Those who argue that racial neutrality and official colorblindness are reactionary and that racial preferences are progressive live in constant fear, understandably, of that question ever being put to a popular vote. Thus, according to an article in today’s Detroit Free Press, they are doing whatever they can to prevent the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, modeled after the successful Propostion 209 in California and the similar measure that passed in Washington state, from ever appearing on the ballot. (Link via Howard Bashman)
The elections panel — the state Board of Canvassers in Lansing — routinely approves ballot proposals, and has almost no authority to dispute the contents of a petition. Some ballot proposal campaigns don’t even ask for such a hearing. But supporters of affirmative action predicted this one will be a battle.
Maranda Massie, an attorney and activist, said: “What Mr. Connerly is trying to do is a completely drastic thing, and we have to fight it early and often.”
….
She said it is important to show “deep and broad opposition to Ward Connerly’s attempt to resegregate the state of Michigan . . . and abrogate the United States Supreme Court decision” in the U-M case.
Excuse me, but if there really is “deep and broad” opposition to racial neutrality, if there really is a widespread belief that colorblind racial equality would “resegregate the state of Michigan,” wouldn’t the best way to demonstrate that be to promote rather than oppose a popular vote on the matter?
Probably because it’s not as “deep and broad,” as Ms. Massie would have us believe — this article notes that 2/3 of all Michigan residents support ending preferences.
Race preferences lose when Americans are actually consulted about them.