Nov 13, 2006

Newspaper rightwing editorial condones voter fraud and eliminating independent judiciary

Despite an anti-Republican swing in the nation, the OP-ED pages of the Daily Press & Argus continues its shift to the right. The latest evidence of that trend is the editorial in today’s edition that says Proposal 2, that bans affirmative action programs based on race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin, should not be challenged in the courts. Their reasoning is because voters in Livingston County voted nearly 3-1 for it.

Apparently, they have forgotten there are three branches of government, and the independent judiciary job’s is to ensure laws pass Constitutional muster. Often, it’s the last resort for the poor and powerless who have been discriminated against and who have been treated unfairly. I’m sure if a Constitutional amendment banning African-Americans from voting had been placed on the ballot in 1962 in Alabama or Mississippi it would have passed by a similar margin, but that would note have made it right. Remember, Proposal 2 was opposed by both candidates for governor, and those who supported Proposal 2 included the KKK. Let the courts do the job the Founding Fathers intended it to do.

The editorial says opponents fought hard to keep it off the ballot, but they did not commit voter fraud like California’s Ward Connerly and his supporters. I don’t know what affirmative action plan Chris Ward has suggested, but I can safely say it will be like every alleged reform he has introduced and only benefit Republicans.

Ward’s position on Prop 2 was pretty clear. He asked the Attorney General to determine whether the Michigan Civil Rights Commission "may have exceeded its constitutional and statutory powers" in investigating the gathering of signatures for the ban. Legal experts have said they did not, and Ward conveniently ignored the fact that despite widespread allegations of fraud, no other body or office in the state was allowed to look into the fraud committed, In fact, Ward went out of his way to take powers away from the state Board of Canvassers because they were concerned with the fraud committed. He’s supposed to be so concerned about voter fraud with his unconstitutional voter ID bill, but voter fraud committed for something he supports is OK.

The reasons for the issue’s success are many. Most obvious was the fact that many voters — particularly white voters — saw logic in an argument that said discrimination by race is wrong, regardless of the motivation.
The opponents didn’t help their cause with clumsy and frantic tactics. They fought hard to keep the issue from the ballot, leaving the impression that they didn’t want voters to have a say in the matter.
Then they used scare tactics, including wild suggestions that the proposal would prevent women from getting cancer screenings.
The measure would have likely passed anyway, but many voters could not have enjoyed being treated as though they were idiots.
Now what? One tactic is for opponents to talk long and loud about how this places a stigma on the state. Do that effectively enough, and it could be come a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Another strategy was immediately announced by Mary Sue Coleman, president of the University of Michigan, which was the target of two U.S. Supreme Court lawsuits that centered on its affirmative action admission programs.
Coleman stridently vowed to begin litigation to fight the decision of the state’s voters. Apparently our voters are allowed to pay taxes to support the university — and to pay for lawsuits — but they aren’t competent to make informed decisions on complex issues.
There is another strategy. That’s to accept the decision of the voters and to accept the notion that affirmative action plans based solely on race are inherently flawed. Why not instead pursue affirmative action plans based on socioeconomic factors rather than race, as state Rep. Chris Ward, R-Brighton Township, suggested?
Why not also more seriously address the root problems that make affirmative action plans necessary? It may sound good if U-M adds a few minority students — some of whom may be in the upper middle class — under an affirmative action program.
But shouldn’t we, as a matter of state policy, be looking instead at why a majority of minority-dominated inner-city high school students have dropped out and aren’t candidates for any sort of college? Shouldn’t we be attacking the root problems that imply that minority students aren’t prepared to get into college unless they get a break?
Tuesday’s vote doesn’t mean that state government and universities have to turn their backs on minority progress. What it does mean is that voters feel the policies are unfair and that, despite some successes, ineffective.
In light of last week’s vote, state university, government and business leaders have two choices. They can find more effective ways to narrow inequities while promoting minority advancement.
Or they can file another lawsuit.

5 comments:

liberals Hate America said...

The real issue is our monopoly school system (aka. Union) that has no checks and balances and the Democratic though process of a welfare state adds to the mostly black family being at a disadvantage. Affirmative action is not the answer. Why do you liberals always want to use the court system to override the American vote? The Constitution is not a living-breathing document as you Lib’s treat it. You cannot govern with the courts.

Communications guru said...

Monopoly school system? Get real. I guess for you education is only for the rich.

“Why do you liberals always want to use the court system to override the American vote?” First of all, that has never happened. Second, the courts are the one place where justice is blind and one poor man has the same rights and chance as a rich powerful man of getting justice. By your reasoning, Jim Crow Laws, Poll taxes and school segregation would still be legal. After all, it was the courts that stuck those things down, despite the widespread support they had from many people in the South. Darn those bad ole courts.

You could not be more wrong, The Constitution is a living-breathing document, and no one is trying to “govern with the courts.” You mighty not be aware of this, they are one of the three, equal braches of government.

Anonymous said...

Outstanding reasoning, CG. Let's not let the people of Michigan decide whether we should have racial preferences. Let's let the courts decide.

Why have any votes at all? Let's just let the courts decide anything.

You liberals are PRICELESS! If you don't get your way, you immediately count on activist judges to bail you out.

See this election for what it was. The people of Michigan wanted to elect a lot of Democrats, but they didn't want racial preferences. You can't accept only part of what they want.

You people truly are priceless...

Communications guru said...

Thank you, Who-Ever-You-Are, I thought it was Outstanding Reasoning, also.
That’s exactly what the courts are supposed to do, to decide.

Apparently, you don’t know how the American government works. Here’s a little refresher. It’s a system of checks and balances against abuses of powers. There are three separate but equal branches of government, the executive, legislative and the courts.

The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive administrators the laws and the courts interpret the laws. In this case the court is doing its job.

Yea, those bad old activist judges decided no more Jim Crow laws, no more poll taxes and no more school segregation. Bad activist judges for doing what they are supposed to do under our form of government. The courts are simply doing what the framers of the Constitution intend it to do, and throwing ridiculous statements around like “You liberals are PRICELESS!” just shows your ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Good points, Guru ... the deceptive way in which the petitions were gathered is a crime.

The Republican-run Lansing cadre held their noses when they knew the process was based on nothing but lies. But ... they needed that white vote to turn out.