Yes! on 107

We won :-)

2010-11-03T12:24:00.001-07:00

Why women should support Proposition 107

2010-11-02T11:06:00.000-07:00

The opposition to Prop. 107 is spreading a fear campaign that Prop. 107 is bad for women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women have been hurt by quotas and preferences. Three of the leading Supreme Court lawsuits in this area of reverse discrimination were brought by women, due to minorities being given preferences over them. And the way things are going, government and universities are starting to give preferences to men since their numbers are now lower. Women lose out in government contracting bids too. Although the City of Tucson gives a 7% bid preference to women and minorities, there are husbands who put their businesses in their wives' names - even though the wife has nothing to do with the business - so they can take advantage of that bid preference. That doesn't help women, it helps men, and hurts other women who may be applying for a bid with a male partner or some other disqualifier. There are plenty of women who are indirectly hurt. What if you're married to a man who bids for a government project under his own name - only to lose that bid to a minority or woman? You may even be a minority woman but it doesn't matter, your husband is hurt by that preference. What about your brother, your son? They are all passed over in favor of women and minorities. Even if they are from disadvantaged backgrounds and the woman or minority is from a wealthy, privileged background. A study by affirmative action supporters found that 86% of black recipients of affirmative action in universities came from middle class or upper class backgrounds. Affirmative action doesn't help women, it simply rearranges the deck. Women should be allowed to compete based on their own merits and not based on their gender, and Prop. 107 would ensure this and treat women as equals.

FACT: HOPWOOD VS. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas Law School. Cheryl worked part time while attending community colleges. She could not afford to go to Princeton (where she was accepted) for undergraduate school and therefore, when applying to law school her 3.8 GPA was discounted and ultimately she was rejected from the University of Texas’s Law School. She filed suit alleging racial discrimination.

Source: http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/38.html

FACT: GRATZ V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND GRUTTER V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Jennifer Gratz, daughter of a police officer and a secretary, grew up in a blue collar suburb of Detroit. She would have been the first in her family to graduate from college and hoped to attend the University of Michigan. The University judged blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans by one admission standard, and everyone else by a separate, higher standard. Jennifer Gratz was rejected and filed suit in 1997.

Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html

Barbara Grutter had 2 children and was in her mid-40s when she applied to the University of Michigan’s Law School. Prior to applying Barbara ran her own IT consulting business. Despite higher grades and test scores than some of those who were accepted, Barbara’s application was rejected. When she learned that had she, for example, been a “minority” her credentials would have been enough to be accepted, she filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination.

Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html

FACT: SMITH V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Katuria Smith was born when her mother was 17, was reared in poverty, and dropped out of high school. From the time her parents divorced when Smith was 11, she lived "hand to mouth" and moved between twelve jobs, detailing cars, cleaning floors, and doing anything else she could get. Click here to read a Seattle-Post Intelligencer story on Katuria's background.

"I was desperate to get out of poverty," Smith told columnist Michelle Malkin. So when Smith was 21, she enrolled in night classes at a community college paralegal program. Holding down jobs during the day, she graduated and enrolled in the University of Washington, where she earned a business degree in 1994. With her 3.65 GPA and LSAT score of 165 (94th percentile), she fully expected to be admitted. Instead, she was rejected with no chance to appeal. Smith filed suit in 1997.

Source:

http://http//www.cir-usa.org/cases/smith.html

IN FACT, TODAY, MEN ARE MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO BENEFIT FROM PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.

“But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years.”

Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html
And: Britz, Jennifer Delahunty (March 23, 2006) To All the Girls I Rejected, The New York Times. (Copy of article available)

From http://arizonacri.org/Home/MythsOtherResources.aspx

Blog for Arizona writer resorts to claiming Yes on Proposition 107 said something else since they're losing the argument

2010-11-02T10:43:00.000-07:00

The left wing Blog for Arizona/Reappropriate has a post claiming that "Yes on 107 wouldn't mind if battered women's shelters and breast cancer screenings closed their doors." How does the author come to this bizarre conclusion? We pointed out that those services will NOT have to close their doors if Prop. 107 passes, it is a scare tactic used by the left in order to frighten people from voting for Prop. 107. Not a single domestic violence shelter or breast cancer screening service has had to close its doors since this initiative passed in four other states, beginning back in 1996 in California.

The author moans about how terrible it would be if men were allowed to use domestic violence shelter services too. Why? She doesn't provide a single example of a bad incident involving a man who used a domestic violence shelter service, she just implies that the abusers of women who are victimized would get in (since they're not victims, that's not what would happen - only real male victims would be permitted).

Her arguments essentially come down to this analogy: Vote No on 107 otherwise there *could possibly be a nuclear war.* Even though there hasn't been any nuclear wars since this initiative passed in four other states, it is still a remote possibility. Therefore, you must be in favor of these dire consequences if you vote for Prop. 107.

The author ridicules us for refuting two of her articles about Prop. 107 within 24 hours, saying we should be spending more time getting out the vote. Really? How did she become such an elections expert? A big part of campaigns is social media, and when you're down to a day before the election, it is crucial to refute the barrage of articles that suddenly appear by the opposition, so voters doing google searches on how to vote will find your side of the debate. We still have plenty of workers getting out the vote.

Evidence the UofA considers race in admissions; plus myths propagated by Arizona Students Association

2010-11-02T10:18:00.001-07:00

From Desert Lamp, an independent UA newspaper

Proposition 107, False Facts, and More Reasons to Vote Yes

On her blog, ASA Chair Elma Delic gives an explanation for the organization’s endorsement of a “No” vote on Proposition 107. She does so in the position of ASA Chair, on behalf of the supposedly non-partisan organization, with no greater explanation of how the organization claims to have garnered student opinion on this matter than a vague allusion to “talking to organizations” and some policy analysis from the ASA Government Affairs Director. While Ms. Delic is undoubtedly earnest in her explanation, a few of her points are factually wrong, and a few more advocate poor policy decisions that further engender state-mandated racism. This post is yet more evidence of ASA’s decidedly partisan consideration of ballot issues, and gives students a glimpse at the kind of rhetoric espoused by an organization that claims to be the strongest voice for students to the Arizona legislature.

Delic writes:

This constitutional amendment, if passed, has a great potential for harm to institutions of higher education. Some of the initiative’s supporters are referring to Prop. 107 as an “anti-affirmative action” amendment. However, this is very misleading because Arizona’s universities do not use quotas, or take into account race or sex during the admittance process. This means that every student that is enrolled at a university got here based on their merit.(Emphasis mine)

The universities may not call then quotas, but they most certainly do consider race in admissions. This from the OIRPS [pdf] (highlighting added):

From this document, we see clearly that race and ethnicity are indeed considered in admissions decisions, and are in fact given the same weight as standardized test scores and admissions essays. Further, the universities have repeatedly mentionedthat increasing diversity is a priority; barring magic, the only way for the relative percentage of a given ethnic group to increase would be to, you know, consider ethnicity when admitting applicants. This study[pdf] from the Center for Equal Opportunity revealed The James E Rogers College of Law found that rejected non-BHNA applicants had higher LSAT scores and GPAs than accepted BHNAs – further belying the idea that race isn’t taken into account. Even setting aside the merits of the idea that universities should descriminate for race, to say that theydon’t is flatly erroneous.

Delic continues, “In fact, after a similar proposition passed in California (Proposition 209) they saw a decrease in enrollment by both Black and Latino students.” This also proves false: though enrollment decreased the year directly after the measure passed, enrollment has increased for all recorded ethnic groups, in the case of Hispanic enrollment by nearly 10%. The following increases took place with no state-mandated race-based preferences:

African American 1996: 4% (1,628) 2010: 4.2% (2,624)

Latino 1996: 15.4% (5,744) 2010: 23% (14,081)

Asians 1996: 29.8% (11,085) 2010: 37.5% (22,877)

Native Americans 1996: 0.9% (360) 2010: 0.8% (531)

Whites 1996: 44% (16,465) 2010: 34% (20,807)

Delic also presents, “Ward Connerly, the creator of this initiative, is a former University of California Regent. He is also the founder and leader of the American Civil Rights Institute which pays him millions of dollars annually to pass anti-equal opportunity legislation across the country.” Her personal claims about Mr. Connerly are un-linked and unsubstantiated, but excepting the factuality of this claim, the example is not unlike the way in which ASA gets hundreds of thousands of student dollars to espouse partisan interests (such as this one) in students’ name, with little to no accountability on what students actually care about.

The endorsement continues, “For example, in Michigan the Supreme Court found that the Michigan “Civil Rights Initiative” had engaged in system voter fraud, however, it remained on the ballot because it did not violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” This is also incorrect: The Sixth Circuit Court (of the federal judiciary) denied to issue an injunction to remove the proposition from the ballot, because the election had already taken place. The Supreme Court denied to hear the appeal for alternative relief (i.e. non-enforcement of the measure) without comment.

Delic next presents that, “Connerly tried to get his initiative on the Arizona ballot in 2008 (Prop. 104) but failed because he could not get enough legitimate signatures.” This is one version of what occurred: Prop. 104 failed to get on the ballot because Michael Slugocki and Kathleen Templin — both board members of ASA at the time — filed a formal complaint against the signatures. They filed this suit after ASA had voted to oppose the measure — muddying the motives considerably. Neither Templin nor Slugocki listed their affiliation with ASA on the formal complaint.

Delic continues:

The language in the proposition and title deceive the voter by calling it the “Arizona Civil Rights Amendment” and stating that it will end discriminatory practices by eliminating state funding to these practices. The amendment does not provide civil rights nor does it end discrimination –it removes the public’s ability to support individuals who need support, further disempowering already underprivileged groups.

Nowhere in the post appears a link to the easily-accessible ballot information, not is the official ballot language printed, even in excerpt. While it may indeed be confusing to consider how confusing a passage is in abstraction, having it to read does make that a bit easier. The official ballot language:

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:

1. Article II, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended by adding section 36 as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

36. Preferential treatment or discrimination prohibited; exceptions; definition

SECTION 36. A. THIS STATE SHALL NOT GRANT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO OR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST 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.

B. THIS SECTION DOES NOT:

1. PROHIBIT BONA FIDE QUALIFICATIONS BASED ON SEX THAT ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC EDUCATION OR PUBLIC CONTRACTING.

2. PROHIBIT ACTION THAT MUST BE TAKEN TO ESTABLISH OR MAINTAIN ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY FEDERAL PROGRAM, IF INELIGIBILITY WOULD RESULT IN A LOSS OF FEDERAL MONIES TO THIS STATE.

3. INVALIDATE ANY COURT ORDER OR CONSENT DECREE THAT IS IN FORCE AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.

C. THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION ARE THE SAME, REGARDLESS OF THE INJURED PARTY’S RACE, SEX, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS ARE OTHERWISE AVAILABLE FOR A VIOLATION OF THE EXISTING ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAWS OF THIS STATE.

D. THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY TO ACTIONS THAT ARE TAKEN AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.

E. THIS SECTION IS SELF-EXECUTING.

F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “STATE” INCLUDES THIS STATE, A CITY, TOWN OR COUNTY, A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, INCLUDING THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY AND NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY, A COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, A SCHOOL DISTRICT, A SPECIAL DISTRICT OR ANY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION IN THIS STATE.

2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.

The post continues to present, in super-scary italics, “Student groups that represent certain demographics could lose public funding. Entire departments in the universities could be shut down.” We here at the Lamp are willing to bet ASA a substantial amount of money that this will not happen (no, seriously — hit us up!). This law only dictates that programs be open to persons of all race/ethnicity/gender/etc, not that programs can’t study or focus upon one group. The list of “threatened programs” included here are also allowed under the law, as we see here. One needs only to look at states in which measure like have already passed similar measures to see that public programs similar to the ones listed still exist.

The post concludes with, “ASA encourages all students to educate themselves before going to the polls in November or submitting their early ballot.” On this point, the Lamp agrees — but we encourage said education to include empirical evidence, reputable links, and facts that feature legitimate citations.

Share It:

Prop. 107 opposition trots out false argument that Prop. 107 will eliminate domestic violence shelters and breast cancer screening

2010-11-01T16:06:00.000-07:00

The Prop. 107 opposition is up to last minute tricks to try and defeat the initiative through more scare tactics. This time the left wing Blog for Arizona is claiming that domestic violence shelters and breast cancer screening programs for women could possibly be eliminated.

First of all, the language only bans government preferences in hiring, contracting and higher education. Domestic violence shelters and breast cancer screening programs do not fall within those areas.

Secondly, any program in risk of being eliminated just has to open its services up to men.

The article relies upon two lawsuits in California where some men's rights activists filed complaints against domestic violence shelters that only offered services to women. Both complainants lost, and there was never any finding by the courts that California's equivalent Prop. 209 had endangered them. Not very compelling evidence that these services will be in jeopardy in Arizona.

Even IF there were lawsuits against women-only domestic violence shelters in Arizona, and IF they were successful, all the shelters would need to do would be to admit men like other domestic violence shelters.

Same goes for breast cancer screening programs, and those would probably have even more likelihood of being permitted to remain as women-only, since they likely constitute a bona fide sex difference between men and women.

Would it be unfortunate if some men's rights groups filed lawsuits to attempt to stop these kinds of services from operating? It might not even cost taxpayers any money, since a judge could choose to require the men's groups when they inevitably lose to pay costs and fees, based on them losing in the past in California. The men's groups may file lawsuits like this anyway, with or without Prop. 107 being in existence, citing other parts of the Constitution, as they did in the California lawsuits.

This is just another Chicken Little "sky is falling" attempt to come up with the absolute worst possible case scenario, which isn't going to happen based on prior history in states where this initiative has passed.

Yes on 107 election night party at the Hyatt - stop by

2010-11-01T12:38:00.000-07:00

The Yes on 107 will be having its victory party Tuesday night in the main bar/restaurant at the Hyatt, where TVs will be on to watch the returns. The Republican Party is holding its election night party at the Hyatt, and many candidates will have suites there. Stop by and join us!

Misleading Prop. 107 opposition signs claim they help women - but they don't tell you how affirmative action is hurting women

2010-11-01T10:53:00.000-07:00

This is a very deceptive sign. What the opposition isn't telling you is that women have been some of the biggest victims of affirmative action. Three of the high-profile lawsuits filed over affirmative action's reverse discrimination were filed by women. And today men are even more likely than women to benefit from these unfair preferences!

MYTH: WOMEN ARE NOT HARMED BY RACE PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.

FACT: HOPWOOD VS. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas Law School. Cheryl worked part time while attending community colleges. She could not afford to go to Princeton (where she was accepted) for undergraduate school and therefore, when applying to law school her 3.8 GPA was discounted and ultimately she was rejected from the University of Texas’s Law School. She filed suit alleging racial discrimination.
Source:  http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/38.html

FACT:  GRATZ V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND GRUTTER V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Jennifer Gratz, daughter of a police officer and a secretary, grew up in a blue collar suburb of Detroit. She would have been the first in her family to graduate from college and hoped to attend the University of Michigan. The University judged blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans by one admission standard, and everyone else by a separate, higher standard. Jennifer Gratz was rejected and filed suit in 1997.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html

Barbara Grutter had 2 children and was in her mid-40s when she applied to the University of Michigan’s Law School. Prior to applying Barbara ran her own IT consulting business. Despite higher grades and test scores than some of those who were accepted, Barbara’s application was rejected. When she learned that had she, for example, been a “minority” her credentials would have been enough to be accepted, she filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination.
Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html

FACT:  SMITH V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Katuria Smith was born when her mother was 17, was reared in poverty, and dropped out of high school. From the time her parents divorced when Smith was 11, she lived "hand to mouth" and moved between twelve jobs, detailing cars, cleaning floors, and doing anything else she could get. Click here to read a Seattle-Post Intelligencer story on Katuria's background.
"I was desperate to get out of poverty," Smith told columnist Michelle Malkin. So when Smith was 21, she enrolled in night classes at a community college paralegal program. Holding down jobs during the day, she graduated and enrolled in the University of Washington, where she earned a business degree in 1994. With her 3.65 GPA and LSAT score of 165 (94th percentile), she fully expected to be admitted. Instead, she was rejected with no chance to appeal. Smith filed suit in 1997.
Source:
http://http//www.cir-usa.org/cases/smith.html

IN FACT, TODAY, MEN ARE MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO BENEFIT FROM PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
“But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years.”
Source:  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html
And: Britz, Jennifer Delahunty (March 23, 2006) To All the Girls I Rejected, The New York Times. (Copy of article available)

from
http://arizonacri.org/Home/MythsOtherResources.aspx

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

2010-10-30T10:37:00.000-07:00

The opposition to Prop. 107 keeps saying that race and gender quotas don't exist at the University of Arizona. If these aren't quotas, then we don't know what is.

Goals by Job Group Report
Job Group	Description	Female	Minority
1202	Administrators-Director Level		25%
1242	Administrators-Assistant Director Level	63%
2101	Faculty-Agriculture-Tenure Track	39%
2163	Faculty-Education-Not on Track		21%
2201	Faculty-Fine Arts-Tenure Track	56%	17%
2221	Faculty-Humanities-Tenure Track	57%
2261	Faculty-Science-Tenure Track	31%
2340	Faculty-Pharmacy	49%
3240	Research Support-Specialists-Appointed		24%
3260	Research Scientists	49%
3320	Scientists-Other	41%
3420	Engineers	18%	24%
3520	Curators, Curatorial/Museum Specialists		19%
3540	Computing Managers	33%
3567	Computer Specialists-Appointed		24%
3568	Computer Specialists-Staff, Senior/Principal	32%	27%
3569	Computer Specialists-Staff, Other	36%
3780	TV, Radio Broadcast Occupations	51%
5020	Animal Technicians	73%
5140	Media Technicians	53%
5160	Staff Technicians		30%
6060	General Maintenance	21%	53%
7020	Agricultural Related Occupations	32%
7080	Drivers	53%
7100	Food Preparation Service Occupations	51%
7160	Supervisors-Service/Maintenance	52%	59%
7200	Materials Handlers, Controllers, Trades Helpers	30%

This chart is prominently posted on the University of Arizona's website here.

Not true that Yes on 107 has gotten it wrong on higher education

2010-10-29T17:02:00.000-07:00

Blog for Arizona has written a piece entitled, "How the Yes on Proposition 107 side gets it wrong on higher education." The article's premise is that gender preferences in universities aren't bad, because women do well anyways, and race preferences for minorities aren't bad, because they aren't doing as well. Note the contradictory arguments.

The article selectively uses a few cherry-picked success rates for women in higher education, and says that is evidence there is nothing wrong with using affirmative action to put them in more academically competitive universities than they would have qualified for on their own merit. But that is ignoring the whole picture. Just because more women go to college now than men, and do fine at universities like Harvard, does not mean the vast numbers in the middle will do well at some of the middle-to-top-tier universities. Statistics show that the failure rates for women and minorities increase at those middle-to-top tier universities when they are artificially pushed ahead of their abilities.

Even if women were doing wonderfully as a whole everywhere in higher education, isn't that an argument to get rid of preferences for them?

Regarding minority preferences in higher education, the article claims that because one school, George Washington University, claims to have high minority graduation rates due to its aggressive affirmative action policies, it must not be true that minorities suffer poor graduation rates when pushed into schools beyond their academic abilities. Well, that bold statement from a school which obviously has an agenda contradicts actual evidence from schools after the passage of California's Prop. 209, a similar initiative in California. The 4-year graduation rate for blacks and Latinos at UC-Davis prior to Prop. 209 was a mere 26%, whereas after it passed, it doubled to 52%. That is a huge difference.

This doesn't mean that some women or minorities are dumber or less capable than others. It just means you can't paint everyone with the same broad brush. Individuals are unique. If there are some who don't perform as well academically, there will also be some white males who don't perform as well academically. Maybe much of it is due to a disadvantaged upbringing. But disadvantaged upbringings aren't a race or gender problem. Putting a band-aid on the problem isn't going to fix the problem. By the time a student makes it into college, it's usually too late to try and catch them up, teach them better study habits, etc. Efforts to help the disadvantaged need to be made earlier on in a child's life, and shouldn't be based on skin color or gender. A Harvard study of affirmative action found that 86% of the blacks at the 28 universities looked at were middle or upper class - affirmative action is primarily helping non-disadvantaged blacks.

Prop. 107 won't eliminate minority and women recruitment and retention programs, as the article claims. Where similar initiatives have passed in other states, those programs have remained. Not a single one has been eliminated. They have simply made minor adjustments and opened up their membership to non-minorities and men.

It is time to end the cherry-picked sob statistics and look at the the whole picture. Martin Luther King, Jr. once had a vision of a society where his children wouldn't be judged by the color of their skin. We're never going to get to that stage if we turn around and judge people by their skin right back.

Refuting the "5 reasons to reject Prop. 107" article

2010-10-29T15:50:00.000-07:00

The blog Three Sonorans has written a piece on why to vote against Prop. 107. All five of their arguments can be easily refuted.

1) The article claims that Prop. 107 does not come from Arizona. This isn't accurate. The Arizona State Legislature referred it to the ballot - every single Republican state legislator (except one who was absent) voted to refer it to the ballot. The article points out that funding for Prop. 107 - now that it is already on the ballot - comes from Ward Connerly's Civil Rights Institute, out of California. The article conveniently overlooks the fact however that virtually all of the funding for the opposition also comes from out of state - from unions, and one in-state union. Their biggest contributor to the opposition is the Service Employees International Union, based out of Washington, D.C. If they don't have a problem with their money coming from out of state and unions, why do they have a problem with the other side? At least Yes on Prop. 107 follows the law and puts "out of state funding" on their signs. The opposition committee doesn't bother to put that on their signs.

2) The article claims that discrimination is already illegal, under state law and the Constitution. State law prohibits some kinds of discrimination, and the Constitution vaguely prohibits discrimination, but the truth is reverse discrimination is occurring in many places. Every time a woman or minority-owned business gets a 7% bid preference from the City of Tucson, reverse discrimination occurs against the equally qualified bidder who bid less but was denied the contract. Every time a woman or minority is admitted to our universities over someone else equally qualified due to their race or gender, reverse discrimination occurs. Every time a woman or minority receives a faculty position at the University of Arizona that is denied to someone else due to their race or gender, reverse discrimination occurs. And these are just a few of the many places this is occurring in Arizona. Why should my daughter receive a benefit but not my son? Why should my half-Hispanic child receive a preference but not my other child?

3) The article claims that Prop. 107 is anti-Civil Rights and will roll back equal opportunity. Not sure what this vague statement means. If it means Prop. 107 will roll back race and gender preferences that cause reverse discrimination, well that's true. When affirmative action was implemented in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was only meant to stop discrimination against someone. Not push people ahead of others. Unfortunately extreme activists have turned the 1964 Civil Rights Act on its head, and gone way beyond the affirmative action it intended, morphing it into preferences which now reverse discriminate. Prop. 107 would eliminate that reverse discrimination and follow through with the true intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was to treat people equally and not discriminate based on race or gender.

4) The article says that Prop. 107 claims to be about ending quotas, but quotas don't exist in Arizona. This isn't true. Quotas blatantly exist everywhere, although the wording is disguised to pretend they're not quotas. For example, look at the University of Arizona's blatant quotas for faculty hires. They refer to these quotas as "federally mandated placement goals" instead of "quotas." Clever. But they're not fooling anyone. If they're not quotas, then what are they? They list a distorted quota goal of 63% women for Administrators at the Assistant Director Level. Women barely make up more than half the population! They want 53% of General Maintenance positions to go to minorities. These are outrageous and only some of many listed on that page.

5) Finally, the article claims that Prop. 107 will cost Arizona jobs, saying where it has passed in California, minority and women owned businesses went out of business. But there is no evidence that those businesses went out of businesses due to the initiative there - they could have gone out of business for other reasons.
If anything, Prop. 107 will create more jobs, because it will take away the expensive bid preferences given to minority and women owned businesses that are costing taxpayers more money. Instead, the most cost-effective businesses will win the bids, the ones that are the most prudent about cutting costs, therefore creating more employment.

For other myths from the Prop. 107 opposition and the response refuting them, click here

New Poll: Independents Support Prop. 107

2010-10-29T14:38:00.001-07:00

For Immediate Release

October 29, 2010

Contact Leon Drolet at 602-845-0107

www.arizonacri.org

New Poll: Independents Support Prop. 107

Registered independents strongly support Proposition 107, the proposed constitutional ban on affirmative action, according to a new poll conducted October 28^th– 29^th. The state-wide poll of 556 likely-voting registered independents reveals that independents support Prop. 107 by a margin of 58% - 42%. The poll was conducted by Dynamic Interactive and commissioned by the Yes on 107 campaign.

Proposition 107 would amend the Arizona Constitution to ban race and gender based affirmative action in public hiring, contracting and public education.

Poll participants, all of whom are registered independents with active vote histories, were asked the following question:

“Proposition 107 would make it unconstitutional for the government to use “affirmative action” programs that grant preferential treatment based on race, skin color or sex in hiring, promotions, public contracting or college admissions. Do you plan on voting yes on 107 to end quotas, diversity goals, and set-aside programs or do you plan on voting no on 107 to keep affirmative action in place?”

Voters were then asked who they were supporting for Governor: Republican Jan Brewer or Democrat Terry Goddard. Brewer led Goddard with registered independents by a 53% - 47% margin. Eighty percent of independents polled who supported Brewer also support Prop. 107, and 33% of independents supporting Goddard support Prop. 107.

“Arizonans are a fair people,” said Rachel Alexander, Chair of the Yes on 107 campaign. “The principle of treating every citizen equally crosses all political party lines. Independent voters support 107 because they want to end government ‘affirmative action’ policies that divide citizens by race and treat us differently.”

Opponents of Prop 107 now believe that admitted colorblind policies promote institutional racism!!

2010-10-29T10:08:00.000-07:00

Listen to this clip from a No on 107 spokesperson (recorded at a press conference that they held on 10/27/2010) who first says that Prop 107 will continue institutionalized racism and then admits that Prop 107 is a colorblind policy. Even George Orwell couldn’t do enough mental gymnastics to follow this logic.

Vote YES on 107 to end “affirmative action” policies that give preference based on race or sex in college admissions, public contracting, and public employment. A Yes vote on 107 will promote the original ideal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Colorblind government.

Click here to listen

Radio interview with Ward Connerly about Prop. 107

2010-10-29T10:03:00.001-07:00

Click here to listen

Arizona Republic editorializes in favor of Prop. 107 - AGAIN

2010-10-26T16:02:00.000-07:00

Affirmative action no longer needed

Oct. 26, 2010
The Arizona Republic

Affirmative action wasn't meant to be a perpetual-motion machine. The policy served an important purpose, making up for missing opportunities in education and the workplace. But over time, the drawbacks have come to outweigh the advantages.

Voters should pull the plug. They should approve Proposition 107, which would amend the Arizona Constitution to ban affirmative-action programs in public employment, public education or public contracting.

Activist Ward Connerly, a former University of California regent and founder of the American Civil Rights Institute, argues persuasively against racial and gender preferences. Instead of creating a level playing field, they skew the game. Qualifications are subordinated to minority or gender status - certainly not the fair play that Americans value.

Affirmative action can raise unjust doubts about genuine achievements. Connerly tells how the African-American pilot of a commercial airliner thought he saw fear in the eyes of passengers, who wondered if he was truly qualified for the job.

Discrimination hasn't disappeared in America. But we have legal tools, including the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to deal with it directly.

When former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted to support affirmative action in 2003, she voiced the expectation that racial preferences would no longer be needed some day. O'Connor thought it would take another 25 years.

There's no reason to wait that long.

The time has come to end affirmative action. Arizonans should vote "yes" on Prop. 107.

Lame article by "Arizona University Watch" repeats same old myths about Prop. 107

2010-10-26T10:03:00.000-07:00

Where do we begin, this article was so full of hysteria and sky is falling rhetoric. First of all, the article attempts to compare Prop. 107 to SB1070 and a bill that banned Ethnic Studies. Whether you agreed with those bills or not, they were passed by our democratically elected state legislature, and have nothing to do with Prop. 107. Second, the article brings up the tired old argument that programs for the disadvantaged will be cut. As has been shown time and time again, where this initiative has been passed in other states, none of those programs have been cut. Either they've modified themselves slightly to admit men/non-whites, or they simply don't fall under Prop. 107's areas of government contracting, employment and higher education -- like domestic violence shelters. The author moans about where he or she would be without ASU's Summer Bridge program, a transitional program for "minorities and underprivileged college students." Bingo - did you see the language used? "and underprivileged college students." If this program admits non-minorities, it will not be eliminated. He or she is whining about nothing. Not surprisingly, the author doesn't disclose his or her full name, and the blog is anonymous.

Apology given for Twitter threat against Ward Connerly

2010-10-26T09:23:00.000-07:00

The Arizona Republic is reporting that the Interim Executive Director for the Arizona Students' Association has apologized on behalf of a spokesman for the anti-Prop. 107 campaign, who is an intern there. Steve Russell had made a threat against Ward Connerly on Twitter, tweeting that he would punch him in the face if he was in the same room with him. Connerly obtained a restraining order against Russell immediately afterwards, due to that and other hostile behavior Russell has displayed towards Connerly. An apology from Russell himself would be appropriate, as well as a statement from Kyrsten Sinema denouncing the threat. Sinema is leading the opposition to Prop. 107, and has stated that there must be civility. We wonder why she has been conspicuously quiet.

UA law students' arguments against Prop. 107 are full of holes

2010-10-25T10:02:00.000-07:00

A couple of University of Arizona law students, claiming to represent 98 other law students, have written a letter to the Yuma Sun complaining about Prop. 107. They gripe about the words the Prop. 107 campaign is using - but then play with words themselves. They claim that the Prop. 107 campaign is falsely asserting that "quotas" exist at UA law school, since the Supreme Court has ruled quotas are unconstitutional. Well you decide. Look at these "placement goals" at the University of Arizona, which require distorted percentages of women and minorities in faculty and employment positions. Prop. 107 opponents are simply using semantics to pretend that quotas no longer exist. And here is evidence that race-based admissions are occurring at the law school itself.

CEO chairman Linda Chavez said: “Racial discrimination in university admissions is always appalling. But the degree of discrimination we have found here, at both schools but especially at Arizona State, is off the charts.” She noted that the odds ratio favoring African Americans over whites was 250 to 1 at the University of Arizona and 1115 to 1 at Arizona State. “As a result, nearly a thousand white students during the years we studied were denied admission even though they had higher undergraduate GPAs and LSATs than the average African American student who was admitted--and over a hundred Asian and Latino students were in the same boat with them.”

The law students then contradict themselves. First they complain there are no quotas at UA Law School. Then they claim that if Prop. 107 passes, it will hurt the admissions process. Well you can't have it both ways - either race and gender preferences are or aren't occurring. In reality, if Prop. 107 passes, it will change the admissions process, but in a positive way. Minority and women students who are not academically qualified will attend less competitive schools instead, resulting in higher levels of academic success and graduation rates, as has occurred in other states where versions of Prop. 107 has passed. The sky will not fall, instead these students will have better chances of success, and will be spared the embarrassment of possibly failing.

Finally, the law students complain that Prop. 107 is funded by out of state Ward Connerly. They fail to tell you that the biggest contributor to thei anti-Prop. 107 campaign is funded by - that's right - an out of state union, SEIU. They also fail to tell you that Prop. 107 was referred to the ballot by our Arizona state legislature. Not Ward Connerly, not outside interests, but our very own legislature. To try and describe this as as pushed by "out out of state interest groups" is misleading and dishonest.

Very disappointing to see this kind of disinformation coming from two law students who should know better.

Prop. 107 opposition wrong to complain that less women/minorities will be admitted to higher ed

2010-10-25T09:19:00.000-07:00

One of the arguments opponents to Prop. 107 like to use is that less women and minorities will be admitted to higher education if it passes. They point to lower admissions at the top public universities in the states where similar initiatives have passed; California, Michigan, Washington and Colorado. But they're only telling you half the story. Instead of attending the top couple of public universities in those states, more women and minorities are attending less competitive colleges, where their chances of graduating are much better. Instead of shunting them into universities they are not academically prepared for, leading them to embarrassing failure, they are able to obtain a university education in a school where they have a realistic chance of graduating.

In fact, women are actually hurt in higher education by race preferences. Preferences favor minorities over women, and there have been several high-profile lawsuits by women alleging reverse discrimination, where women won. And due to the fact that more women than men attend college nowadays, MEN are most likely of all to benefit from preferences as colleges attempt to retain balance!

There may be a valid argument that we need more women and minorities in better schools. But trying to force them there after they complete high school, when they haven't been adequately academically prepared, isn't the right way to do it. It only serves to embarrass them and ensure they will fail.

MYTH: RACE PREFERENCES IN STATE PROGRAMS BENEFIT “MINORITIES”
FACT: “If you compare 1995-96 with 1999-01 — a clear before-and-after Prop 209 comparison,” says Sander, a longtime liberal civil rights activist, “you’ll see that, for African-Americans, the 1995 class had a four-year graduation rate of 26%, while the 2001 class had a 52% graduation rate [Hispanics numbers are comparable]. For whites and Asians, it barely changes. This is almost certainly due largely to the reduction of preferences. The five and six-year grad rates for minorities get pretty close to the white rates [within five points], which of course means that differences in academic performance have also narrowed a lot.”
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne
Prop 209 has largely worked as advertised, has not adversely affected women, and, most impressively, has benefited minorities by dramatically increasing graduation rates, thus boosting their chance for success in the job market.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne

In 2005, Sander cited race preferences for blacks failing the bar exam at four times the rate of whites nationally: “Black students admitted through preferences generally have quite low grades — not because of any racial characteristic, but because the preferences themselves put them at an enormous academic disadvantage.” The perverse result is that “the benefits of attending an elite school have been substantially overrated...job market data suggests that most black lawyers entering the job market would have higher earnings in the absence of preferential admissions, because better grades trump the costs in prestige.” Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne

MYTH: WOMEN ARE NOT HARMED BY RACE PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.
FACT: HOPWOOD VS. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas Law School. Cheryl worked part time while attending community colleges. She could not afford to go to Princeton (where she was accepted) for undergraduate school and therefore, when applying to law school her 3.8 GPA was discounted and ultimately she was rejected from the University of Texas’s Law School. She filed suit alleging racial discrimination.

Source: http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/38.html

FACT: GRATZ V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND GRUTTER V. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Jennifer Gratz, daughter of a police officer and a secretary, grew up in a blue collar suburb of Detroit. She would have been the first in her family to graduate from college and hoped to attend the University of Michigan. The University judged blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans by one admission standard, and everyone else by a separate, higher standard. Jennifer Gratz was rejected and filed suit in 1997.

Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html

Barbara Grutter had 2 children and was in her mid-40s when she applied to the University of Michigan’s Law School. Prior to applying Barbara ran her own IT consulting business. Despite higher grades and test scores than some of those who were accepted, Barbara’s application was rejected. When she learned that had she, for example, been a “minority” her credentials would have been enough to be accepted, she filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination.

Source: http://cir-usa.org/cases/michigan.html

FACT: SMITH V. UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

Katuria Smith was born when her mother was 17, was reared in poverty, and dropped out of high school. From the time her parents divorced when Smith was 11, she lived "hand to mouth" and moved between twelve jobs, detailing cars, cleaning floors, and doing anything else she could get. Click here to read a Seattle-Post Intelligencer story on Katuria's background.

"I was desperate to get out of poverty," Smith told columnist Michelle Malkin. So when Smith was 21, she enrolled in night classes at a community college paralegal program. Holding down jobs during the day, she graduated and enrolled in the University of Washington, where she earned a business degree in 1994. With her 3.65 GPA and LSAT score of 165 (94th percentile), she fully expected to be admitted. Instead, she was rejected with no chance to appeal. Smith filed suit in 1997.

Source:

http://http//www.cir-usa.org/cases/smith.html

IN FACT, TODAY, MEN ARE MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO BENEFIT FROM PREFERENCES IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS.

“But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years.”

Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1727693,00.html And: Britz, Jennifer Delahunty (March 23, 2006) To All the Girls I Rejected, The New York Times. (Copy of article available)

From http://arizonacri.org/Home/MythsOtherResources.aspx

Prop. 107 opposition is hypocritical - their biggest donor is a union OUTSIDE the state

2010-10-24T15:42:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest arguments the opponents of Prop. 107 use is that Prop. 107 is funded by an out of state contributor (note they conveniently forget to mention that Arizona's legislators referred Prop. 107 to the ballot - which has nothing to do with anyone out of state). Well come to find out, guess what, THEIR funding also comes from out of state! According to an article in the Arizona Republic today, outsiders account for all of the big donors to the anti-Prop. 107 campaign. Sure enough, if you look at the misnamed "Protect Arizona's Freedom" campaign finance reports, you'll see that $10,000 came from the Washington, DC union Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Notice most of the rest of their funding also came from a union, $5000 from the Arizona Education Association.

This doesn't even include the sham organization Arizona Taxpayers Association, which has gone to great lengths to hide its contributors through shadowy campaign finance organizations. It reports a contribution of $2900 from corporate contributions, but doesn't disclose the businesses.

Ward Connerly in Green Valley discusses the term "African-American"

2010-10-24T09:37:00.001-07:00

Prop. 107 leader makes GV push

Connerly

By Karen Walenga
Green Valley News

Published: Saturday, October 23, 2010 9:01 PM MST

While watching TV together, Ward Connerly and the uncle who helped raise him in Washington state heard Connerly called an “African-American.”

Uncle James made it clear to his nephew, a nationally known advocate of equal opportunity, that Connerly was an American.

“You never been to Africa and you ain’t going,” Uncle James told him.

Connerly shared that anecdote and more with about 60 members of the Republican Club of Green Valley/Sahuarita when he spoke in favor of Proposition 107 Friday morning at Friends In Deed.

The proposition, the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, would amend the state Constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to or discriminate against 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.

Opponents say that it deceptively claims to “level the playing field,” even though they say no level playing field exists in educational programs, jobs, and businesses where girls, women and people of color are under-represented.

They say passage of 107 will eliminate many programs that support academic progress and improved student achievement, and that state employers are already prohibited from considering race or gender in hiring practices.

But Connerly, founder and president of the American Civil Rights Institute, disagrees that it will hurt minorities. His national, not-for-profit organization focuses on educating the public about the need to move beyond race and, specifically, racial and gender preferences.

Author of “Creating Equal: My Fight Against Race Preferences” and “Lessons from My Uncle James: Beyond Skin Color to the Content of Our Character,” he has gained national attention as an advocate of equal opportunity regardless of race, sex, or ethnic background.

California victories

During his tenure as a University of California regent, Connerly took aim at race-based admission preferences and was the public face of a 1996 ballot initiative in which California banned race and gender preferences in state-funded programs and institutions.

Since then he has led successful efforts in Washington, Michigan and Nebraska to make the practice illegal in state and city hiring and university admissions, and now has brought the fight here.

Connerly told his Green Valley audience that his Uncle James was a salt-of-the-earth type of man who insisted Connerly shine his own shoes, wash the car and mow the lawn, thereby keeping his feet planted on the ground and showing respect for himself and his neighbors.

Connerly, born in 1939 in Leesville, La., said his father left home when Connerly was 2 and his mother died when he was 4. He then went to live with his aunt and uncle in Washington state.

Although they faced discrimination when visiting in the South, Connerly learned that there is no room for self-pity, even if someone discriminates against you.

“You rise based on your own preparation,” Connerly said. “You accept the cards you are dealt” instead of focusing on how someone else is treating you.

“Be the best you can be,” he said. If you focus on what others think of you, you can miss opportunities.

“Race seeps out of every pore of the body politic. I abhor discrimination, but I am not obsessed with it,” Connerly said.

“We are not free if we are not equal. We are wards of the state.”

Sonoran News: Jen Gratz on affirmative action and Prop. 107

2010-10-21T15:28:00.001-07:00

Yes on 107: Ending “Affirmative Action” guarantees fair treatment for all

Over ten years ago I filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan for racial discrimination because their admissions policy gave an unfair twenty percent boost to black and Hispanic applicants. I know firsthand how horrible it is to be discriminated against when “affirmative action” and “diversity quota” policies employ different admissions standards based on race. Although I personally won my lawsuit after it was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, many universities and government agencies all over the country - including in Arizona – continue their policies that grant preferential treatment based on race to some, while discriminating against others.

Affirmative action job quotas, “minority” contract set-asides and extra points in college admissions are wrong and it’s time to get rid of them. Achieving “diversity goals”, however well-intentioned, often amounts to the functional equivalent of a quota. Achieving “diversity” should never be an excuse to discriminate against anyone.

Voters should vote Yes on Prop 107 to tell the government to stop picking winners and losers based on race or sex. Prop 107 is simple – it will ban “affirmative action” programs that give preference based on race or sex in three specific areas: public contracting, public employment, and public education. After all, it is everyone’s, and unlike Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, I really mean everyone’s right, to be treated equally by their government without regard to race or sex.

Radical opponents of Prop 107 like ACORN and By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) falsely claim that health programs, domestic violence shelters, and social support programs that assist women would be banned if Prop 107 passes. But Prop 107 only affects public hiring, contracting and public education - not health programs or domestic violence shelters. Opponents know these facts, but try to deceive the public because they have a lot to lose given the massive industry set up to maintain and advance preferential treatment for the few rather than equal rights for all.

The operative language of Prop 107, which has already passed in four other states and has been in place for as many as 14 years, is simple and clear: “The state shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against 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 language of Prop 107 mirrors the language of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act and advances civil rights by prohibiting discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, sex, and skin color. Prop 107 reinforces the fact that everyone is entitled to civil rights and should have an equal chance to compete for good paying jobs, government contracts, and college admissions – based on individual merit, not skin color or sex.

Vote YES on Prop 107!

Jennifer Gratz was the victorious plaintiff if the 2003 US Supreme Court case Gratz v. Bollinger (University of Michigan) and is Director of State and Local Initiatives with the American Civil Rights Coalition.

Yes on 107 files complaint with Secretary of State about sham AZ Taxpayers' Association

2010-10-20T14:24:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, the Prop. 107 campaign and Shane Wikfors, Treasurer of the Arizona Taxpayers' Action Committee, filed a joint complaint against the deceitfully named "Arizona Taxpayers Association," which has been posting signs around town urging voters to vote no on all the propositions. The complaint alleged numerous campaign finance violations, as well as violations of IRS and Corporation Commission regulations.

The letter is below:

Ms. Amy Bjelland
State Elections Director
Arizona Secretary of State
1700 W Washington, 7th Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85007 October 15, 2010

Dear Ms. Bjelland:

As the Chair of the Proposition 107 campaign and Treasurer of the Arizona Taxpayers Action Committee, we write to urge you to take action against the disguised ballot measure committee the “Arizona Taxpayers Association” for a series of campaign finance violations that may rise to the level of ballot fraud. The organization involved has no intent of representing Arizona taxpayers, but has the explicit intent of deceiving voters and fooling them into voting against propositions they otherwise might support. The evidence of this intent is compelling, and given the fact that early ballots are already being sent out, urgent action by your office is requested and required.

As you may know, this group has put up campaign signs all over Arizona urging citizens to vote no on all the ballot propositions. A news item is attached which includes a photo of the signs, which you can find on almost every major street corner in the Phoenix metro area.

This group is clearly attempting to defraud the public by pretending to be a conservative organization and using buzzwords such as "save our constitution" and their very name, the “Arizona Taxpayers Association”. In reality, this group is headed by card carrying members of the extreme left. According to Corporation Commission records (attached), longtime Democrat operative and former chair of the Arizona Democrat Party Bob Grossfeld is the President of the organization, and Jim McLaughlin, union boss for the local United Food and Commercial Workers, which helped lead the boycott charge against Arizona over Senate Bill 1070, is listed as a director.

In addition, Corporation Commission records reveal that the group is headquartered out of the office of ultra-liberal Democrat lawyer and another former Chair of the Arizona Democrat Party, Sam Coppersmith at 2800 N. Central Ave., Suite 1200, Phoenix.

While this campaign is deliberately attempting to hide its ties to the extreme left and cast itself in a false light that in itself is not illegal. However, they are nonetheless guilty of several significant campaign finance violations.

1. “Arizona Taxpayers Association” is a political committee under ARS 16-901(19) and 16-902.01. Although it is registered as an independent expenditure committee, it is clearly really a ballot measure committee. It exists solely to put up these signs around the state opposing several ballot initiatives, nothing else. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…. As such, it is required to register as a political committee, and such registration must include the address, the names, addresses and occupations (and other information) of the Chairman and Treasurer of the committee, the name, address, relationship and type of any sponsoring organization, and any bank accounts. ARS 16-902.01(B)(3). None of this information was provided in its initial filing. http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/FilerDetail.aspx?id=201000784. This group filed as an independent expenditure committee on September 27, 2010, no doubt in order to hide that kind of revealing information from the voters. In addition, ballot measure committees are required to include the official serial number for the ballot initiative, and whether the committee supports or opposes the measure. ARS 16-902.01 (F). This is also missing.

2. ARS 16-902.01(A) requires a political committee to register "before accepting contributions, making expenditures, [or] distributing any campaign literature..." This committee did not file until September 27, 2010, and their signs were seen up as early as September 25, and there are news reports from September 27 about their signs, which were likely put up before September 27. But even if they went up on that day, there is no way possible that this group could have gathered contributions, had signs printed, and put them up all on September 27. Clearly they have also violated this law.

3. This committee has put the wrong address on its signs. The signs say the committee is located at 2600 N. Central Avenue, when in reality its headquarters are at Sam Coppersmith's law firm at another address, according to records with the Arizona Corporation Commission. http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/names-detail.p?name-id=12965300&type=CORPORATION The address listed there is 2800 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1200. This is clearly an attempt to hide this organization's ties to the far left, and it amounts to a fraud on the voters.

4. ARS 16-914, which requires notification to the Secretary of State once contributions of $10,000 or more have been received or expenditures of $10,000 or more have been made by a ballot measure committee, has likely also been violated. As yet, no such notifications have been posted on the Secretary of State's website, even though this group must have easily spent well over $10,000 on signs attempting to defraud Arizona voters.

5. The disclaimers “Paid for by No 106, No 107, No 109, No 110, No 111, No 112, No 113, No 203, No 301, & No 302 Committees” were recently added to the signs (although they have not been added to all of the signs, there were some spotted in Flagstaff without the disclaimers), and suddenly reports were filed on October 1 with the Secretary of State’s Office. Since two former Chairmen of the Arizona Democrat Party are behind these committees, they should clearly know better. They attempted to get around the law and hide their identities by not filing as ballot measure committees, but once these signs became public, they filed reports late as ballot measure committees and modified their signs. This was not an innocent correction, but purposely done late into the election when half of the voters have already sent their early ballots back in. The new committees still do not comply with the requirements of ballot measure committees, lacking the name of any sponsoring organization and any bank accounts.

In addition to violating campaign finance laws, this organization appears to be violating IRS regulations and Corporation Commission regulations. It is listed as a nonprofit organization with the Corporation Commission, but nonprofit organizations are prohibited by the IRS from engaging in lobbying as their primary activity. The sole function of this sham committee is to engage in advocacy regarding ballot measures. As such, it is in violation of IRS rules and its status with the Corporation Commission as a nonprofit organization.

This isn’t the first time this dishonest group has tried to deceive Arizona voters. They put up similar signs opposing city ballot measures all over Tucson two years ago.

Based on the evidence presented above, please take immediate action to force the “Arizona Taxpayers Association” to comply with the law and impose appropriate penalties. The public has a right to know who is really behind this shady, left-wing organization. There's not much we can do about their deliberate attempt to mislead Arizonans, but they must be held accountable for their violations of the law. Please let us know if you need documentation of the above.

Very truly yours,

Rachel Alexander
Chair, Yes on 107

Dennis S. Wikfors
Treasurer, Arizona Taxpayers Action Committee

Firefighter Frank Ricci who sued over preferences has op-ed on Prop. 107

2010-10-18T13:41:00.000-07:00

By Frank Ricci, for Inside Tucson Business
Published on Friday, October 8th, 2010

On Nov. 2, the people of Arizona will decide whether to amend the state constitution to bar the government from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals or groups in public employment, contracting, and education. I wholeheartedly support Proposition 107, the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative. A person’s race, ethnicity, or skin color should not be a part of their promotion or the application process. Individuals should be promoted, hired, or admitted based on their qualifications, experience, performance, and scores.

I was among fireighters who learned firsthand the ills of the current system. We had all studied for department promotional exams in New Haven, Conn., which is something we had been doing throughout our careers with hard work and dedication. The taxpayers paid over $100,000 to professionally develop the exams and went as far as providing a road map for success. The job-related exam tested the necessary skills, knowledge and abilities to be a competent leader. When the results came out the city decided to throw out the exams, because too few minorities scored high enough to qualify.

The action denied qualified whites, blacks and Hispanics their earned promotion in the interest of diversity. By most accounts the news media neglected to report some minorities did, indeed, earn promotion and minorities in the department supported our lawsuit. Without knowing where we were on the list, my fellow firefighters and I sued the city. We wanted to protect the process, no matter where we fell on the list.

While diversity is an important goal, it has become a code word for a quota system that thrives on mediocrity. Especially in the area of public safety, the public has the right to know that the men and women who serve were selected based on their qualifications. There are no do-overs on the scene of an emergency.

In our lawsuit, District Court granted summary judgment for the city, which the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. But then, on June 29, 2009, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in our favor. The city had violated our Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it discarded the exam results. New Haven intentionally discriminated against mostly white firefighters to avoid being sued by black firefighters.

Arizona stands poised to set the right example for the entire country. I implore voters to vote in favor of Proposition 107 to ensure equal opportunity for all. As firefighters, we had to take our case to the highest court in the land to make sure our leaders were selected based on their knowledge, skills, and abilities. The belief that citizens should be reduced to racial statistics is flawed and only divides people.

Moreover, Proposition 107 leaves in place all of the protections against discrimination. No one should be given an unfair advantage. Low expectations are a form of bigotry that result in low performance, holidng individuals back and harming all races. Lowering the bar for some racial groups is demeaning, and granting government-sanctioned favors to certain groups based on race should be illegal in every state. Obtaining a position or contract under a cloud of suspicion only sets people up for failure. Anyone, regardless of race, can succeed in America.

Whatever one believes about institutional racism, perceived bias, or racial disparities, making a race a job or admissions qualification in the form of a racial preference is the wrong-headed “solution.” Promoting, hiring, or admitting one person because they’re the “right” race and denying the same to another because they are the “wrong” race is contrary to what America is and hopes to be. In the words of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Do you want to guarantee fairness and equality for all citizens in Arizona, regardless of race? On the Nov. 2 ballot, you have the opportunity to reaffirm the colorblind principles of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by demanding race-neutral law and government policy in Arizona. Vote “yes” on Proposition 107.

Frank Ricci is now a lieutenant with the New Haven Fire Department. As a captain, he was the lead plaintiff in the civil rights lawsuit (Ricci v DeStefano) filed by 20 department employees. Ricci is also an adjunct instructor for the New Haven Fire Department, Emergency Training Solutions, Middlesex County Fire School and a lecturer.

Tempe Chamber of Commerce, East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance and Arizona Farm Bureau Federation support Prop. 107

2010-10-18T13:28:00.000-07:00

Even local business groups support Prop. 107. “We want a level playing field for everyone and every business,” said Mary Ann Miller, president and CEO of the Tempe Chamber of Commerce." (The rest of this article is subscription-only at the Phoenix Business Journal).

AZ Latino Republican GOP Communications Director supports Prop. 107: Race favoritism is simply unjust

2010-10-16T13:00:00.000-07:00

by Alice Lara - Oct. 15, 2010
Special for the Republic

1. Affirmative action is unjust no matter what it is called: "quotas," "diversity goals" or "race preferences." Programs that treat people differently because of their skin color are discrimination and a violation of citizens' civil rights, which belong to all people, whatever their race or gender. It is unjust when someone is shut out of a promotion because of a racial quota. Or when a worker's construction firm loses a government contract because of his boss' race. It is blatantly unfair when a student's good grades can't get her into college because she's the wrong skin color - that's just plain discrimination.

2. Affirmative-action programs like the city of Tucson's, which gives bidders on government contracts a 7 percent "bonus" based on their ethnicity, rip off taxpayers by adding unnecessary and excessive costs.

3. Affirmative action poisons race relations. Race preferences pit citizens against each other based on race, promote stereotypes that some ethnicities need an artificial boost to compete, and undermine the legitimate accomplishments of qualified minorities.

4. Affirmative action doesn't help "the underprivileged." Studies show that 83 percent of minorities who are given preferences for university admissions come from middle- and upper-class families.

5. America's economy needs merit, not preferences based on racial favoritism.

Court issues restraining order against anti-Prop 107 spokesperson who threatens to assault Ward Connerly

2010-10-15T19:25:00.001-07:00

For Immediate Release

Contact Leon Drolet at 602-845-0107

www.arizonacri.org

A Maricopa County Court official today issued a legal restraining order against the spokesperson of the group opposing Proposition 107 after he threatened to physically assault a pro-Prop 107 leader. Anti-Prop. 107 spokesperson Steve Russell was ordered to stay more than 100 feet away from anti-affirmative action leader Ward Connerly after Russell sent a message threatening to assault Connerly Thursday night.

Proposition 107 would ban race and gender based affirmative action in Arizona. Connerly is nationally known for opposing government race and gender preferences and was participating in a debate on Prop. 107 hosted by the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix. Russell is a spokesperson for ‘Protect Arizona’s Freedom’, the group supporting Arizona’s existing affirmative action programs and opposing Prop. 107. Russell was not part of the Goldwater debate.

Maricopa County Justice of the Peace Clancy Jayne issued today’s court order after Russell sent out a threatening electronic message late last night following the debate. Russell’s public message on his Twitter account stated that he “would not hesitate to punch connerly (sic) in the face if I saw him…”

At the taping of a televised Secretary of State Town Hall Meeting in September, Russell publicly accused Connerly, who is black, of being financially supported by the Ku Klux Klan during his official Prop. 107 opposition statement.

“Unfortunately, I must take violent threats seriously, especially when they are in the context of other inflammatory rhetoric, such as has been characteristic of Mr. Russell” Connerly stated. “A few affirmative action supporters are quite radical and I have been threatened before. Mr. Russell has attempted to incite hatred against me with his bizarre KKK smears, and now feels compelled to brag about his willingness to assault me physically. I don’t know how stable Steve Russell is. I call on the Mayor of Phoenix, Representative Kirsten Sinema and other high profile public officials who are opposing 107 to condemn Mr. Russell and disassociate themselves from his threats. I have been threatened before and have had a pellet gun fired at my office building because of my stance in favor of the principle of equal treatment for all. No one should be threatened with violence in our nation because of their views."

Yuma Sun endorses Prop. 107

2010-10-13T12:15:00.000-07:00

Discrimination wrong answer for inequality

October 11, 2010 6:41 PM

Affirmative action has long been a controversial subject in America and the debate has been revived on the Arizona ballot in November.

Proposition 107 seeks to amend the Arizona Constitution to ban preferential treatment in public programs in Arizona based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Public employment, public education and public contracting would be impacted.

The prohibition would not apply to private affirmative efforts. And the proposition specifically exempts “bona fide qualifications” based on sex, as well as any action needed to retain federal funding or covered by a current court order. It would also not apply to any action taken prior to passage of the amendment.

At the heart of the discussion of affirmation action is discrimination.

Those who support these programs say they are necessary to correct discriminatory policies which hurt certain groups. The programs are intended to take proactive steps to ensure these groups get preferred treatment so they cannot be wrongfully locked out of the system.

Those who oppose affirmative action say these programs have become discriminatory in themselves, unfairly locking out members of majority groups through no fault of their own. Qualified people who are not part of the “affirmative groups” are denied a fair chance to participate in the system simply due to their race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Responding to discrimination with discrimination is not the right answer. The goal in America needs to be that all people — regardless of their inherent physical, racial or ethnic traits — are selected on their qualifications alone.

Proposition 107 takes a step in the right direction to ensure equal treatment for all in the public arena.

Arizona Republic refutes another false claim by Prop. 107 opposition

2010-10-11T13:17:00.000-07:00

The opposition's comment, by Arizona Students' Association
The passage of Proposition 107 could "harm programs such as the Summer Bridge, which affords everyone an equal opportunity to compete, or even the Hispanic Mother-Daughter program, which helps young women to reach their full potential in college."

The bottom line: The Summer Bridge program at Arizona State University does not have criteria based on race or gender, so Proposition 107 should not affect it. The Hispanic Mother-Daughter Program would have to be expanded to include all races and both genders, or it could likely be shut down. However, at major universities in states where similar legislation has passed, programs tend to stay in existence by moving their criteria away from race and gender.

Read the full analysis

Ward Connerly on Fox News reacts to poll showing 91% of black voters still support Obama

2010-10-11T13:07:00.000-07:00

Only 36% of white voters support Obama. Ward was asked his thoughts on the large gap between white and black voters supporting Obama. Ward agrees that racialism is alive and well, although it's not necessarily racism directed towards blacks. Racialism is different from racism, but it's a distinction without a difference. There are two things occurring here; racial solidarity - blacks voted for Obama due to being the same race. Second, there is a victims' gap in voting - blacks and Latinos support Obama because they identify with Obama's victim mentality. Obama cleverly invokes "racial profiling" when talking with black audiences to make sure they identify with him. Even the most successful blacks see themselves as victims, they don't quite relate to the rest of society - like Colin Powell. It's a traditional and lingering view shared by many blacks. You just use the right code words, like "civil rights," and you'll get their vote. Ward said that the reason Latinos support some of this victimhood mentality too is due to the issue of illegal immigration; they're taught that illegal immigration laws victimize Latinos.

Prop. 107 debate this Thursday at the Goldwater Institute featuring Ward Connerly v. David Lujan

2010-10-11T12:25:00.000-07:00

Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute will be moderating a debate on Prop. 107, which would ban affirmative action in government, this week between Ward Connerly and former state legislator David Lujan. Connerly will be representing Yes on 107, and Lujan will be representing the opposition. Media panelists include Jim Sharpe from KFYI and Kathleen Ingley from the Arizona Republic. The debate will take place from 5:30 - 7 pm. The Goldwater Institute is located at 500 E. Coronado, Phoenix, AZ.

Yes on 107! launches radio ad

2010-10-08T17:31:00.000-07:00

The Yes on Proposition 107 campaign took to the airwaves today with a radio ad encouraging voters to support ballot proposition 107. Prop. 107 would eliminate affirmative action programs that contain preferential treatment based on race or gender in the areas of government contracts, public employment and public education.

The 60-second ad highlights the harmful effects that affirmative action quotas have on victims of government programs that treat citizens differently based on race. State Senator Russell Pearce (R - Mesa), who worked with state Representative Steve Montenegro (R- Litchfield Park) to place Prop. 107 on the ballot, is also featured in the ad. The ad is initially being aired on KFYI talk radio in Phoenix.

Below is the content of the Yes on 107 radio ad:

Female voice: “I don’t call it civil rights when my husband is shut out of a promotion because of an affirmative action quota.

I don’t call it civil rights when my son’s construction firm loses a government contract on account of his boss’s race.

And when my daughter’s good grades can’t get her into a school because she’s the wrong skin color, well that’s just plain discrimination.

Somewhere big government got affirmative action wrong. Somehow they’ve confused civil rights with quotas that favor one group over another.”

Senator Pearce: “Hello this is Senator Russell Pearce – no one applying for a job, contract or college admission should be rejected because they don’t fill a diversity quota. That’s why Representative Montenegro and I helped put 107 on your ballot.

A ‘Yes’ vote on 107 amends the constitution so everyone is judged on character and merit, not skin color or sex.

The government should not pick winners and losers based on race or sex. Everyone – and I mean everyone - deserves a fair and equal chance to compete for good paying jobs, contracts, and college admission. Vote Yes on 107.”

Yes on 107 news

2010-10-07T16:48:00.001-07:00

YES on 107! Newsletter

Here's a quick update on the campaign to end quotas, discrimination and set asides in Arizona:
Ward Connerly Speaking at Maricopa County Republican Club about ending affirmative action

Ward Connerly, President of the American Civil Rights Institute, a national organization that opposes affirmative action racial and gender preferences, will be speaking about the flaws and failures of racial quotas at the Maricopa County Republican Club on Thursday, October 7th at 7 pm.

The meeting is at the GOP headquarters, 3501 N. 24th St., in Phoenix. You are welcome to attend and meet the man leading the fight nationally to end discriminatory affirmative action policies.

Arizona Republic editorial: End Affirmative Action

Last week, Arizona's largest newspaper - The Arizona Republic, surprised some conservative readers by endorsing a 'YES' vote on Proposition 107 to end affirmative action policies. The Arizona Republic is the first major daily newspaper to support ending race-based affirmative action in Arizona. Read the editorial here.

Will University of Arizona President defy law and voters if Prop. 107 passes?

University of Arizona President Robert Shelton told the Arizona Daily Star newspaper last week that he would find "creative" ways to "achieve our goals" in the U of A's admissions policies if voters approve Proposition 107. Mr. Shelton further stated that, if 107 is adopted by voters, he "will not back off one bit" from the university's efforts to promote "diversity" and recruit more women and minorities.

The university's diversity goals, which are posted on their website, include hiring specified percentages of women and minorities. These hiring quotas include goals for women to comprise 63% of new Assistant Director Administrators, 73% of Animal Technicians, and 56% of the Faculty in Fine Arts. Goals for minority hires include 53% of General Maintenance positions and 59% of Supervisors in Service/Maintenance.

Rachel Alexander, Chair of the Yes on 107 campaign issued the following public challenge to the University President, "President Shelton appears concerned that if Prop 107 passes, the university won't be able to put 'diversity goals' ahead of 'most qualified'.

I bet there's a woman or a 'minority' that meets the minimum qualifications to be president of the university. I challenge President Shelton to walk his own talk and step down for the sake of 'diversity.' His $549,400 position could be given to an affirmative action applicant. Or perhaps he believes that discriminating quotas should only apply to other people, but not to him?"

President Shelton's comments remind some observers of comments made by University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman after Michigan voters banned affirmative action race-based admissions in 2006. President Coleman announced after the election that she intended to ignore voters and continue racial admissions at the University. President Coleman was forced to back off her statement and comply with the law after meeting with Michigan's Attorney General.
Sincerely,
Rachel Alexander, Chair
Yes on 107!
www.ArizonaCRI.org

Jen Gratz trounces Kyrsten Sinema in Prop. 107 debate on Fox 10

2010-10-07T15:35:00.000-07:00

In a debate last night on Fox 10, Jennifer Gratz from the Yes on 107 campaign took on Rep. Kyrsten Sinema from the opposition campaign, who is considered the most far left legislator in the Arizona legislature. Sinema claimed that Arizona State University does not consider race or gender in university admissions. Gratz refuted this bald-faced lie, reading from a court pleading filed by Arizona State University where it admitted it did take those factors into consideration.

Next, Sinema claimed that Prop. 107 would jeopardize certain programs geared at women and minorities. Gratz responded by pointing out that where this initiative has passed in other states, those kinds of programs have continued to exist.

Finally, Sinema complained that women only make 70 cents for every dollar that men make, so they still need preferences. Gratz retorted that Prop. 107 would equal the playing field for EVERYONE, so everyone would be treated the same, not better or worse. If women are making less than men for the same job, they should be treated the same - not better or worse.

More lies being spread about Prop. 107 by its opponents

2010-10-07T13:07:00.000-07:00

A flyer full of misinformation is being distributed by the misnamed "Protect Arizona's Freedom" which opposes Prop. 107 (it really should be named "Protect Arizona's Freedom to Discriminate in Government"). It claims that certain programs which assist women and minorities could be eliminated if Prop. 107 passes. This is false. Where this initiative has passed in other states, these programs have not been eliminated. Not a single one.

Let's analyze each program that is claimed to be in jeopardy:

City of Phoenix teen parents program
This program is for both moms and dads, not just women, so Prop. 107 doesn't apply. And Prop. 107 doesn't apply for a second reason, this program does not fall within the area of government contracting, higher education, or employment. Prop. 107 only applies to government contracting, higher education and employment. It does not affect other aspects of life involving government such as government health, childcare, etc.

Programs that encourage women to have careers in math or science
As long as these programs allow men to participate, they can continue. These kinds of organizations have continued by permitting men to participate in states like Michigan where this initiative has passed. It has not hurt their effectiveness - most men could care less about participating in a program geared to women.

Domestic violence treatment and prevention
These programs are for both men and women, not just women, so Prop. 107 does not apply. And even if there were any that only allowed women to participate, they do not fall within the area of government contracting, higher education, or employment.

The YWCA Bright Futures Program for young women
This does not fall within the area of government contracting, higher education, or employment.

The Summer Bridge Program for Native American students
As long as this program permits non-Native American students to participate if they so choose, it will not be eliminated. In addition, if this program receives federal funding contingent upon the preference, Prop. 107 does not apply, there is an exception crafted into the Prop. 107 language for programs that would lose federal funding if race or gender preferences were eliminated.

Jennifer Gratz on Proposition 107

2010-10-06T16:17:00.000-07:00

From the Camp Verde Journal:

“A major proponent of ending affirmative action across the United States is Jennifer Gratz.

After graduating high school in 1995 with a 3.8 GPA and a fairly active student resume, Gratz applied to the University of Michigan, but was rejected.

“An investigation turned up the fact that the university was giving special preference to certain applicants base on their race.

“Gratz sued, and her case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where the justices gave Gratz a victory and ended the racial preference program at the school, but only there.

“The experience drove Gratz to dedicate herself to trying to fight affirmative action everywhere. Today Gratz serves as director of state and local initiatives for the California-based American Civil Rights Coalition.

“She stopped by Camp Verde last week on a tour to share her feelings on affirmative action.

“‘Affirmative action started out as a good system that was supposed to have no regard for race,’ Gratz said. ‘But it’s morphed into something else.’

“Gratz argued that by giving people special treatment due to race and gender instead of treating everyone fairly, affirmative action has itself become a violation of American civil rights.
…
“Affirmative action can be a double-edged sword, Gratz said. Gratz talks about a black woman she met once in her travels.

“‘This woman, she told me that she had to keep her guard up, that she had to make sure she didn’t have an off day or make a mistake, or else everyone is going to say, ‘Oh, she just got in because of affirmative action,’ instead of her own merits,” Gratz said. ‘I want to be able to own my accomplishments, to own my future.’”

UA president on warpath

2010-10-06T16:09:00.000-07:00

by Becky Fenger, Sonoran News

"Our diversity is one of our greatest assets."

--- UA President Robert Shelton

University of Arizona President Robert Shelton is spitting mad over Proposition 107 and prepared to go to the mat fighting it. Even if the measure on the Nov. 2 general election ballot – which would ban racial and gender preferences in government, including in higher education – is passed by voters, he "will not back off one bit" from the university's efforts to promote "diversity" and recruit more women and minorities. Voters be damned.

That's what happens when one puts "diversity goals" ahead of "most qualified."

In a clever turn of events, the "Yes on 107" campaign chair Rachel Alexander challenged President Shelton to walk his own talk and step down from his position for the sake of diversity so that a woman or minority could take on his job. "His $549,400 position could be given to an affirmative action applicant," Alexander said. "Or perhaps he believes that discriminating quotas should only apply to other people, but not to him?"

You've got to love it! If you check UA's Web site, you will find their diversity goals posted, including specified percentages of women and minorities for a whole host of jobs. As Alexander notes, these hiring quotas include goals for women to comprise 63 percent of new Assistant Director Administrators, 73 percent of Animal Technicians, and 56 percent of the faculty in Fine Arts. Goals for minority hires include 53 percent of General Maintenance positions and 59 percent of Supervisors in Service/Maintenance. "I'll bet there's a woman or a "minority" who meets the minimum qualifications to be president of the University," observes Alexander. Bingo!

In a panel talk at the university last week on how the actions of Arizona legislators affect education, President Shelton pledged he won't let Proposition 107 hurt the school's commitment to diversity. As reported in the Arizona Daily Star, Shelton said Prop. 107 could discourage minority students and faculty from applying to UA in the same way that a similar measure in California "made them feel unwelcome."

Yes, there was a dip in applications, but all is back to normal now, and the rainbow world has not collapsed. How insulting to women and minorities to base practices on the assumption that they couldn't make it unless the rules were bent for them. Such lowered expectations filter all the way down to diaper school, and no good has ever come of it. (For the exact opposite philosophy, research the dynamo teacher Marva J. Collins.)

Opponents of Prop 107 will claim there are no affirmative action policies in Arizona.
Hogwash. Why don't you ask Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, who has been gaming the system for years, about that?

Opponents claim "It's not about affirmative action; it's all about goals." Again, that's playing word games, because how would you know if your goals are met if they aren't measured by quotas?

The arguments that are the tawdriest are those that try to scare or threaten the voter. Claims are made that domestic violence centers would close if Prop 107 passes. Ridiculous. Breast cancer research will drop off. That's nuts. No women would get any decent jobs.
Ludicrous.

When are the "do-gooders" going to figure out that women in the United States are neither oppressed nor in the minority. Some medical schools are graduating more women than men, so males can actually qualify as a "minority" admission. This is craziness. Sister Mary Lucinda was right when she said our sex organs would get us into trouble, but she had no idea that it would lead to this! The obscenity of quotas.

Since universities are among the least transparent of organizations, how can we believe President Shelton when he says UA has reviewed all of its diversity programs to make sure they would comply with Prop 107 and then turn around and announce that he will find creative ways to get around complying with Prop 107? Nobody likes to challenge college presidents, but they certainly aren't royalty. (We have only to look at ASU PresidentMichael Crow for living proof of that.)

Shelton is also an opponent of SB 1070 and HB 2281, the new law that opposes ethnic studies that promote race-baiting, victimhood and the superiority of La Raza or, you know, stuff like Marxism.

I close with a posting in Pajamasmedia.com by noted historian Victor Davis Hanson:
"Diversity is Orwellian: the university is the most politically intolerant and monolithic institution in the country, even as it demands the continuance of tenure to protect supposedly unpopular expression. Even its emphases on racial diversity is entirely constructed and absurd: Latin Americans add an accent and a trill and they become victimized Chicanos; one-half African-Americans claim they are more people of color than much darker Punjabis; the children of Asian optometrists seek minority and victim status."

from http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2010/101006/fenger.html

Domestic Violence Shelters and Prop 107 Redux

2010-10-06T15:56:00.000-07:00

by LA SHAWN BARBER

Some opponents of measures like Arizona’s Proposition 107, which would amend the state constitution to bar the government from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals based on race in employment, education, or contracting, claim such measures would prohibit tax dollars from going to domestic violence shelters for women, and the like.

I think people who make this claim are being disingenuous. (That’s partly why they use the term “affirmative action” instead of “racial preferences.”) Do domestic violence shelters for women fall into the categories of government employment, education, or contracting? No, they do not.

According to the American Civil Rights Institute’s Jennifer Gratz, plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Gratz v. Bollinger, even if domestic violence shelters for women fell into one or more of these categories, there would be an exception for bone fide qualifications based on sex. She noted that the four states in which preferences are banned still have domestic violence shelters.

KVOA interviewed a few people for their story about Prop. 107, including Gratz:

“Two wrongs don’t make a right”…When Gratz applied to the University of Michigan in 1995, she thought she had a pretty good shot. She had good grades and scores and was student council vice president. But Gratz was rejected and says there were different admissions standards depending on skin color.
“I had thought that I had put together a good application and once I found out that my race was used against me in that application process, I thought that that was wrong,” Gratz said.
Gratz filed a lawsuit against the school which went all the way to the Supreme Court. The court decided Michigan’s specific policy was unconstitutional, but in another case, said that race can be used in the admissions process.
“The best way to make sure people aren’t discriminated against is to stop discriminating,” Gratz said.

KVOA also quotes Lea Marquez Peterson, President and CEO of the Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce: “Beyond the business perspective it could impact domestic violence shelter funding for women, teen pregnancy funding.”

Does the chamber of commerce really believe Prop. 107 would block funding for shelters? (I hope no tax funds aren’t going to abortion services for teens or adults, but that’s another topic for a different blog and beyond the scope of Prop. 107.)

I suspect not. But it makes for a good sound bite for those already inclined to vote against race- and sex-neutrality in government employment, education, and contracting.

from http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/10/05/domestic-violence-shelters-and-prop-107-redux/

Arizona Daily Star Q & A with Prop. 107: Government should not favor one race, gender or ethnicity over another

2010-10-02T12:53:00.000-07:00

By Leon Drolet, campaign manager for Yes on 107.

Question 1. How would passage of Proposition 107 affect minorities in Arizona?

No matter what name the government gives it - "affirmative action," "quotas," "diversity goals," "race preferences" - programs that treat people differently because of their skin color are discrimination and a violation of citizens' civil rights. Civil rights belong to all people, whatever their race or gender.

Passing Proposition 107 stops the government from picking winners and losers based on race or sex. The language is simple and clear: The state shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education and public contracting.

Proposition 107 would affect minorities and non-minorities the same way: Government would treat each individual person based on merit and character. Today, ethnicities given preferences include blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans. Asians, Indians, Arabs, Europeans and other ethnicities can be required to meet higher standards for government jobs or college admission.

Nationally, some universities are considering giving men preferences because women are now "overrepresented" on campuses.

Today's preference "winners" may be tomorrow's preference "losers."

Government shouldn't treat anybody differently because of their race or gender.

Read the rest of the Q & A on the Star's website

Espressopundit: Arizona Republic not accurate to say Prop. 107 "failed" in Arizona 2 years ago

2010-10-02T12:45:00.000-07:00

Great analysis from Greg Patterson at espressopundit.com -

Just one Nit to Pick...

The Republic's Doug MacEachern has a good summary of the upcoming propositions together with his predictions of the winners and losers. I do, however, want to point out one sentence that's not clear.

Proposition 107: This is the Ward Connerly-backed proposal to ban affirmative-action programs, aka racial preferences. It is the same measure that failed in Arizona two years ago.

Saying that the proposition "failed" implies that it was rejected by the voters. The 2008 version of Prop. 107 was disqualified from the ballot--together with the TIME Transportation Initiative and the Trust Fund initiative--due to a high signature failure rate.

I don't think that Doug is trying to foist a "people have spoken" argument on us. I think he just made a small error.

The Star however is blatant in its attempt to claim that "the people" have spoken.

Arizonans have already spoken on this proposition.

In 2008 supporters failed to get enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot. This time around, the Legislature referred it to the ballot.

That's simply absurd.

Press conference tomorrow to denounce fake Taxpayers group opposing the propositions

2010-09-30T14:15:00.000-07:00

Beware of fake taxpayer group pushing left-wing agenda

Sign from fake taxpayer groupJoin us for a news conference this Friday, October 1
Dear AZ Taxpayer,
Please let your friends and neighbors know that a fake taxpayer organization, the “Arizona Taxpayers Association,” has been created to defend Big Government policies in the November 2 ballot proposition battles. The group (if it can even be called a group), which has been set up by Democratic political consultant Bob Grossfeld and labor union officer Jim McLaughlin, opposes several propositions that will actually BENEFIT Arizona taxpayers, producers, and consumers, and increase our freedom.
The so-called Arizona Taxpayers Association has no members and no history of ever lobbying on behalf of taxpayers, and appears to have been operating in possible violation of Arizona campaign finance laws (the organization placed campaign signs but apparently did not file with the Secretary of State prior to conducting its political activities, as required by Arizona law). A photo of one of the signs is posted at http://www.aztaxpayers.org, under What’s New.
Three of the propositions opposed by Grossfeld and McLaughlin and their fake organization are especially vital to the future well-being of Arizona taxpayers, producers, and consumers:
Prop 106 – The Arizona Health Care Freedom Act
Prop 107 – The Arizona Civil Rights Initiative
Prop 113 – Save Our Secret Ballot
In order to expose this leftist sham perpetrated by Grossfeld and McLaughlin, the Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity (AFP Arizona) is holding a news conference this Friday, October 1, at 11:30 am, at the Goldwater Institute, at 500 E. Coronado Road (one block north of McDowell, just west of 7th Street).
AFP Arizona, which has served the taxpayers of Arizona since 2007, grew out of the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers Associations (AFTA), which served from 1980 to 2007, producing an annual “Friend of the Taxpayer” legislative scorecard every year from 1984 to 2006. Representing the “old guard” of AFTA at Friday’s news conference will be former AFTA chairmen Rep. Rick Murphy (R-Peoria) and Mr. Bob Burges. Also present will be spokespersons representing several of the propositions attacked by the fake organization.
Please support your REAL Arizona taxpayer watchdog, Americans for Prosperity. AFP Arizona asks all of its members to invest at least $10 a year in our efforts. You can invest in AFP Arizona by clicking on the Contribute button in the upper righthand corner of our homepage,http://www.aztaxpayers.org. Or, you can send checks to:
Americans for Prosperity, AZ
One East Camelback Road, Suite 550
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Thank you so much for all you do to fight for the Arizona taxpayer!
For Liberty, Tom
Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
www.aztaxpayers.org
tjenney@afphq.org
(602) 478-0146

Arizona Republic endorses Prop. 107

2010-09-30T10:33:00.001-07:00

Affirmative action no longer useful

Sept. 30, 2010
The Arizona Republic

Affirmative action was a catch-up plan, adding extra opportunity where it had been missing in education and the workplace. The time was going to come when affirmative action was no longer necessary.

That time is now.

Voters should approve Proposition 107, which would amend the Arizona Constitution to ban affirmative-action programs in public employment, public education or public contracting.

Affirmative action has reached the point where its drawbacks outweigh its advantages. We need to stop putting a well-intended thumb on the scale.

Setting exact quotas for minorities and women in every category of job - as has been done at some universities - is just ludicrous.

Minorities and women can find that their achievements are shadowed by the assumption that they got an extra leg up through affirmative action.

Our changing world means that the group benefiting from affirmative action can suddenly change. While public universities used to make an effort to include women, the enrollment ratios have reversed so much that some are now discriminating in favor of men.

The last presidential election showed that being an African-American is no barrier to reaching the pinnacle of power in the United States.

The best way to make sure every Arizonan has access to a level playing field is to get rid of affirmative action with a "yes" vote on Proposition 107.

Yes on 107 Campaign Challenges U of A President to Sacrifice his Position for “Diversity”

2010-09-29T11:41:00.001-07:00

University of Arizona President Robert Shelton stated in a recent interview with the Arizona Daily Star that he opposes Proposition 107, which would ban race and gender preferences in government, including in higher education. Mr. Shelton further stated that, if 107 is adopted by voters, he “will not back off one bit” from the university’s efforts to promote “diversity” and recruit more women and minorities.

The university’s diversity goals, which are posted on their website, include hiring specified percentages of women and minorities. These hiring quotas include goals for women to comprise 63% of new Assistant Director Administrators, 73% of Animal Technicians, and 56% of the Faculty in Fine Arts. Goals for minority hires include 53% of General Maintenance positions and 59% of Supervisors in Service/Maintenance.

“President Shelton appears concerned that if Prop. 107 passes, the university won’t be able to put ‘diversity goals’ ahead of ‘most qualified’,” said Proposition 107 campaign chair, Rachel Alexander. “I bet there’s a woman or a ‘minority’ that meets the minimum
qualifications to be president of the University. I challenge President Shelton to walk his own talk and step down for the sake of ‘diversity’. His $549,400 position could be given to an affirmative action applicant. Or perhaps he believes that discriminating quotas should only apply to other people, but not to him?”

Former AZ Democrat Party chair & union boss behind fake taxpayers association to try and steal election!

2010-09-27T12:15:00.001-07:00

Sham nonexistent "Arizona Taxpayers Association" group exposed! Former Arizona Democrat Party chairman Sam Coppersmith and union boss Jim McLaughlin have been caught trying to steal the election! This nonexistent group has put up red signs around Arizona saying vote no on the propositions. In reality, most taxpayer advocacy groups would FAVOR most of the propositions. Click here for the website exposing this fraud.

Service Employees International Union funding anti-Prop. 107 efforts

2010-09-26T11:08:00.000-07:00

This comes as no surprise, the unions make money off of unfair racial and gender preferences. The AP article at ABC-15 is below. Also, to clarify something brought up in the article: "Good" affirmative action would not be eliminated, the kind of affirmative action originally envisioned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That referred to action taken to make sure minorities or women aren't discriminated against, for example, disciplining an employee who was observed overtly discriminating against a woman or minority. It is the bad kind of affirmative action which started showing up after this Act was passed that would be eliminated - race and gender preferences.

PHOENIX - Arizona voters will decide in November whether to ban state and local governments from discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity and sex.

The state constitutional amendment doesn't use the term "affirmative action," but there is no disputing that is what Proposition 107 is aimed at eliminating. Such programs generally give preferences to minorities.

The referendum was sent to the Nov. 2 ballot by a vote of the Legislature in 2009 after supporters failed to gather enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot in 2008.

This year's proposed amendment contains exemptions for "bona fide" qualifications based on sex and for a preference or program whose elimination would violate a court order or lead to the loss of federal funds.

That can be a broad exemption, because federal money often comes with requirements that its recipient have some sort of affirmative action plan in place.

The affirmative action ban has for years been pushed nationally by Ward Connerly, a businessman and former California education official. A group he heads, the Sacramento-based American Civil Rights Institute, backed the failed 2008 signature-gathering effort in Arizona and had donated $50,000 so far this month to the Yes on 107! campaign. That's virtually all the funding the group has received.

The Service Employees International Union has given $10,000 to the No on 107 campaign, the majority of its funding so far.

California, Washington, Nebraska and Michigan voters have approved affirmative action bans backed by Connerly. Voters in Colorado rejected one in 2008.

Connerly, who is black, argues that race- and sex-based preferences are no longer needed in America and points to the election of Barack Obama as proof.

Opponents of the measure argue that Arizona eliminated "affirmative action" programs years ago and that the Connerly-backed referendum goes much farther by banning the "equal opportunity" programs that remain. They say those programs generally help people, often women or minorities, who have already qualified but need extra help overcoming disadvantages.

"You shouldn't get into school unless you're qualified to get into college -- everyone agrees," said state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema. "But once you get into college, we have a number of programs at our public universities ... that help people who are already qualified, already admitted to the university, simply succeed in their chosen field."

Connerly disputed Sinema's contention that affirmative action has been outlawed in the state, and said if that was the case her group shouldn't be opposing Proposition 107.

"The reality is that our initiative does not mention affirmative action ... it talks about preferential treatment," Connerly said. "And when the city of Tucson gives a 7 percent bid preference (on contracts) to minorities, that's a preference. And that is against our initiative and it would be outlawed."

Sinema pointed to a program that supports women who are studying science, technology, engineering and math as one that would be cut off from state funding if Proposition 107 became law. Only a quarter of students in those fields are women, and she says it is clear that it is important to provide them extra support to encourage them to complete studies in those fields.

Connerly says that program would still be legal if Proposition 107 passes -- if it admitted men as well as women.

East Valley Tribune article on Prop. 107

2010-09-25T10:37:00.000-07:00

Some excerpts from the article -

Voters will decide at the ballot this year if they want to outlaw affirmative action programs and any special programs or preferences for women and minorities.

Proposition 107 would prohibit preferential treatment or discrimination by government on the basis of race, sex or ethnic origin. It would specifically apply to employment, education and contracting.

Proponents say that the language simply reflects the goals of a color-blind society. In fact, Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park, who sponsored the measure to amend the Arizona Constitution, has invoked the verbiage the 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., who said he looked forward to when "little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

That exception is at the heart of a provision of Tucson City Code which provides eligible firms of minorities which have not received their fair share of contracts an "adjustment" allowing them to bid up to 7 percent more on product or service contracts and still win. And there are procedures to give bonus points to certain firms bidding on professional services.

Montenegro said the affirmative action programs which started out to outlaw discrimination now actually promote it. He said the measure, if approved, would truly create a level playing field, at least in government programs.

Others, however, defend the system of preference points.

In a statement of opposition to Proposition 107, Lea Peterson, president of the Tucson Hispanic Chamber, said studies have shown that firms owned by women and minorities "may lack key procurement business relationships and consequently be left off of preferred vendor lists without such a system."

But five southern Arizona Republican legislators, in their own statement of support, said the aim of the measure is to ensure equal treatment.

"All these government preferences are saying is women, minorities, people of color aren't good enough to create a natural, genuine diversity on the merits," said Sens. Frank Antenori and Al Melvin and Reps. David Gowan, Ted Vogt and David Stevens. "No person should be entitled to ‘special' programs solely based on their race or sex."

The measure contains an exception for any action necessary to maintain eligibility for any federal program if doing otherwise would result in a loss of federal dollars to the state. It also would not apply to any court orders or consent decrees in force if and when the measure is enacted.

Goldwater Institute: New health care law forces affirmative action on medical schools

2010-09-25T09:57:00.000-07:00

by Diane Cohen

President Barack Obama’s new health care law doesn’t just radically transform our nation’s medical system; it contains provisions that require discrimination on the basis of race.
It starts at page 516 of the more than 2,000 page law, in a section that allows the Obama administration to give grants and contracts to training hospitals and medical schools. In awarding this federal money, the law requires the administration to give preferences to hospitals and schools based on the racial makeup of their student body. Moreover, hospitals and schools who receive these federal funds must engage in race-based student recruitment as well.

In several letters to Congress, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission called on Congress to reject these discriminatory provisions and consider “proven methods of improving health care outcomes.” But the Civil Rights Commission said forcing medical schools to use race-based admissions policies assumes differences in the health of people from different races are caused by a shortage of doctors from those races. This misdiagnoses the problem, the Commission said, pointing to studies that show health care disparities do not result from a lack of medical professionals of particular races.

Further, the Commission stressed that congressionally-mandated affirmative action is likely to be thrown out as unconstitutional.

Certainly, attracting talented people to medicine is a worthy goal. But individuals should not be singled out and given special benefits based on their race to reach that goal. Likewise, the Obama administration should not force hospitals and schools to recruit students based on race to obtain federal money.

There is something we can do right here in Arizona to ensure equal treatment under the law. The Goldwater Institute is working in federal court to strike down the entire health care bill. Also, Arizona voters will consider Proposition 107 during the Nov. 2 general election. Called the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, Prop. 107 offers an amendment to the state constitution that forbids race-based policies for any taxpayer-funded agency or program. The citizens of Arizona have the power to say “yes” to equal opportunity for all Arizonans, and “no” to unfair and unlawful policies that focus on anyone’s race or ethnic background.

Diane Cohen is an attorney with the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:
Goldwater Institute: Coons v. Geithner
Proposition 107: The Arizona Civil Rights Initiative
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: pp. 516-21; 538-551
U.S. Civil Rights Commission: Letters to Congress

AZ Capitol Times coverage

2010-09-25T09:51:00.000-07:00

Some excerpts from the article -

Ward Connerly has carved a career, and a reputation, out of striking down affirmative action, starting with university programs in his home state of California. Now Connerly and his American Civil Rights Institute are bringing the fight to Arizona.

Proposition 107 seeks to amend the Arizona Constitution to ban state government and municipalities from giving preferential treatment on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity or national origin. This includes everything from state-funded programs that help women and minorities in areas where there is a disparity, such as science education, to hiring quotas in the state university system.

The programs are designed to correct inequities in gender or race, but Connerly thinks they’re just another form of discrimination.

“Why should anybody’s tax money be used to discriminate?” he said. “I wouldn’t want anyone discriminating against me.”

During his tenure as a University of California regent, Connerly took aim at race-based admission preferences and was the public face of a 1996 ballot initiative in which California banned race and gender preferences in state-funded programs and institutions.

Since then, he has led successful efforts in Washington, Michigan and Nebraska to make the practice illegal in state and city hiring and university admissions.

Connerly’s message is underscored by a notion that equal treatment is the essence of civil rights. His Sacramento, Calif.-based American Civil Rights Institute contends that government policies shouldn’t advocate group rights over individual rights.

Connerly said there is a simple solution for these programs the opposition claims would be eliminated. “All they have to do is admit anybody,” he said.

The language of Propositon 107 does exempt “reasonably necessary qualifications based on sex, existing court orders and actions that would result in the loss of federal funds.”

The issue hasn’t attracted much funding to date.

The Yes on 107 committee hasn’t filed any financial reports with the Secretary of State’s Office. Two groups opposing the proposition, Protect Arizona’s Freedom and the Equality and Opportunity Committee, have registered $100 and $1,1111 in income, respectively.

Leon Drolet, campaign manager for Yes On 107, said the proposition will also affect city programs, such as the Minority and Woman-Owned Business Program in Tucson, which provides incentives to certified firms within the county to conduct business with the city.

According to Drolet, those meeting the city’s favored ethnic status in certain categories receive bid preferences of up to 7 percent on contracts.

Bob Barton, project manager for the Office of Equal Opportunity in Tucson, said the city provides preferences when it has identified disparities in three sectors: construction, professional services and goods and services.

The city of Tucson last paid $500,000 in November 2008 a for study that is valid for five years to pinpoint where disparities exist.

Barton added the city has a race- and gender-neutral small business program. He sees Proposition 107 as having very little impact on local Tucson firms because 95 percent qualify for the race- and gender-neutral program.

Drolet also said hiring quotas, or goals, for state jobs would be illegal under the measure. The University of Arizona’s Office of Institutional Equity posts its placement goals for job-specific hiring, with a percentage of hires allocated to be female and a separate percentage to be minorities.

“Many know these policies are unpopular with the public, so they don’t make them easy to find,” Drolet said.

Johnny Cruz, the university’s assistant vice president for communications, said UA isn’t taking an official stance on the proposition but will study the potential “intended and unintended consequences” closely.

Connerly said he’s optimistic Proposition 107 will pass because everyone deserves a fair chance.

“If you believe in the American creed of all people are created equal, how can you oppose this?” he said.

States that have approved ballot measures banning affirmative action programs:

• California
• Washington
• Michigan
• Nebraska

Yes on 107! launches Billboard Blitz!

2010-09-24T10:50:00.001-07:00

Arizona motorists are being greeted by a blitz of billboard advertising urging a ‘Yes’ vote on Proposition 107, which would end affirmative action programs that give preferences based on race.

“This highway billboard campaign is designed to make clear to voters what Proposition 107 is, in language that everyday Arizonans understand,” said Rachel Alexander, Chair of the Yes on 107 campaign. “A ‘yes’ vote on Prop. 107 will end affirmative action policies that people know as quotas, race preferences, reverse discrimination and ‘diversity goals’.”

Nine Phoenix-area billboards are carrying a Yes on 107 message. The billboards encourage voters to vote ‘yes’ on ending affirmative action quotas, ending race preferences, and ending reverse discrimination.

“More highway billboards will be lit up with the ‘Yes on 107’ message in the next few weeks,” stated Yes on 107 campaign manager Leon Drolet. “Given the large number of candidates and issues on the ballot, voters need a clear and simple explanation of Proposition 107. That it what this billboard campaign is about.”

Proposition 107 is a proposed state constitutional amendment placed on the November ballot by the Arizona State Legislature that will prohibit the state and local governments from granting preferential treatment to, or discriminating against, any person or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education or contracting.

Video interview with Jen Gratz of Yes on 107

2010-09-22T11:55:00.001-07:00

Center for Equal Opportunity: There is documented affirmative action occurring at Arizona's two law schools

2010-09-22T07:54:00.000-07:00

The Center for Equal Opportunity has submitted a well-written ballot argument for the Arizona Secretary of State's publicity pamphlet, citing a study it did which found "extremely heavy weight given to race and ethnicity in admission to Arizona’s two state law schools, at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University." The argument also cites a study Clint Bolick from the Goldwater Institute did exposing where affirmative action is used throughout Arizona government.

Ahwatukee Foothills News interview with Jen Gratz from Yes on Prop. 107

2010-09-19T15:41:00.000-07:00

Some excerpts from the article -

"We should be judging people on their character and their merit and not their skin color or their sex," said Jennifer Gratz, a Prop 107 advocate with the Sacramento-based nonprofit American Civil Rights Coalition.
Gratz, who was in Ahwatukee Foothills this week, entered the national spotlight in the mid-1990s when she sued the University of Michigan based on the claim that she unfairly was denied entry to its law school because of affirmative action policies. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gratz's favor, striking down the policy. Since then, she has joined forces with former University of California regent Ward Connerly, who has campaigned for laws banning affirmative action in several states.

The Arizona ballot initiative, locally championed by state Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-Litchfield Park), mirrors policies adopted in states like California, Washington, Florida, Michigan and Nebraska, Gratz said.

If adopted, the law would prohibit the use of affirmative action in public employment, public education and public contracting.

"There are actual programs in this state that discriminate against some to give preference to others. Any programs that do give preference or discriminate based on race or sex would have to be opened up to everyone," Gratz said. "It's the basic argument that the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers based on race or sex."

Gratz said it's better to focus on socio-economic status. Affirmative action policies aren't necessarily targeted to help those in need, she said.

"If there's anyone we're going to help, it should be kids that have struggled and didn't have all the advantages," she said.

Affirmative action policies can have negative effects, such as causing resentment among people who may feel, fairly or not, that they've been discriminated against, Gratz said. Such policies also potentially can foster the perception that individual women and minority members may have benefited from such programs unfairly, even though their achievements were based on merit, she said.

It's important to have racial and gender diversity, but not at the expense of people's right to be treated equally by the government, she said.

Arizona Republic calls out ANOTHER incorrect statement by opponents of Prop. 107

2010-09-16T10:54:00.000-07:00

First the Republic called out a claim by the committee against 107 which falsely implied that that legislators had wrongly referred 107 to the ballot. Now they are calling out the Arizona Education Association for falsely claiming that certain programs will be gutted if the initiative passes. The truth is, where similar initiatives have passed in other states, those programs that benefit women and minorities have not been eliminated.

Law professors say there has never been a challenge to such programs in California.

Although there is a possibility that such programs could face lawsuits if the proposition passes, their fate would ultimately be left up to a judge. There is limited precedent to determine whether such programs violate the law.

Upward Bound is based on economic status or a student's status as the first in his or her family to go to college, so it likely does not violate the terms of the proposition, law professors say.

Those professors say that it would be difficult to win a lawsuit against WISE if the program does not exclude male students from its benefits but only actively recruits women.

What Prop. 207 would eliminate is programs that require certain numbers or percentages of women or minorities in government education, contracting or employment.

Read the Republic's full analysis.

Vote in About.com poll on whether you support Prop. 107's ban on affirmative action

2010-09-15T17:06:00.001-07:00

So far more people are voting in favor of it.

Arizona conservative bloggers meetup this Saturday with Ward Connerly

2010-09-15T17:03:00.001-07:00

Arizona Bloggers – Conservative
Food, Fun, Fabulous conversation

We have the honor of welcoming special guest Ward Connerly, founder and chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, to this month’s meeting. It will be an honor to welcome him, and I know he will have some good input on Proposition 107

September 18th, 1:00 – 4:30 pm
Sun Up Brewing
(We’ll be in the out building – the Brewers’ Den)
322 E. Camelback Rd.
Phoenix, AZ

I hope many of you will be available to join us.
R.S.V.P. here if you are on Facebook

AZ Republic calls No on 107 campaign out for inaccurate accusation about getting 107 on the ballot

2010-09-14T10:58:00.001-07:00

The Arizona Republic has nicely dissected a falsehood the No on 107 campaign is spreading, that legislators wrongly used their positions to put the initiative on the ballot. Well duh, that's how most Arizona initiatives get on the ballot, through the legislature referring them! There is nothing unethical, nor wrong, about Senator Russell Pearce and State Representative Steve Montenegro referring 107 to the ballot. The other way to get an initiative on the ballot is to collect 230,000 signatures. The No on 107 campaign is trying to imply that it was unethical to use the legislative route instead of collecting signatures. Seriously.

Ward Connerly dishes about the accusations that Tea Parties are racist

2010-09-13T10:54:00.000-07:00

If I have learned one thing from life, it is that race is the engine that drives the political Left. When all else fails, that segment of America goes to the default position of using race to achieve its objectives. In the courtrooms, on college campuses, and, most especially, in our politics, race is a central theme. Where it does not naturally rise to the surface, there are those who will manufacture and amplify it.

Such is the case with the claims that the “Tea Partiers” are a bunch of racists and that many of them spat upon members of the Congressional Black Caucus and called them “n*****s.” I am convinced beyond any doubt that all of this is part of the strategic plan being implemented by the Left in its current campaign to remake America.

In a video that has been played repeatedly showing CBC members as they walked past the tea partiers, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is seen using his telephone to tape the event. If he had any evidence to corroborate the racial claims, why hasn’t he come forward with his phone by now to settle this matter? I believe we all know the answer.

By their reckless accusations, those who are alleging “racism” without evidence are doing inestimable harm to the social fabric of America.

<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/197441/inestimable-harm/ward-connerly">Read the full article at <i>National Review</i></a>

ASU forum on Prop. 107 only features one side, spreads disinformation

2010-09-09T14:44:00.001-07:00

ASU's National Pan Hellenic Council put on a forum to discuss Prop. 107 last week. The Yes on 107 side wasn't given enough advance notice and could not participate. The following video clip released after the event reveals misinformation by the anti-Prop. 107 speakers. They said that Prop. 107 is not about affirmative action, since affirmative action was banned in Arizona in the 1970s. Huh? If so, then why did they then list off a bunch of affirmative action programs that would be cut if the initiative passes? Guess those programs musta missed this alleged chopping block in the 1970s!

And their accusations that those programs would be cut weren't even accurate. When similar initiatives have passed in other states, those programs have continued, they've just morphed slightly to include everyone - while still keeping their main focus on assisting women or minorities.

It was claimed that Ward Connerly started these initiatives as the result of a grudge over not winning a bid on a California government project years ago. This makes absolutely no sense. Ward is a black man, so the reason he was not awarded the bid was not related to affirmative action.

One speaker asserted that the purpose of the initiative is to hurt minorities' and women's graduation and retention rates. This claim was just bizarre. Where the initiative has passed, it has increased their success rates. From http://arizonacri.org/Home/MythsOtherResources.aspx

FACT: “If you compare 1995-96 with 1999-01 — a clear before-and-after Prop 209 comparison,” says Sander, a longtime liberal civil rights activist, “you’ll see that, for African-Americans, the 1995 class had a four-year graduation rate of 26%, while the 2001 class had a 52% graduation rate [Hispanics numbers are comparable]. For whites and Asians, it barely changes. This is almost certainly due largely to the reduction of preferences. The five and six-year grad rates for minorities get pretty close to the white rates [within five points], which of course means that differences in academic performance have also narrowed a lot.”
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne

Prop 209 has largely worked as advertised, has not adversely affected women, and, most impressively, has benefited minorities by dramatically increasing graduation rates, thus boosting their chance for success in the job market.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne

In 2005, Sander cited race preferences for blacks failing the bar exam at four times the rate of whites nationally: “Black students admitted through preferences generally have quite low grades — not because of any racial characteristic, but because the preferences themselves put them at an enormous academic disadvantage.” The perverse result is that “the benefits of attending an elite school have been substantially overrated...job market data suggests that most black lawyers entering the job market would have higher earnings in the absence of preferential admissions, because better grades trump the costs in prestige.”
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/219094/precedents-and-preferences/henry-payne

Politics on the Rocks anniversary event with Ward Connerly

2010-09-08T15:48:00.001-07:00

Politics on the Rocks is proud to announce our 3 Year Anniversary Party on Thursday, September 16th 6:00 PM at the place where it all started Revolver Lounge located at 7316 E. Stetson Drive in Scottsdale, Arizona. To celebrate this milestone in networking, Arizona’s largest Republican & Conservative networking group has decided to buy everyone’s first drink!!! Dj-Mikyl will be performing live and everyone is welcome to attend t…his free event. Bring business cards and come and meet new and exciting politically-minded people. We would like to thank Scottsdale Nights and Revolver Lounge for their support.

After 36 monthly events and thousands of networkers coming to our functions nationally, we are excited to show our appreciation to everyone that has made Politics on the Rocks possible.

We are excited to announce that Ward Connerly will be speaking at our 3 Year Anniversary Party. Ward Connerly, is founder and President of the American Civil Rights Institute – a national, not-for-profit organization aimed at educating the public about the need to move beyond race and, specifically, racial and gender preferences. Mr. Connerly has gained national attention as an outspoken advocate of equal opportunity for all Americans, regardless of race, sex, or ethnic background. r. Connerly has been profiled on 60 Minutes, the cover of Parade magazine, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek magazine, and virtually every major news magazine in America. He has also appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Crossfire, Hannity & Colmes, Meet the Press, Dateline, NBC Nightly News, CNN, and C-SPAN.

Politics on the Rocks was formed to educate, motivate, and organize like-minded professionals together where they can network, socialize and hear directly from prominent political and business leaders on matters of social, economic and public importance. Recently, Politics on the Rocks was featured in the Arizona Republic. To view this article please click on this link:http://www.azcentral.com/thingstodo/bars/articles/2010/08/23/20100823political-candidates-meet-young-voters-drinks.html

Please invite your friends and welcome them to join our facebook group by sharing the following link: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=14328535931&ref=ts

Also, join our facebook fan page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Politics-on-the-Rocks/126257510733252?ref=search

Order your Politics on the Rocks merchandise here:http://www.cafepress.com/PoliticsontheRocksMerchandise

We look forward to seeing everyone on September 16th 6:00 PM at Revolver Lounge!

Regards,

Politics on the Rocks National Committee
http://www.PoliticsontheRocks.com/

False information spread by the anti-Prop. 107 opposition

2010-09-08T15:47:00.001-07:00

Here is a classic example of how the anti-Civil Rights Initiative radicals are spreading false information in order to try and sway public opinion about the initiative. They are desperate, because polls show that over 80% of Arizonans are in favor of Prop. 107, which would ban race and gender preferences in government contracting, employment and education.

On the opposition's misnamed "Protect Arizona Freedom" website (should be more accurately named "Protect Arizona Freedom to Discriminate in Government"), they complain that certain types of government programs benefiting women and minorities will be eliminated. Here's one example they list:

Arizona State University Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) program. This program seeks to improve the climate for women in the Fulton School at ASU. Currently, WISE offers many programs to encourage women to pursue academic majors and careers in engineering.

In reality? From the Yes on 107 website,

WISE, a higher education program, is geared toward women, but it is also open to males. In California, Washington and Michigan, three states that have passed similar initiatives, WISE programs continue to operate.

Unfortunately, the opposition has made it clear in the past that it will use tactics like this to try and defeat the initiative. Stay tuned.

Ward Connerly addresses Prop. 107 at Republican Women of Prescott event

2010-09-08T15:29:00.000-07:00

Click here to read about the initiative as discussed with the Republican Women of Prescott, and watch video clips of Ward speaking to the group. The article quotes far left legislator Kyrsten Sinema, who claims that affirmative action does not exist in Arizona. This is inaccurate.

From the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative website -

FACT: This would be laughable if it wasn’t serious. Proponents of race preferences first lay out all the reasons (even if they may be untrue and/or invalid reasons) as to why they believe “affirmative action” policies that give preference based on race are still necessary today and then are quoted as saying the policies don’t exist. If that’s the case, then why fight to be able to keep discriminatory policies in place? This myth shows that the opposition is disingenuous and will say and do anything to further their agenda.

Now, go to the the opposition's list of AFFIRMATIVE ACTION programs that they claim would be ended if Prop. 107 passes! (also refuted on the AZCRI website)

Yes! on 107

We won :-)

Why women should support Proposition 107

Blog for Arizona writer resorts to claiming Yes on Proposition 107 said something else since they're losing the argument

Evidence the UofA considers race in admissions; plus myths propagated by Arizona Students Association

Proposition 107, False Facts, and More Reasons to Vote Yes

Prop. 107 opposition trots out false argument that Prop. 107 will eliminate domestic violence shelters and breast cancer screening

Yes on 107 election night party at the Hyatt - stop by

Misleading Prop. 107 opposition signs claim they help women - but they don't tell you how affirmative action is hurting women

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

Not true that Yes on 107 has gotten it wrong on higher education

Refuting the "5 reasons to reject Prop. 107" article

New Poll: Independents Support Prop. 107

Opponents of Prop 107 now believe that admitted colorblind policies promote institutional racism!!

Radio interview with Ward Connerly about Prop. 107

Arizona Republic editorializes in favor of Prop. 107 - AGAIN

Lame article by "Arizona University Watch" repeats same old myths about Prop. 107

Apology given for Twitter threat against Ward Connerly

UA law students' arguments against Prop. 107 are full of holes

Prop. 107 opposition wrong to complain that less women/minorities will be admitted to higher ed

Prop. 107 opposition is hypocritical - their biggest donor is a union OUTSIDE the state

Ward Connerly in Green Valley discusses the term "African-American"

Prop. 107 leader makes GV push

By Karen WalengaGreen Valley News

Sonoran News: Jen Gratz on affirmative action and Prop. 107

Yes on 107: Ending “Affirmative Action” guarantees fair treatment for all

Yes on 107 files complaint with Secretary of State about sham AZ Taxpayers' Association

Firefighter Frank Ricci who sued over preferences has op-ed on Prop. 107

Tempe Chamber of Commerce, East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance and Arizona Farm Bureau Federation support Prop. 107

AZ Latino Republican GOP Communications Director supports Prop. 107: Race favoritism is simply unjust

Court issues restraining order against anti-Prop 107 spokesperson who threatens to assault Ward Connerly

Yuma Sun endorses Prop. 107

Discrimination wrong answer for inequality

Arizona Republic refutes another false claim by Prop. 107 opposition

Ward Connerly on Fox News reacts to poll showing 91% of black voters still support Obama

Prop. 107 debate this Thursday at the Goldwater Institute featuring Ward Connerly v. David Lujan

Yes on 107! launches radio ad

Yes on 107 news

Jen Gratz trounces Kyrsten Sinema in Prop. 107 debate on Fox 10

More lies being spread about Prop. 107 by its opponents

Jennifer Gratz on Proposition 107

UA president on warpath

by Becky Fenger, Sonoran News

"Our diversity is one of our greatest assets."

--- UA President Robert Shelton

Domestic Violence Shelters and Prop 107 Redux

Arizona Daily Star Q & A with Prop. 107: Government should not favor one race, gender or ethnicity over another

Espressopundit: Arizona Republic not accurate to say Prop. 107 "failed" in Arizona 2 years ago

Just one Nit to Pick...

Press conference tomorrow to denounce fake Taxpayers group opposing the propositions

Beware of fake taxpayer group pushing left-wing agenda

Arizona Republic endorses Prop. 107

Yes on 107 Campaign Challenges U of A President to Sacrifice his Position for “Diversity”

Former AZ Democrat Party chair & union boss behind fake taxpayers association to try and steal election!

Service Employees International Union funding anti-Prop. 107 efforts

East Valley Tribune article on Prop. 107

Goldwater Institute: New health care law forces affirmative action on medical schools

AZ Capitol Times coverage

Yes on 107! launches Billboard Blitz!

Video interview with Jen Gratz of Yes on 107

Center for Equal Opportunity: There is documented affirmative action occurring at Arizona's two law schools

Ahwatukee Foothills News interview with Jen Gratz from Yes on Prop. 107

Arizona Republic calls out ANOTHER incorrect statement by opponents of Prop. 107

Vote in About.com poll on whether you support Prop. 107's ban on affirmative action

Arizona conservative bloggers meetup this Saturday with Ward Connerly

AZ Republic calls No on 107 campaign out for inaccurate accusation about getting 107 on the ballot

Ward Connerly dishes about the accusations that Tea Parties are racist

ASU forum on Prop. 107 only features one side, spreads disinformation

Politics on the Rocks anniversary event with Ward Connerly

False information spread by the anti-Prop. 107 opposition

Ward Connerly addresses Prop. 107 at Republican Women of Prescott event

By Karen Walenga
Green Valley News