  Mrjoshua Member Username: Mrjoshua Post Number: 884 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 193.32.3.83 |
By Any Means Necessary By TERRENCE PELL August 31, 2006; Page A9 The Wall Street Journal, op-ed DETROIT -- A decision Tuesday by a federal judge in Detroit could set the stage for a sweeping expansion of the Voting Rights Act, which would turn the federal courts into a national campaign police. At issue is a last-ditch effort by a group trying to prevent citizens from voting on an amendment to the Michigan constitution. Styled after similar campaigns in California and Washington, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative would outlaw the use of racial preferences by state agencies and universities. Just a few weeks before the deadline for Proposal 2 to get onto the state ballot, the "Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary" (BAMN, loosely) argued that the signature gathering process used to qualify the referendum was tainted by racially targeted fraud. From the beginning, BAMN has claimed the initiative disguised an anti-black and racist agenda. But because many black individuals had signed the petition, BAMN had to show they'd been duped. So the group launched an "investigation." They systematically called and personally visited blacks who'd signed the petition. In some cities, they had friendly talk show hosts read the names of black signers over the radio. In all cases BAMN's message was the same: How could you, a black person, sign a petition to roll back affirmative action? BAMN's high-pressure tactics worked. Some signers and even gatherers decided they'd been deceived. In some cases they recalled being told that the petition was to "support affirmative action" and to help get their "children into college." Using pre-printed affidavits (some "signed" over the phone), BAMN collected statements from dozens of individuals and started a legal campaign to get the referendum pulled. BAMN's claims were hardly credible. The Michigan constitution explicitly guarantees the right of citizens to put issues on the ballot, so long as they can collect signatures of registered voters equal to 10% of the last gubernatorial election. And, in accordance with state law, the language of the referendum was printed in full at the top of each signature page, so that voters had the opportunity to read it for themselves. In any case, even if state officials had struck every single signature BAMN claims came from a majority black city (124,000), there still were more than enough signers to get onto the ballot. In light of all this, the Michigan courts -- as well as the secretary of state and the attorney general -- rightly rebuffed BAMN's litigation. BAMN filed a new lawsuit in federal court. Although the purpose of the Voting Rights Act is to eliminate procedures that diminish participation in elections because of race, BAMN asked the courts to rule that states must invent new procedures: Namely, they must strike black participation whenever officials have an inkling some blacks might have been confused about what they were doing. It's hard to think of a more perverse reading of the law. Imagine if officials of Southern states had ever conducted after-the-fact telephone campaigns to make sure black voters understood what they were voting for? Or tried to filter black votes by looking into conversations they might have had in the moments before they entered the voting booth? None of this much mattered to the federal judge assigned to the case, Arthur J. Tarnow, a Democratic appointment. He scheduled a two-day hearing last month to consider BAMN's request for a preliminary injunction, and allowed dozens of BAMN witnesses to testify in front of a gallery packed with BAMN supporters, while just outside BAMN protesters staged a noisy demonstration. In Tuesday's ruling, Judge Tarnow concluded that the initiative sponsors and the state had been right all along: There was no legal basis for a claim under the Voting Rights Act. But Judge Tarnow was not convinced by any principled view of that act's purpose and limits. Rather, he concluded that there was no violation because initiative sponsors "targeted all Michigan voters for deception without regard to race"! In fact, Judge Tarnow gave himself the authority, even the duty, to "serve as a 'referee'" for all kinds of state political "processes" -- not just elections. In that capacity, he didn't hesitate to give BAMN's political campaign a big helping hand, despite his legal ruling against it. Without the benefit of even a short trial, Judge Tarnow made the incendiary finding that "evidence overwhelmingly favors a finding that [petition sponsors] engaged in voter fraud" and that state officials had exhibited "an almost complete institutional indifference." His Honor went on to smear the initiative's executive director, Jennifer Gratz, by gratuitously asserting that "her lack of clarity and forthrightness seems typical of the [initiative's] approach, which is best characterized by the use of deception and connivance." BAMN correctly figures that Judge Tarnow's sweeping declaration of widespread fraud will pressure the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse his legal ruling that the Voting Rights Act doesn't reach fraud targeted against both blacks and whites. Even if the circuit doesn't reverse, BAMN no doubt hopes it will grant a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from moving forward with the referendum while Judge Tarnow's reading of the Voting Rights Act gets sorted out. Judge Tarnow's willingness to mount a political campaign from the bench makes clear just where BAMN's reading of the Voting Rights Act will lead. For if the federal courts get to settle this particular dispute, then, by the same logic, they would have been responsible for adjudicating, for instance, the many disputes of the 2004 elections: Swift boats, National Guard service, ad nauseum. No one should invite that prospect, least of all organizations like BAMN. But as its name implies -- any means necessary -- BAMN's legal strategy is oblivious to long-term consequences. Mr. Pell is the president of the Center for Individual Rights, which represents the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 963 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 209.104.146.147 |
I like how BAMN is afraid to let people vote. That's funny. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6713 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
The opinion: http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/e Gov/tarnowpdf/06cv12773AJT.pdf | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 272 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 24.169.224.43 |
A couple of points... 1. I find it hard to believe that more than a handful of people...much less 124,000 people in Michigan...would actually sign a petition without reading the goddamn thing first... 2. However, even if that were the case (which isn't likely), and they realized afterwards that wouldn't have signed it had they actually read it, then they can still go to the polls this fall to vote against it. So there is no harm in letting people vote on the issue. 3. As the article stated, even if ALL the signatures that BAMN wants thrown out were to be thrown out, the measure would still stay on the ballot since there would still be enough signature to put it on the ballot...so all these lawsuits they are filing are really just a waste of time and money. If I were a donor to their group, I'd be pretty pissed about the way they're handling their business. | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 220 Registered: 04-2006 Posted From: 64.141.144.2 |
first, i see alot of BAMN kids @ U-M, and I don't care for their group's tactics much... with that said, remember that this article was written by the civil rights initiative... i hardly expect that at all to be accurate.... | ||
Dpd_blue Member Username: Dpd_blue Post Number: 159 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 67.149.19.111 |
I'm sick of hearing about this damn intiative, " If you would have read it, you would have known what you were signing." But like everything else why take personal responsibilty when I can blame everyone else. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 6714 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 208.27.111.125 |
Dpd, perhaps you'll take personal responsibility for reading the opinion. It address the very issue you're raising. | ||
Pete Member Username: Pete Post Number: 60 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.255.163.56 |
Although I in no way support BAMN, nor was a contributer to their campaign through Operation King's Dream, I did choose to be a federal witness in their court case, willing to testify with the following story: I was on Wayne State University's campus during the summer of 2004 at the south entrance to the Student Center Building. I was approached by a woman asking me to sign a petition to "save affirmative action in Michigan." It sounded fishy to me, so I asked how it would be saved. She said that it's a petition "for affirmative action - to protect it." So I took the clipboard from her and read the language. It was fairly confusing, and I had to read it twice before I realized what the ACTUAL intent of the petition language was. I confronted the woman on this, and she told me, "No, you're not reading it right." I said no thank you and began to walk away. The reason I remembered the encounter so vividly was that as I was walking away, the petition gatherer approached another woman with the same 'sales pitch'. This woman essentially flipped out on the petition gatherer, saying, "Don't give be your affirmative action bulls--t. We don't need that in this state. Get that out of my face." I started laughing and went up to her and said, "You should read the language because you might want to sign it." Then she flipped out on me, so I walked away. During the federal hearing, however, the judge cut off plaintiff testimony before I was able to testify. I would not belittle those that did sign the petition, however, as the language was fairly confusing. The reason it was so confusing to so many people was that MCRI used the text from the Civil Rights Act and simply inserted a single phrase: "...nor give preferences to..." To a lot of people that signed it, the language looked incredibly familiar. Additionally, the argument that people who signed the petition will still get a chance to vote on it is a little disingenious. When minorities weren't allowed to partake in the process of nominating candidates at party conventions, the argument was that they would still get to vote on them in November. Sadly, the larger problem in my mind is that anyone with a couple of million dollars and a utopian agenda can come into the state to put whatever he wants to on the ballot. I am completely behind the referendum process, but hate the idea that you can pay petition gatherers for signatures. Money should stay out of the process. |
