By Any Means Necessary, some labor unions, and Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick have filed yet another frivolous lawsuit, this time in federal court, in a last-ditch effort to prevent the people of Michigan from voting on whether they want to insist on colorblind equality or preserve race preferences.
BAMN and friends argue that it was misleading and deceptive for MCRI petition gatherers to describe a measure that would bar all state-imposed racial and gender discrimination as a civil rights measure. Really. They made the same argument, unsuccessfully, to the Michigan Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Appeals Court. The Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the Appeals Court’s rejection of this argument.
BAMN’s performance remains so shameful that it is still a mystery why responsible people in Michigan continue to associate with it. In the latest example of its irresponsibility, i.e., demonstrating that its name — “By Any Means Necessary” — is well chosen, BAMN’s spokesman and co-chair, Shanta Driver, urges civil (or, I suppose, uncivil, if “necessary”) disobedience. As reported in the Gongwer News Service on June 22 (subscription only):
However, if the courts do not remove the proposal, Ms. Driver said her organization has already begun talking to city and local clerks to not put the proposal on their ballots (ballots are, in fact, printed at the county level).
Asked how clerks could legally refuse to have the proposal on a ballot, Ms. Driver said they have the “moral authority” to take a stand.
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: Ms. Driver and Mayor Kilpatrick, meet are George Wallace:
Alabama Gov. George Wallace, Inauguration Speech, Jan. 14, 1963:
… I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . .segregation forever! [Ellipses in original]
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, opposing the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative at an NAACP Dinner, April 30, 2006:
“Bring it on,” he roared. “We will affirm to the world that affirmative action will be here today, it will be here tomorrow and there will be affirmative action in the state forever.”
Let us hope that BAMN’s fear of letting the people vote on racial preferences is justified, and that the abundant funds being spent by liberals, unions, corporations, universities, and the media in defense of the right to discriminate on the basis of race will prove futile.
This suit appears to violate the First Amendment, and thus be frivolous enough to support an award of attorneys fees against the Detroit Mayor and BAMN under 42 USC 1988.
It also is frivolous because it is a procedurally-barred attempt to relitigate baseless claims.
MCRI’s activities are protected by the constitutional freedoms of petition and speech. Those freedoms are not overridden by the Voting Rights Act.
In a recent case, Affordable Housing Development Corporation v. City of Fresno, the Ninth Circuit awarded attorneys fees to citizens sued under the Fair Housing Act for petitioning a city council not to fund a developer’s housing project. See Affordable Housing Development Corporation v. City of Fresno, 433 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).
The Ninth Circuit held that a civil rights law like the Fair Housing Act doesn’t override the First Amendment rights of private citizens. (So logically, neither should another civil rights law like the Voting Rights Act).
So the suit itself was deemed a violation of the First Amendment, even though it was brought by a private entity, rather than a government official like Kwame Kilpatrick.
And the citizens sued were entitled to have their attorneys fees defending the suit paid for, since the First Amendment rendered the lawsuit against the citizens frivolous.
MCRI and Connerly should similarly seek attorneys fees from Kilpatrick.
Under another decision, White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2000), the Ninth Circuit recognized that private citizens can’t be held liable for violating the civil rights laws even if they advocate discrimination, although city officials who discriminate in response to their requests can be held liable.
Thus, even if there were something somehow discriminatory about MCRI (which there isn’t), that would not be a basis for its sponsors being held liable.
Similarly, the citizens in the Affordable Housing Development Corp. v. Fresno case were immune from liability under the Fair Housing Act for urging the city of Fresno not to approve a housing project, even though the city of Fresno was potentially subject to liability under the Fair Housing Act for not approving it.
Thus, even if Michigan officials who put MCRI on the ballot would somehow run afoul of the Voting Rights Act (which seems doubtful), that would not necessarily mean that MCRI or Connerly could be held liable under the Voting Rights Act.
Indeed, such a suit appears to be so frivolous as to justify making Kilpatrick pay attorneys fees.
Moreover, since the state appeals court and the state supreme court have already rejected as baseless the arguments BAMN and Kilpatrick make in this lawsuit, they are logically precluded from bringing these claims all over again in federal court. See NAACP v. Hunt, 891 F.2d 1555, 1560-61 (11th Cir. 1990) (federal appellate court held that a challenge by the NAACP and its legislator members was foreclosed by unsuccessful challenge previously brought by a legislator who was a member of the NAACP).
“… there will be affirmative action in the state forever.”
There are many kinds of AA. There is Diversity AA, Restitution AA, Headstart AA, and now it seems “can’t get too much of a good thing” AA.
Affirmative action in the state “forever”? Gosh gee, Sandra Day O’Connor said what, 25 years, and that one day it wouldn’t be needed. I thought it was just supposed to be a temporary measure. You mean its supporters don’t actually believe that?
Quoting Gov. Wallace and Mayor Kilpatrick, John wrote:
Alabama Gov. George Wallace, Inauguration Speech, Jan. 14, 1963:
… I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . .segregation forever! [Ellipses in original]
Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, opposing the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative at an NAACP Dinner, April 30, 2006:
“Bring it on,” he roared. “We will affirm to the world that affirmative action will be here today, it will be here tomorrow and there will be affirmative action in the state forever.”
Fantastic parallel! When Wallace spoke in 1963, I was pretty confident that he was mistaken, projecting a dying past into an everlasting future. I wish I had the same confidence concerning Kilpatrick’s words in 2006.
The Late Gov. George Wallace said:
>>>”… I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . .segregation forever!”
Curtis writes:
>>>”When Wallace spoke in 1963, I was pretty confident that he was mistaken, projecting a dying past into an everlasting future.”
What about the State of Michigan, in the midst of this MCRI scheme, inspires such confidence in you?
>>>”According to the U.S. Census, Michigan is the most segregated state in the nation. Five of the 25 most racially segregated metropolitan regions in America — Detroit, Saginaw, Flint, Benton Harbor, and Muskegon — are in Michigan. The next closest state is New York, with four. Two more Michigan metropolitan regions — Grand Rapids and Jackson — almost made the top 25.
Census figures also show that Michigan has the most segregated public school systems in the nation. For example, 613,000 students attend public schools in 83 school districts in Wayne, Macomb, and Oakland counties, according to an analysis by the National School Boards Association. Roughly 180,000 of those students are black and 82 percent of black students are enrolled in just three districts — Detroit, Highland Park, and Inkster. Some 90 percent of white students — 540,000 kids — are enrolled in Detroit-region schools where 10 percent or less of the students are black.”
George Wallace would be PROUD
And not a Pickwick Stick in sight. Interesting.
I suppose that some of my friends on the right here would believe that passing this MCRI would turn the state of Michigan into a “color blind” “gender neutral” setting with “equality” for those seeking employment.
Well…not according to the 1999 report on Michigan entitled, INTENTIONAL JOB DISCRIMINATION IN METROPOLITAN AMERICA, PART III:
>>>”Minority and Female workers in metropolitan Michigan faced substantial
likelihood of intentional job discrimination when seeking an employment
opportunity in 1999. Minorities faced this risk 34% of the time they sought job
opportunities; Women faced this risk more than 23% of the time they sought job
opportunities.”
http://www.eeo1.com/1999_NR/MI1999.pdf
But of course, some of the more familiar Anti-Affirmative Action Type posters don’t let facts and figures get in the way of a good sound bite:
>>>””If there was any correlation – and I don’t believe there is – between the economy and race preferences, Michigan would have the best economy in the nation right now, because we are considered the race preference capital in the country,”
–Jennifer Gratz
The Ann Arbor Times June 27 2006
But hey, anything can happen in Michigan at the polls nowadays. They DO have those ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES, right?
—Cobra