IJJ Senior Fellow Victor Merina continues his ground-level reporting from Michigan on the battle around anti-affirmative action ballot Proposal 2. Read his third report below, download a copy of Ellis Cose' report on this matter. and join the fray in our online forum on Proposal 2. Just click on the "Killing Affirmative Action" box on the top right side of this page.
Report from Michigan: Part Three
By Victor Merina
What began as a political movement in California a decade ago swept through Michigan on Tuesday as statewide voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure barring affirmative action in public education and government programs.
In an outcome with national repercussions, Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 by a 58% to 42% margin in the latest setback for affirmative action proponents who saw similar measures adopted in California and Washington state.
Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who had spearheaded that 1996 electoral victory in his home state and in the Pacific Northwest two years later, was jubilant when he took the stage at a victory party in Lansing.
“This election is historic. We have changed the course of history with regards to the issue of racial preference,” Connerly told a cheering crowd in a hotel banquet room.
“I’m glad you’ve entered the race-free zone along with California and Washington,” he added with a smile. “There will be others to follow.”
At Connerly’s side was Jennifer Gratz, who was the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the University of Michigan challenging the school’s admission policies after she was wait-listed. The Supreme Court eventually upheld a general affirmative action admissions policy at the University of Michigan’s law school but struck down the undergraduate admission formula because it awarded points based on race.
Following that 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Gratz invited Connerly to Michigan in hopes that they could replicate his successful political movement that spawned Proposition 209 in California and Initiative 200 in Washington. On Tuesday she got her answer.
“The people of Michigan said we will treat people equally,” she said under the glare of television lights. “We will not stand for preferential treatment. We will not stand for quotas. We will not stand for set-asides. We will stand up and say people should be judged for their character and their merit, not their skin color or their sex.”
Gratz, now the executive director of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative which sponsored the ballot measure, alternated between tears and smiles on a night when her ballot measure never trailed.
“It’s been well known that we have been ground zero for this effort,” Gratz said of the national interest in the election. “We made history again by standing up to big business, big government and big labor by saying ‘yes’ to Proposal 2.”
For opponents, Tuesday’s outcome was a crushing loss. Affirmative action supporters under the banner of a statewide group called One United Michigan had stitched together a broad-based coalition of more than 200 organizations that included politicians, clergy, business groups, civic organizations, labor unions and others. The state’s entire congressional delegation and both Democratic and Republican candidates for governor were opposed to Proposal 2.
But in the end with nearly 3.2 million votes cast, the measure won by a larger margin than many had predicted.
"Sadly it appears that voters have been deceived by a fraudulent campaign … that serves to divide Michigan and ignores the culture of inequity that divides our state and country," Dave Waymire, spokesman One United Michigan, told reporters.
That view was shared by many affirmative action advocates.
“I’m just heartbroken,” said Kathryn Blake of Flint, who had helped organize rallies in opposition to Proposal 2. She said that some voters were fooled by the name of Gratz’s group and unsure whether the measure supported or opposed affirmative action.
“With all the effort we put into the community I think people were still confused about the proposal,” Blake said. “I even had friends and family members who were confused over which way to vote.”
Critics of Proposal 2 had built much of their campaign around the argument that inequality still exists for many people of color, as well as girls and women, who benefit from affirmative action. They argued that the measure would jeopardize not only education and employment programs but also health care services for women in particular, a claim that the Connerly camp denied.
Under the winning ballot measure, the state constitution would be amended to bar the use of racial or gender preferences in public employment, public education and public contracting or hiring.
Public colleges and universities would have to review their outreach, scholarship and grant awards if they benefit gender or racial or ethnic groups. Programs that target specific groups in K-12 schools also would be affected.
With Tuesday’s vote, public officials were already scrambling to determine how to cope with the new restrictions on affirmative action. The University of Michigan president was set to address the issue today on campus.
Meanwhile, the prospect of legal challenges still looms. Even before the vote, a national spokesperson for the group By Any Means Necessary or BAMN, which had gone to court to try and keep Proposal 2 off the ballot, said her group would be ready to take on the measure once again.
James Fett, the legal counsel for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, said his organization is ready for any challenge and has already been assured assistance from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento-based group that was involved in the implementation of California’s Proposition 209.
“It will be futile,” Fett said of a lawsuit filed by opponents. “But they did it in California and I’m sure they will do it here.”
