eventually self-destruct, so they have an inherent interest in continuing the indoctrination that some minorities "deserve" extra consideration even though that prevents them from improving themselves.
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.