What does this mean for the nation-wide affirmative action debate?
I suspect that it depends on the way it is challenged in Federal Court. The language of the ballot was:
Now, in this context, what does “Affirmative Action” mean? And what does “Preferential treatment” mean? I am not being facetious. AA has two separate possible components, quotas and outreach. Are both banned? Or, since most people use the phrase “affirtmative action” as sloppy shorthand for “quotas,” are only quotas banned? “Preferential treatment” is probably easier to identify, but I suspect that it also is sufficiently vague to allow for a challenge.
What happens when an action of the State of Michigan is supposed to be carried out in conjunction with a Federal action that requires an outreach effort?
I realize that something similar was passed in California several years ago. Was the language of the two initiatives identical? Or is there a difference that might place Michigan’s change more directly in conflict with Federal legislation or case law?
Does this actually forbid colleges from using race as a criteria for admission (specifically, minority preference), or does it remove government requirements to do so?
I would be against the former, for the latter.
It’s intended to overturn the SCOTUS decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the University of Michigan successfully defended the affirmative action elements of its admissions policy. The provision will make illegal any form of race-based affirmative action.
More specifically, it is intended by the ballot issue to make illegal in Michigan the type of preference point system used by the University of Michigan in admitting students to its main colleges. The system used by the U of M Law School had already been struck down; it was an almost straight quota system. Therefore, ballot issue should be read to eliminate any attempt to give one person preference over another on the basis of race in any way.
This is somewhat similar to California’s law, passed also through initiative. So far, the California law has been upheld by the federal courts; I believe I recall that the SCotUS declined to review the decision allowing it.
I don’t know if it will be enacted. The first lawsuit disputing it has already been filed and word is many more are on the way. Lots of groups are pissed off.
Regardless how many groups are angry, the Michigan Supreme Court will not be able to declare it unconstitutional (from the perspective of the Michigan Constitution) because it changes the Michigan Constitution.
Any appeal must be based on the U.S. Constitution (which makes no provision for AA). The only way that it is going to be set aside is if a case is (successfully) pled that while the language is anti-discriminatory the effects are discriminatory. I suspect that that would be a very difficult point to prove, given the actual words. (The use of the phrase “affirmative action” might get it thrown out as too vague, but it is difficult to see how a law requiring that there be a ban on preferential treatment based on named classes of people is going to violate any provision of the U.S. Constitution as Amended.)
What? You mean that the proposition was not really intended to prevent women from getting healthcare like they had in the ads on TV? I am really upset now!
Depends on how it is implemented in accordance with the Law of Unintended Consequences.
In the very early 1970s, a bunch of disaffected Catholics in Warren decided to “show” the church by getting any and every support for parochial schools eliminated from the state budget. In order to avoid charges that they were actually targetting the Catholic schools, (which they were) they sloppily worded the proposition to eliminate funding support for all private schools. The measure passed, and then they discovered that they had eliminated the subsidies that had been keeping several schools providing support to disadvantaged and handicapped kids. Whern those kids were then dumped back into the public school systems (thereby increasing the burden on the local schools, because the private groups could not run the schools without help, but they had no provisions to scatter their funds among dozens of public schools), the same group was irate that their law was making their schools spend more money on these other kids.
There is a reason why we employ lawyers to consider laws. Depending on where AA is currently implemented in Michigan, it may or may not prevent some women from getting needed health care.
It’s easy to argue that AA is a *correction * of preferential treatment, not an application of it. That might not fly in court, certainly, but yeah, it sure looks like the way to bet is that the thing gets thrown out for vagueness before even considering the merits.