(CNSNews.com) - A Missouri court will soon hold a hearing in a politically charged dispute over the proposed wording for a November 2008 ballot initiative on banning racial preferences and quotas.

Supporters of the initiative are unhappy with the language put forward by state authorities, which they charge is designed to distort the issue and affect the result.

Under state law, the secretary of state is directed to write ballot language in up to 100 words, explaining the proposed constitutional changes in a manner that will be widely understood.

Two lawsuits challenging the summary statement drawn up by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan were consolidated into a single case last week and are scheduled to go before the Cole County Circuit Court, likely within a few weeks.

Litigants who are opposed to the constitutional change will also be permitted to take part and to argue their case.

The debate turns largely on the use and definition of the term "affirmative action." Detractors claim the proposed constitutional amendment would jeopardize programs benefiting women and minorities, while advocates see the initiative as a way of protecting all Americans from racial and sexual discrimination.

On Election Day, voters will not see the language of the amendment in its entirety but are instead presented with the summary statement. The Missouri statute stipulates that such a statement 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."

Tim Asher, executive director of the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, argues in his lawsuit that Carnahan has used language that is "argumentative, prejudicial and untrue." He says the secretary of state has violated the statutory requirements because her ballot language sharply deviates from the proposed amendment's stated objectives.

In another lawsuit, Greg Shufeldt of St. Louis and Steve Isrealite of Jackson County contend that Carnahan's language is "insufficient and unfair" and is therefore "likely to mislead and deceive" voters, since it omits any mention of affirmative action programs that would be permitted to continue.

The plaintiffs point specifically to "preferential treatment" programs involving religion, disability, age and veteran status that are left out of the summary.

If the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative is passed, the new constitutional amendment would declare: "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."

The summary statement that is at the center of the legal dispute reads:

"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?"
Asher told Cybercast News Service that the unambiguous prohibition against discriminatory practices conveyed in the actual amendment has been replaced with "confusing language" in the summary statement that is likely to mislead voters.

He said the amendment is being misrepresented because the ballot language tells the public they would be voting to ban programs that protect against discrimination when in fact, the reverse is true -- since the proposed constitutional change makes it illegal for state agents to engage in any discrimination on the basis of race, sex or ethnicity.

"It should be fairly clear to anyone who objectively looks at the language that we proposed and what the secretary of state put forth that some effort was made here to intentionally alter what it was we were presenting," Asher said.

"It appears there is an attempt to affect how people go in and decide to vote on this issue, by making the language convoluted and muddled," he added.

Carnahan spokeswoman Mindy Mazur strongly disagreed. The summary statement as it exists in its current form fulfills the secretary's statutory requirements and is devoid of any terminology that would prejudice prospective voters one way or the other, she said.

"The constitutional amendment, if passed, would ban affirmative action programs, and that's why it's in the summary statement," Mazur said in an interview.

"I understand the priority of the backers is to get the amendment passed, but our obligation is to follow the law and to make sure Missouri voters always have a fair, accurate, concise summary of what they're voting on regardless of the issue," she stated.

Although he is not irrevocably opposed to including the term "affirmative action" in the ballot language, Asher told Cybercast News Service a qualifying statement is needed, making it clear the amendment would only target those programs that are "infused" with racial preferences.

Mazur said Carnahan was confident of a victory in the circuit court. The secretary of state's office was sued on three separate occasions in 2006 over ballot language and prevailed each time, she noted.

The Missouri initiative is part of a larger effort billed the "Super Tuesday of Equality" that aims to place similar measures on the ballot for voters in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma, spearheaded by American Civil Rights Institute Chairman Ward Connerly. (See Related Story)

Connerly said he was pleased with the selection of Justice Jon Beetem of the 19th Judicial Circuit to hear the case. He described Beetem as a "young conservative" who would be inclined to view the legal challenge to the summary statement in a fair and impartial manner.

At the same time, Connerly conceded that a conservative-minded judge could also decide that it is best to defer to the administrative authorities.

Regardless of the outcome and in any subsequent appellate court rulings, he said he ultimately expects to see the case before the state supreme court.


Back to home page...