Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
01.18.2008 11:01 pm

Temporiti, Mo Democratic Party, blast effort to eliminate affirmative-action

Special to the Post-Dispatch
  • Email this
  • Print this

The Missouri Democratic Party issued a statement this afternoon emphasizing its objections to “a proposed ballot initiative that would deny opportunities to Missouri women, students and minorities.

 ”The initiative would eliminate all affirmative action programs that currently exist in Missouri and that have contributed to the progress Missouri has made over the last half-century in the fight for civil rights and the rights of women in the workplace,” the party said in a statement.

The Democratic Party issued the statement after learning that the group behind the ballot proposal, the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, has begun to collect signatures for the measure, with the aim of getting it on the November ballot.

The group went to court to successfully change the ballot title for the proposal; the judge agreed with the group that Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s office had written ballot language that was biased against the measure.

One of the leading forces behind the proposal is California businessman/conservative activist Ward Connerly, who has visited St. Louis to address groups about his opposition to affirmative action on the basis of race or gender.

Connerly, who is black (he opposes the phrase “African-American”), said in an interview a few months back that Missouri is among several targeted states for ballot measures next year to ban racial and gender preferences in public employment, contracting and education.

Instead, Connerly said there should be preferences to aid the poor.

The state Democratic Party said in Friday’s statement, “The initiative is being pushed by an out-of-state special interest group that has attempted similar efforts in numerous states to undermine civil rights advancements and turn out far right-wing voters in important election years.”

“If passed by these deep-pocketed, out-of-state special interests, this initiative will take away opportunities for women and minority business-owners and will deny some of Missouri ’s brightest children a college education,” said state Democratic Party chairman John Temporiti, of St. Louis County.  

The party adds that the public should “be aware of paid initiative signature-collectors who might try to persuade Missourians to sign a petition to get this measure on the ballot by claiming it would end discrimination. The measure actually would reverse efforts to end discrimination against minorities and women.”
 

7 comments

Comments are closed.

I didn’t hear the Democrats objecting when another deep-pocketed out-of-state special interest was pushing a ballot initiative in Missouri. Then again, the casinos probably lean toward the Democrats, so I guess that was ok.

And as far as Temporiti’s statement, what a pack of lies. This initiative doesn’t take away opportunities for anyone. Providing preferences in government contracting for minority-owned business is absurd when the owner lives in Ladue. In an America where electing a black President is a realistic possibility, and where women are actually more successful than men in obtaining an education, it’s time to level the playing field.

— Nick Kasoff
11:15 am January 19th, 2008

I will only address the construction industry here. The set asides for minority participation in construction projects in the city of St. Louis puts enormous sums of money into the pockets of relatively few minorities. It does nothing to lift up, or develop the general minority population. It costs the government and private enterprise huge increases, not only in the mark-up on construction, but also in the painful and arbitrary red tape. It does not help race relations. It is like an open wound that just keeps festering. There are constant rumors of bribery and pay-offs. Everybody would be better off if there were programs that offered job training and job placement.

— Happy Pants
11:36 am January 19th, 2008

Nick,

Check the Ethics Commission. The casino industry now favors Republicans with their campaign contributions.

— allen patrick
3:12 pm January 19th, 2008

This was not reported in the PD of course but was in the WSJ:

The Affirmative Action Empire Strikes Back

Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who is spearheading ballot initiatives in five states next year that would abolish racial preferences, has never seen anything like it. Knowing that voters in every state where Mr. Connerly has contested the issue have approved of his vision of a society where government policy is color-blind, Democratic Attorney General Jay Nixon of Missouri has deliberately distorted the description of the initiative that will go on Missouri’s ballot.

Missouri law stipulates that ballot language be drawn up “in the form of a question using language neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure.” Well, the initiative submitted by Mr. Connerly states clearly: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” When the measure was voted on in California, Washington State and Michigan, the language put before voters was very similar.

But in Missouri, Mr. Nixon, who is also a Democratic candidate for governor, has proposed the ballot summary read as follows. “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against; and improve opportunities for woman and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?”

Mr. Connerly calls the new language worthy of the “Mike Nifong award for dishonest behavior in the legal profession.” He says the Nixonian language “has been rewritten so that it sounds like the initiative would ban affirmative action programs preventing discrimination against minorities and women. But the original language makes it clear the initiative would prevent the state from discriminating against individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin.”

Mr. Nixon’s office dismisses allegations by Mr. Connerly that Mr. Nixon is trying to confuse voters and make it difficult to gather signatures to put the anti-quota measure on the ballot. His office says the new language was actually prepared by Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and Mr. Nixon’s office only served as an advisor in the matter.

Mr. Connerly isn’t buying that. He is planning to go to court to contest the Orwellian language. He notes that a lead attorney in a lawsuit filed against the initiative is Charles Hatfield, a former chief-of-staff for Mr. Nixon who now serves as treasurer of his gubernatorial campaign committee.

– John Fund

— loyal Republican
3:47 pm January 19th, 2008

LR-
The ballot initiative would actually eliminate programs that are designed to tackle issues of race and gender equality so how is that misleading? Clearly if someone does not believe there are issues of race and gender equality then there is no need for programs. Since programs already exist, I think the MO ballot initiative language is actually quite clear.
The other states language do not mention anything about federal funding or the actual programs that do exist, so it is actually pretty vague. This gives voters a clear choice.

As a side not, isn’t Robin Carnahan actually in charge of the ballot language?

— Richard
5:01 pm January 19th, 2008

The Mike Nifong award for dishonest behavior in the legal profession. I love it!

Allen Patrick - My points wasn’t who was getting money from them. My point was that when they were spending millions of dollars in exactly the way that Temporiti now finds offensive, Democrats had nothing to say. Of course, now that they are in the majority, the industry donates to Republicans. But in ‘92, Democrats were in the majority, and I’m sure they were getting the bulk of casino industry contributions.

— Nick Kasoff
7:37 pm January 19th, 2008

Let’s see if the Dems are jsut talk or will act on thier beliefs. Blunt appears ready to name another white male to the St. Louis Police Board. While I am sure he is a nice guy, is there no African American that would be appropriate for the Board? In the 90s we had an African American Mayor, chief, and Police Board President with a majority of the Board African American. Now only one member is Black. Will Jeff Smith and Maida Coleman stand up to Blunt and refuse to bring his nominees forward until we get at least two African American members on this important board? The same things are happenign with the KC Board.

— CoallitionC
8:25 am January 22nd, 2008