Now
Fair
21°
High
32°
Low
20°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Affirmative action ballot language challenged

Comments 17 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By MELISSA LEE / Lincoln Journal Star

Monday, Jul 28, 2008 - 06:46:52 pm CDT

A University of Nebraska-Lincoln student has filed a lawsuit challenging the ballot language of a proposed constitutional ban on race- and gender-based affirmative action.

Jeff Hall is suing Attorney General Jon Bruning and Secretary of State John Gale in Lancaster County District Court.

Hall alleges Bruning’s language explaining the affirmative-action ban for the November ballot is misleading and unfair to voters.

Related Media

The Story So Far: Affirmative action ban

A group is seeking to end race- and gender-based affirmative action in Nebraska. Initiative supporters are working to collect enough petition signatur...

Comments: 0
Rated:

Hall is asking the court to amend Bruning’s language to say that the ban would eliminate programs aimed at improving opportunities for and reducing discrimination against women and minorities.

The current ballot language, as proposed by Bruning, bans preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Critics say that language is misleading because it does not explicitly tell voters they are being asked to end some forms of affirmative action.

“We believe it is imperative that Nebraska voters have the right to know what they are being asked to vote on,” David Kramer, campaign lawyer for the pro-affirmative action group Nebraskans United, said in announcing Hall’s lawsuit.

A spokeswoman for Bruning could not be reached Monday.

But Doug Tietz, executive director of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, the group behind the proposed affirmative-action ban, called the lawsuit a “last tactic” by those who support preferential treatment based on race and gender.

“There’s nothing misleading about (the language),” Tietz said. “It’s short, simple and to the point... (The lawsuit) demonstrates the low regard our opposition has for the voters of Nebraska.”

Allies of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative needed to collect about 115,000 petition signatures by July 4 to put an affirmative-action ban before voters in November.

The group submitted 167,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office on July 3. Those signatures are now going through the validation process.

Similar efforts to end race- and gender-based affirmative action previously have succeeded in California, Washington and Michigan and are active in Arizona and Colorado this year. Efforts failed this year in Oklahoma and Missouri.

Reach Melissa Lee at 473-2682 or mlee@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Used Cars wrote on July 28, 2008 5:28 pm:
" Remember the guy in "Used Cars" that tried every pathetic thing he could think of to jinx the football game, but all his monkey-wrenching was futile? That's exactly what this is, just trying anything they can think of to keep it off the ballot, knowing it'll pass by a landslide if it comes to a vote. "

 I wonder.... wrote on July 28, 2008 5:33 pm:
" if the attorney general realizes he has standing with this case because it actually takes place in Nebraska. "

 What nonsense wrote on July 28, 2008 7:09 pm:
" The ballot language is quite clear, if you read it. It may very well eliminate programs that are based on preferences for one race or sex over another, but that is exactly what the people of Nebraska want to do. Any program that gives someone a government benefit or privilege because of race or sex *should* be eliminated. "

 Throw the Case Out wrote on July 28, 2008 7:26 pm:
" This is a frivolous law suit. This is about a group of people that have intentionally tried to mislead the people in this state into believing that this initiative is racist. IT IS NOT! All one needs to do is read the language of the iniative to see what will be put into the law books should it pass in November. It reads exactly as Bruning's explanation:

"The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to 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."

To use Hall's explanation would be doing exactly what Hall is accusing Bruning of doing--misleading the public. ("ban would eliminate programs aimed at improving opportunities for and reducing discrimination against women and minorities.")

NO WHERE IN THIS INITIATIVE DOES IT STATE THAT "programs aimed at improving opportunities for and reducing discrimination" will be eliminated. "

 Joseph P. Sokolovsky wrote on July 28, 2008 7:56 pm:
" Short and sweet....who cares what Hall says about affirmative action?

As he will see....after the November election affirmative action will be
in the garbage can where it belongs!!

End of story!! "

 Okie wrote on July 28, 2008 10:23 pm:
" This failed in Oklahoma...the Buckle of the Bible Belt. OK is not exactly a liberal bastion. "

 GOP activist wrote on July 28, 2008 11:10 pm:
" David Kramer you are done in republican politics!! You sold out to the highest bidder. "

 JB wrote on July 29, 2008 7:39 am:
" This should have never been on the ballot. Bought and paid for by California "right-wingers"! The fair petition showed how hard it is for a true "grassroot" groups to be able to get enough signatures. With money to pay for petitioners and advertisements even unpopular efforts can suceed. Do people really believe around fourty years of equal rights has made up for two hundred years of descrimination? "

 Outside the Box wrote on July 29, 2008 8:21 am:
" I wonder how much Ward Connerly and the California/Michigan/Oklahoma/Colorado/Ohio/Delaware/Montana/Nebraska/South Dakota Civil Rights group had to pay to get the language they desired?

Ward's wallet has bought everything else in the process, so why should this be any different? "

 To Okie wrote on July 29, 2008 9:06 am:
" Okie, the ballot issue failed in Oklahoma because it failed to get enough signatures. That is not the problem here in Nebraska, where there is a surplus of 50% more signatures than needed. Thus, filing suit on these paper-thin grounds is all the opponents of NCRI can do to try to stop the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative. The opponents will fail at this, the initiative will be on the ballot, and it will pass overwhelmingly. "

 Dear JB wrote on July 29, 2008 9:33 am:
" Open mouth and show your ignorance. Affirmative action is racism at it's ugliest! Why should I not be able to get a job I am far more qualified for just because I am a white male. My family never owned slaves or took part in the slave trade. We have never kept anyone from getting a job or receiving fair pay. Yet, I am expected to pay for the 150 year old sins of a rich minority! "

 Beth F wrote on July 29, 2008 11:16 am:
" Where does a UNL student come up with the money to file a lawsuit against the state? "

 its time wrote on July 29, 2008 11:42 am:
" time has come to end the federally mandated race and gender discrimination that has been the 'law' for these many years - it should be an insult to hard working people that they get to step to the head of the line based on their ethnicity or gender and not their ability to perform the duties of the position at a high level. "

 Think About It wrote on July 29, 2008 1:24 pm:
" what actually needs to happen is a forum to discuss what these so-called affirmative action laws look like in Nebraska so that the voters can understand what it is we may potentially be doing away with. I agree that the language of the initiative is not precise enough, but we need more than just another slogan. Maybe if people knew what they were actually voting on, instead of just some buzz words, then we might not need to be so afraid that this initiative will pass. "

 Petitioner wrote on July 29, 2008 1:33 pm:
" The text of the amendment is

The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, 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.

I guess I'm having real difficulty in seeing how the phrase 'shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to' is misleading. "

 to the dude titled dear JB wrote on July 29, 2008 2:54 pm:
" Thing is, you think because you're a man, you're smarter than me--a woman. Most 'straight' white men have no idea what this is about, and never will. "

 Spike Lee wrote on July 29, 2008 3:09 pm:
" Bad laws first get born through poor, convoluted word choices.Language provides a unique window onto reality, sometimes even creating the worlds we live in and the beliefs we hold: we absolutely must think carefully about the words we couch our laws in to ensure they communicate clearly the values we hope to live by. Clear laws give us a leg up on encouraging "We,the people" to lead just lives and do the right thing. "

Ads by Yahoo!