A statewide petition drive seeking to ban race- and gender-conscious admissions programs in public education and employment announced yesterday in Lansing that it had completed its signature-gathering efforts.

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative declared that it had collected 508,000 signatures, significantly more than the 317,757 signatures needed to get its proposal placed on the 2006 statewide ballot.

The announcement means MCRI has overcome a major hurdle in its campaign to amend the state constitution to ban “preferential treatment” based on race, sex, ethnicity and other characteristics.

If all the signatures are verified — meaning the signers are registered voters with the proper addresses — then the question of “race and gender preferences” will appear on the 2006 ballot. Public opinion polls indicate that more than 60 percent of Michigan citizens oppose affirmative action.

University President Mary Sue Coleman released a statement denouncing the initiative, using stronger language than she has in the past. Coleman has said the proposal, if passed, would limit the University’s ability to promote diversity, which many believe enhances a student’s educational experience.

“I believe that this proposal, despite its name, does not further the cause of civil rights in Michigan,” Coleman said in the statement. “It is about closing the door to higher education for many of our citizens.”

MCRI began as a result of the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action and the use of race in university admissions. It is the brainchild of Ward Connerly, a University of California regent and chairman of the American Civil Rights Coalition, a California-based group opposing “race preferences.” Connerly has been credited with much of the fundraising for MCRI.

Opponents of the initiative criticize it for being deceptive. It pretends, they say, to promote equality but actually discriminates against minorities and women who need access to education and employment more than others.

While MCRI claims it is not against affirmative action, some of its petitioners have said so to obtain signatures.

Some polls have shown more support for “affirmative action” than “race preferences.”

MCRI’s opponents, a loose coalition of groups such as BAMN, United Michigan, unions and other organizations, upended the campaign last year with a series of lawsuits that hindered the initiative’s ability to collect signatures.

But that string of lawsuits recently ended when the Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear a Court of Appeals ruling that, if reversed, would have invalidated MCRI’s petition.

United Michigan has said it would try to challenge the signatures. But that may prove difficult. MCRI has exceeded the number of signatures — around 400,000 — it initially said it needed.

What’s next?

The road to the ’06 ballot

-Signatures collected by MCRI workers must be validated — opponents say they will challenge these signatures

-Once validated by the city clerk’s office, the proposal will be eligible for the 2006 statewide ballot

-If passed, the proposal will end race-conscious admissions