On June 11, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of the petition language for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, a ballot initiative that would prevent the state of Michigan from using racial preferences in public university admissions or state employment or contracting.

The ruling overturns a lower-court ruling in March that invalidated the petition drive on the basis of the petition language not being an accurate description of the initiative if it would pass. That was the argument put forth by Citizens for a United Michigan and the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary (also known as BAMN). The deception they cited is that by ending racial preferences, the initiative would end affirmative action.

They also objected to where the actual text of the proposed amendment appeared on the petition (the back), that the front of the petition contained a “misleading summary” of the proposal, and that the back contained an objectionable “Introduction” to the proposal text.

The appellate court ruling cited precedent in affirming that “all doubts as to technical deficiencies or failure to comply with the exact letter of procedural requirements in petitions… are resolved in favor of permitting the people to vote and express a choice on any proposal subject to election.”

The court’s decision came too late, however, for measure supporters to collect enough signatures to place it on the ballot in November 2004. Nevertheless, speaking on behalf of the MCRI, Ward Connerly, the University of California regent who successfully led similar initiatives in California and Washington, said the petition drive would “be qualified by October this year for the 2006 ballot.”

Chetly Zarko of the MCRI told The Chronicle of Higher Education June 15 that the group would complete the petition drive by the summer and that the court decision was a “boost of momentum and a bill of legal health.”

Shanta Driver, BAMN spokesman, said to the Chronicle that it was “a bad decision because it allows for deceptive, fraudulent ballot propositions to go on the Michigan ballot, and that’s obviously a bad thing for the people of Michigan.”

“The court has removed the last obstacle in our path and the momentum is strong,” Connerly said. “Despite the obstructionist tactics of the opposition, Michiganders will be given the opportunity to proclaim their desire to end race preferences.”

Jon Sanders is assistant editor of Carolina Journal.