Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

January-11-08

Affirmative Action Opponents Praise Judge's Ruling on Ballot Language

Backers of an anti-affirmative action ballot initiative in Missouri praised a decision Monday to rewrite the summary language that will appear on the ballot if the measure qualifies for the November election. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan drafted the original summary language to specify the initiative's intent to ban affirmative action programs for women and minorities in public contracting, employment, and education. This sparked a lawsuit by the initiative's backers, whose own description of the initiative deliberately obscured its intent by leaving out any reference to affirmative action. funny pictures funny images funny photos funny animal pictures funny dog pictures funny cat pictures funny gifs

Carnahan's original summary stated that the initiative would ban "affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities." The judge's rewrite says only that the initiative will ban "affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment…based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin."


"Affirmative action opponents see this rewrite as a victory because they know that the term 'preferential treatment' confuses voters, making them think of rigid quotas and nepotism, which have nothing to do with affirmative action programs," said Katherine Spillar, executive editor of Ms. magazine. Carnahan has vowed to appeal the ruling, according to the Associated Press.


Ms.'s winter issue features an explosive investigation of Ward Connerly, the driving force behind these initiatives, revealing the huge and possibly illegal compensation he receives from his nonprofits, the deceptive tactics used in his campaigns, and his extensive ties to the network of big government contractors that stand to benefit from the elimination of affirmative action. Connerly and his supporters are currently targeting five states (AZ, CO, MO, NE, OK) with anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives for the November election.

Media Resources: Associated Press 1/8/08; St. Louis Daily Record 1/8/08


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1. The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .
 
10/30/2014 UPS Switches Pregnant Worker Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The United Parcel Service (UPS) is changing its policy on light duty assignments for pregnant workers, even though the company will stand by its refusal to extend accommodations to a former employee in an upcoming Supreme Court case. UPS announced on Monday in a memo to employees, and in a brief filed with the US Supreme Court, that the company will begin offering temporary, light-duty positions to pregnant workers on January 1, 2015. . . .
 
10/29/2014 North Dakota Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Restrictions - The North Dakota Supreme Court yesterday upheld a set of misguided restrictions on medication abortion, allowing what is effectively a ban on early, non-surgical abortions in the state to go into effect immediately. The decision overturned a lower court order finding the law, known as HB 1297, unconstitutional and permanently blocking its enforcement. . . .