With all eyes trained on Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary and last week’s Iowa caucus, a Missouri court earlier this week handed down a major win to supporters of colorblind government. As they attempt to pass a ballot initiative barring government preferences based on race, sex, or ethnicity, Ward Connerly and other campaigners had to fight in court to prevent their measure from being deliberately misrepresented on the ballot.

The question revolves around the wording that will be posed to voters in November. Normally, the Secretary of State is responsible for writing this copy, but Judge Richard Callahan’s ruling rejected the language proposed by Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan. Instead, Judge Callahan adopted wording almost identical to what the initiative’s supporters had proposed.

		McCarthy: An Unreasonable Decision Lopez: The Week Sex Spruiell: Seven Big Lies about the Stimulus Costa: No Amnesty for Obamacare Geraghty: A Tale of Six Counties Spruiell: Saved, Created, or Fake? Williamson: War Is the Health of the Taxman Lowry: On Health Care, Should Dems Fear Failure or Success? Nordlinger: Criticism that will cost you, &c. Charen: Nurse Ratched Democrats Sowell: Solving Whose Problem? Symposium: Condition Serious but Not Hopeless Williamson: The Battle of Presidio Editors: Decision Time on Iran Interview: Tom Brady & KSM Black: The Specter of Default

Here is the court-approved language, only slightly different from the language proposed by the Missouri Civil Rights Iiniative’s backers:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
Ban state and local government affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment in public contracting, employment, or education based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin unless such programs are necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for federal funding or to comply with a court order?

Carnahan wanted to use this language instead:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
Ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and
Allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?

In his decision, Callahan — who is known as a liberal judge — called Carnahan’s rewording “troubling” because it implies that the initiative would create new “preferential treatment” programs, which it would not. It also implies that the program only bans preferential treatment for “women and minorities,” when in fact it would also ban preferential treatment for men and whites.

Backers of MCRI said that this was the first time in Missouri history that a judge has overruled the Secretary of State over ballot language for an initiative.

“It was a big victory,” said Connerly, who is also spearheading efforts to pass similar ballot measures in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, and Oklahoma this November. Connerly and his allies have faced stiff opposition in getting these measures on the ballot — particularly in Oklahoma, where state law requires an unreasonable number of signatures to be gathered over 90 days. (Click here to view efforts in Tulsa to inhibit and intimidate Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative’s signature collectors.)


CONTINUED    1    2  Next >