Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras
Subscribe

HomeNewsLocal News

Affirmative action fight likely result of proposal

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Story Tools

State officials Wednesday denied a challenge to a proposed 2008 ballot measure that would end "preferential treatment" in state government, setting the stage for a contentious battle over affirmative action.

Opponents argued before the state Ballot Title Board that the proposal violated the single-subject requirement, among other issues.

The proposal begins: "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 . . ."

Denver attorney Edward Ramey said voters could be against discrimination, but in favor of preferential treatment if it serves as a remedy for past discrimination. He said they could be construed as two opposing ideas, which would go against the rule that ballot measures present just one issue.

But state officials disagreed and upheld their decision after opponents filed a motion for a rehearing. Ramey said he would likely appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Richard Westfall, a Denver attorney representing the measure's proponents, said his clients would probably hold off on gathering signatures to put the proposal on the ballot if opponents file an appeal.

Led by Ward Connerly, chairman of the Sacramento, Calif.- based American Civil Rights Institute, sponsors of the self-described "civil rights initiative" began their campaign in April.

Valerie Orr, executive director of the Colorado campaign, said she was pleased with the board's decision.

"Today the title board upheld their original, unanimous decision that the people of Colorado have a right to vote on whether state-sponsored discrimination through race and gender preferences should continue," she said.

Ramey argued that among opponents' chief concerns was that "preferential treatment" was not adequately defined, and that it could possibly extend to college diversity recruitment, women's health care programs and official notices in a language other than English.

Westfall declined getting into such specifics.

Opponents have until June 27 to file an appeal.

or 303-954-5250

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.


Reprints