The petition to end race-conscious programs in Michigan, liberated by a recent court decision and undeterred by months of crippling disputes, has decided to postpone its plans for at least two years.

After the state Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative last week and validated the language of its petition, the group made a difficult and, some say, inevitable decision of aiming for the 2006 ballot instead of the one in 2004.

The court ruling culminated a four-month long legal battle that significantly hampered MCRI's campaign. Unsure whether the signatures were valid, volunteers had qualms about distributing petitions, while campaign officials were reluctant to start paying circulators until a decision came. Legal ambiguities also impeded fundraising efforts, said state Rep. Leon Drolet (R-Clinton Twp.), who co-chairs MCRI.

Since the appellate decision came more than a month after MCRI had anticipated, the campaign faced a July 6 deadline and an insufficient number of signatures.

MCRI Director of Outreach Chetly Zarko said paid circulators were unsure whether they could complete the required 317,757 signatures -- and the desired 400,000 signatures -- by the deadline.

A massive push to obtain all those signatures was possible but not preferable, he added.

"We would've been taking somewhat of a risk by doing so," Zarko said. "It's something that we didn't want to take a chance on."

Now MCRI plans to obtain those signatures by October 2004, in order to get the question of amending the state constitution to eliminate "preferences based on race and gender" on the 2006 ballot.

The seemingly arbitrary date is grounded in Michigan election law, which specifies that all signatures must be collected within a 180-day period and must be turned in no later than 140 days before the ballot, MCRI officials said. MCRI started to obtain large amounts of signatures in March, which is why they chose to conclude in October.

But both Zarko and Drolet stressed that MCRI is not dormant or inactive. On the contrary, they added, the campaign is finally picking up steam.

"We're capitalizing on the momentum and on the volunteers we have now," Drolet said.

The campaign will continue past 2004 and through 2006, Zarko said. The level of activity will not subside, and MCRI hopes debate will continue even after all the signatures are collected.

"We're not going away. We're not going to give up," said Tim O'Brien, an MCRI campaign manager.

Although the appellate decision has lifted a burden off the campaign's shoulders, other troubles may befall the group in the coming months.

An apparent divide in the organization, borne of disagreement amongst MCRI treasurer Leonard Schwartz, O'Brien and the rest of the group, has not entirely healed. O'Brien still maintains control of the MCRI's volunteer signature gathering effort and the funds for that segment of the initiative.

While O'Brien still pledges to aid in MCRI's efforts and maintains his position in the organization, Zarko expressed ambivalence toward O'Brien. O'Brien and Schwartz, both Libertarians, have been eliminated from the staff directory on MCRI's website.

"We don't care either way what Tim O'Brien decides to do," Zarko said.

It is also unclear whether Ward Connerly, MCRI's chief proponent, financial backer and a Regent at the University of California, will provide the funds necessary to carry the campaign to October and eventually to November 2006.

Zarko said he is confident that Connerly will come through and that, in any event, the campaign receives donations from individuals and groups from across the state.

But O'Brien said Connerly's financial support is a bit more tenuous. "You're asking me what Ward Connerly is going to do. I don't know. But we fully intend to stay with this issue," he said.

The legal challenges may also cause trouble in the future. The plaintiffs who originally began the now infamous lawsuit earlier this year have promised to appeal to the state Supreme Court, who could once again invalidate MCRI's petition.

But MCRI thinks an unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court -- who may not even accept the case -- is unlikely.

"I think that's as unlikely as aliens landing and coming to collect signatures," Drolet said.

Citizens for a United Michigan -- a group that opposes MCRI and works to persuade citizens not to vote for the ban on race-conscious programs, which it believes to be contrary to civil rights -- promises to continue its efforts to stop MCRI from gathering the required signatures. Failing that, United Michigan plans to campaign through 2005 and 2006 to garner support against MCRI.

"Deception and dishonesty are the hallmarks of this campaign," United Michigan spokesman David Waymire said.