Bad news from Seeing Red AZ:
The Arizona Civil Rights Initiative campaign led by former California educator Ward Connerly announced it was abandoning its lawsuit to overturn the state’s decertification of Proposition 104.
The campaign issued a statement saying it still believed it collected enough valid petition signatures to put the initiative on the November 4, 2008 ballot but said it couldn’t review all the signatures rejected by election officials in time, according to a report in the daily.
The fight over Prop 104 has gone back and forth; it’s a shame that it ultimately went down in flames. While I found most arguments against the measure reprehensible, one of the worst was the idea that the text was confusing. The best manifestation of this comes from the previously-linked-to Ballotpedia site:
[Shanta] Driver [nation chair of BAMN] said it is improper to push the measure as a “civil rights” initiative, because she believes that term connotes something to help minorities.
Wow. For the record, the full text of the initiative follows below:
“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. “
Seeing Red AZ put it best when he called it “classic in its simplicity.”
Another interesting note about the proposition: among the named plaintiffs who filed a suit claiming the invalidity of 100,000 signatures was Michael Slugocki. Mr. Slugocki, of course, was not only one of the three students to attend the Democratic National Convention, but is also one of the directors of the UA Votes 2008 program. There’s a bit of irony here, encouraging students to register to vote while at the same time making sure that they won’t be able to cast a ballot on the issues that actually affect them.