Opponents of the initiative to end race-conscious policies in
Michigan government added to their litany of grievances last
week.

BAMN and a number of other civil rights organizations filed a
lawsuit last week against the Michigan Board of Canvassers, which
reviewed the form of the petition for the Michigan Civil Rights
Initiative.

MCRI is circulating a ballot to end “preferences based on
race, ethnicity and sex,” in public education, employment and
contracting. It needs 317,757 signatures by July 6 in order to get
a question on preferences on the November ballot.

MCRI is facing another lawsuit from two attorneys, Godfrey
Dillard and Milton Henry, who defended the University before the
U.S. Supreme Court last summer. This suit attacks MCRI’s
amendment for attempting to override the court decision, which
legitimized the use of race and identified diversity as a
compelling state interest.

BAMN’s attorney, George Washington, said MCRI’s
petition does not comply with Michigan law, which states that any
petition to amend or abrogate an existing article of the state
constitution must say so on its form. It must also include the text
of the article that it seeks to change, Washington said.

By not including the law on the petition form, MCRI is not
obligated to explain its intentions to potential signers, he
said.

“It’s not that it’s a technical violation.
It’s a deliberate deception,” he said. “(MCRI)
claims that it’s a civil rights bill when it isn’t. In
reality, what they’re doing is passing an anti-civil rights
amendment.”

The ballot currently includes this statement of purpose:
“The proposal would amend the state constitution section 25
to article 1 (the declaration of rights article).” But it
does not include the text of the article.

The state constitution already contains an article prohibiting
discrimination based on race and ethnicity. MCRI’s amendment
would change it to ban “preferences” based on these two
characteristics and also add gender, an attribute not mentioned in
the constitution.

The proposed amendment would also restrict the
University’s autonomy in admissions currently protected in
Article 8 of the constitution, Washington said.

The lawsuit is scheduled for a hearing on March 4. If the
district court rules in BAMN’s favor, MCRI would have to redo
its petition.

MCRI co-chair and state Rep. Leon Drolet (R-Clinton Twp.) said
MCRI had constitutional attorneys work on the amendment, and that
the group’s decision to amend the constitution is justified.
“Apparently the constitution which we thought prohibited
discrimination does not,” he said.

Drolet also questioned the legal basis of the lawsuit. “I
do question the lawsuit’s decision to go after content of the
petition using the Board of Canvassers as their target,” he
said. Drolet said that judging content is not officially under the
board’s purview. Their job is to examine the formatting
— such as font size, the placement of certain clauses and the
inclusion of certain mandatory phrases.

Similar ballot initiatives have faced lawsuits in the past.
Justin Jones, director of policy and planning for the American
Civil Rights Coalition, said the group had about 14 lawsuits in
California and Washington. ACRC is MCRI’s parent
organization.

California banned race-conscious policies in public institutions
in 1996. Washington passed a similar measure in 1998. Both
decisions were due to similar ballot initiatives begun by ACRC.

“I don’t even think they think they’re going
to win. We’ve seen this before in other states,” Drolet
said.

But most of those lawsuits were filed after the petition drive
had succeeded and the issue was on the ballot, Washington said.

A number of organizations have backed BAMN’s legal
efforts. These include Democratic presidential candidate Al
Sharpton, the Michigan Legislative Black Caucus, two chapters of
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
and United for Equality and Affirmative Action, which intervened
with BAMN in this summer’s U.S. Supreme Court case on the
University’s admissions policies. Both Sharpton and the Black
Caucus were recently added as plaintiffs in the case.

Despite this opposition, MCRI’s petition drive continues.
The group has spent the past month enlisting supporters, mailing
petitions and acquiring funds. They have received a marginal amount
of signatures, but Drolet said he did not have specific
numbers.

In January, one week after the MCRI campaign officially began,
the initiative received an unexpected flood of supportive
responses, Drolet said.