Colorado may become first to support preference programs
By Katie Kerwin McCrimmon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published November 5, 2008 at 6:17 p.m.
Opponents of a measure to end preference programs for women and minorities in Colorado hold a razor-thin lead in late vote counting.
If it holds and Amendment 46 fails, Colorado would become the first state to defeat such a measure.
Similar measures, sponsored by a California millionaire, have passed in California, Michigan, Washington, Florida and, as of Tuesday, Nebraska.
Coloradans, however, were sharply divided over Amendment 46, with just 14,000 votes out of the nearly 2 million counted so far dividing the opponents and the supporters. Counting could continue for days.
And, if after all the ballots are counted the margin separating the two sides is less than half of one percentage point, an automatic re-count would be required.
"It looks like the voters in Colorado thought about this and understood what the truth is here and were not fooled by this trick," said Melissa Hart, co-chair of No on 46.
"I am excited about the possibility that we might be the first state to say to (California backer Ward) Connerly that we are not interested in this deceptive initiative and that we stand for a different set of values," Hart said. "We're all stronger if each of us is stronger."
Proponents of the measure believe voters were weary of ballot measures this year. They believe some voted no across the board. Others may have been confused because of the long ballot or failed to read Amendment 46. Proponents hinted that if the measure fails, they will try again. And, they celebrated receiving support from nearly 1 million Colorado voters.
"Through their votes, they took a stand for ending government-sanctioned gender and race discrimination and we will do everything in our power to give a voice to that momentum," said Jessica Corry, leader of the Yes on 46 Campaign.
"Election night, in many ways, was the beginning, not the end of the campaign," Corry said.
She put government institutions on notice.
"We will work immediately to make sure public officials are complying with current federal law."
Jennifer Gratz, director of state and local initiatives for Connerly's group, the American Civil Rights Coalition, said she's convinced that Coloradans would vote to end preferences and said her group will continue to work for an end to such programs.
"I don't think the Colorado results are based on the content of the measure," she said. "There was an active effort to get people to vote no on everything."
Even if the measure goes down for the first time, Gratz said Connerly and their group would not be defeated.
"We've always said this is a marathon, not a sprint," said Gratz. "We will see these policies end sooner rather than later. "
Pollster and political analyst Floyd Ciruli said it's striking that Colorado appears to be balking at a national trend.
"It's fairly extraordinary," Ciruli said. He recalled a parallel ballot initiative supported by out-of-state supporters who tried to mandate English as the state's official language.
Ciruli said both sides are partly correct.
"The proponents are right that it was a pretty negative vote on the ballot issues. Very little did well," he said.
But, early polls showed the measure passing handily. The polls tightened as Election Day approaching, signaling that opponents were able to get their message out.
Ultimately, Ciruli believes, the massive turnout for Obama helped the opponents.
"They benefited from a good year. Some conservatives were negative about putting anything on the ballot. They also picked up the progressive audience who were voting for a black president."
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.
Featured
-
Boulder Wildfire
See photos from the Boulder County fire.
-
Legislature Blog
The Rocky's Lynn Bartels and Ed Sealover provide live updates from the Capitol.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's rant on what's next for the Broncos.
-
Live updates
Sign up for mobile alerts and breaking news e-mails to keep up with the latest news.
November 5, 2008
6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Obama is a good example we don't need it. He got off his duff, made the effort and was rewarded yesterday with the Office. maybe it will send a signal that Bill Cosby has been trying to tell folks for years.
November 5, 2008
7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
rip84 writes:
Frankly, this bill didn't go far enough. It didn't address nepotism. If we are going to merit based society, nepostism must be addressed.
November 5, 2008
7:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
smith writes:
Naive Liberal Reporter,
The "California Millionaire" you introduce in the third paragraph has a name. It is Ward Connerly.
If you wish to refer to people as loaded stereotypes, I would prefer that you had introduced Melissa Hart as "New York Socialist".
Signed,
Non-paying former reader.
November 5, 2008
7:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dialogdog writes:
Maybe we have turned a corner. Maybe the days of fighting over ideological "solutions" to problems that don't exist are over. Maybe we now will expend our civic energies solving real problems.
November 5, 2008
8:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
LiveWell writes:
I hate to admit that this particular amendment is one that I struggled with. I believe that the playing field should be equal, regardless of sex, creed, or color for employment, contracts, and other programs where monetary compensation or employment is at stake. I would personally like being judged on my abilities rather than those other issues and to know that all of those caucasian men are given the same chance as minorities.
My worry with this amendment was the far reaching raminfications due to the wording wherein programs such as those for teen fathers to help them become parents or science camps for girls to encourage them to not fall pray to the negative self image would be hurt. I would like to have seen more precise language (which I know is avoided when writing amendments) so those programs would still be safe, regardless of their "discrimination".
I realize I may be way off base here, though, and appreciate any constructive remarks that might help me clarify my own thinking. Thank you.
November 5, 2008
8:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
The arguments are misinformed. Amendment 46 does not address the private sector. It only addresses the public sector. Amendment 46 does not prohibit same sex schools and education. Nepotism is a different subject entirely. There are laws regarding nepotism in the public sector.
This is a sad day when Colorado residents cannot agree to stop deliberate discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and nationality. The defenders of discrimination and racial preferences may have won this round but this issue is not finished.
November 5, 2008
8:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
It's hard to pass an amendment. People are worried that they don't really understand it and would just as soon not make a change that turns out to be wrong. I still think the amendment was poorly titled.
November 5, 2008
10:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
FCZ writes:
Ward Connerly.
November 5, 2008
10:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
fighting_chance writes:
to all you who vote yes on this, you clearly dont care for equal treatment. most, NOT ALL, i believe, are probably white. you dont know anything about this issue, and you vote because you think it isnt fair, because you think you're not getting treated equally, because others get "special" treatment when you "dont." you dont go through what we go through. i've heard claims that it should be based solely on income and whatever, therefore poor white students can get an "equal" chance. you act like this is only about race, and it's not. this is about equality for everyone: white, black, brown, blue, purple, male, female, etc. affirmative action helps those, who are typically under-represented, get the equal opportunity as everyone else. first gen students, women, culturally diverse. you only see minorities as benefiting from this. ive heard arguments like it should be solely on income, which would still put under-represented students in there. then they say... "get a job!" jobs that they wont give us? to help send children to college to get those degrees? a friend and i went to an INDUSTRY adviser, and before he even hears our names, he tells us he's going to get dyslexia with us. why? because we are both brown. a friend goes to a career fair, walks up to a company, and the first thing she says is that they require a working visa. can he get one? FIRST THING! he's not only a U.S citizen, he has a security clearance. affirmative action helps students, as well as adults, get into places, and retain them, so they have that equal opportunity. this isn't about race. people claim that affirmative action is racist. how is giving first generation students, women, and culturally diverse student a fighting chance to obtain a good education and job/career racist?
thank you. im not trying to change your mind, but ok yes i am. i just hope you understand and dont get this confused with anything else.
November 5, 2008
11:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
fighting_chance,
Your writing is almost unintelligible. Perhaps your problems are related to your poor communication skills.
I am not impressed by your tale of woes. You think you deserve preferential treatment because of your supposed difficulties in life. Do you think that just because an employer asks for evidence of citizenship, you deserve preferential treatment? You might thank the hordes of illegal aliens for casting suspicion on your residency status. These illegals have little regard for our laws.
We have a multitude of laws and government agencies to redress discrimination claims. If you have been discriminated because of your nationality, I suggest you talk to the EEOC or other government agency. Otherwise, you do not deserve any preferential treatment because of your nationality.
November 6, 2008
12:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
jaybyrd writes:
Try again in 2010, that's all.
November 6, 2008
12:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
BenchBoss writes:
smith wrote:
"Naive Liberal Reporter,
The "California Millionaire" you introduce in the third paragraph has a name. It is Ward Connerly.
Signed,
Non-paying former reader."
smith - seems you don't pay OR read. Just a little further down. You'll get the Connerly reference. There it is, tucked into a quote from your pal Melissa. And, wow, you manage liberal and socialist in the same post. Might be time for some new vocabulary. Both are gettin' a bit tired. And they don't even apply.
November 6, 2008
5 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrfxx writes:
If the slim margin turns the other way, I will be waiting for the first class action lawsuit by females against the state colleges and universities which are giving preferential treatment to the male applicants so those schools can have "gender balance". Today, over 50% of new enrollees are female, as they tend to have better high school grades and SAT/ACT scores. It has been reported over the last couple of years that both public and private colleges/universities are giving preferential treatment to the males or it would be closer to 75%. So - let the MALES get into colleges/universities on their own too as the Ward Connerly and his believers would argue - RIGHT? By the way - if that occurs, and there is no change in the face of upper management, will you then recognize the fact that businesses are still discriminating against women? Suppose the schools have to admit more Asian minorities (which typically do better as well) - and down the road, upper management is still overwhelmingly white male? Will you believe it then?
November 6, 2008
6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Romanesco writes:
fighting_chance writes: "how is giving first generation students, women, and culturally diverse student a fighting chance to obtain a good education and job/career racist?"
Because it gives preferential treatment to those groups. It's about equal opportunity for *all*, not "you have a certain gender/skin color/ethinic background, so we'll treat you special/different".
You statement is heavily prejudiced, as you assume that people who's skin color happens to be white "know nothing about the issue" and that we want to be "treated special".
Also, what is a "culturally diverse" student? A non-white student? Someone who eats food from a different country???
November 6, 2008
7:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
bookworm writes:
Getting "picked for the team" whether it is college, a job, a civic position or a softball team should be based on one thing only; Is the person applying for the "team" spot qualified and capable to perform as a member of said team. To get into to college you need smarts and a good GPA. To get a job you should have some motivation and interest in the field for a first timer or experience for those who have been in the market for a while. Civic duties should be considered as an honor as you are helping you fellow citizens through your experience and intelligence. Softball team, well you get the picture.
Didn't see anything about race or gender listed, did you? Of course not! We all understand that you get selected based on merit. Don't we? I want to know that I lost the chance to be on a team because the next person was better than me, not that they were black or mexican. I want to know that I didn't get picked not because they needed more men on the panel but because I was not the best.
We have become a society of "we are all winners" mentalities. I like to think that we are really a "we are all whiners" society these days.
November 6, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
denverinfidel writes:
And just like clockwork "fighting_chance" goes after whitey.
Anyone with brown skin who is a failure has no one to blame but themselves. Your messiah just proved it, and proved it beyond any and all doubt.
Your "first generation" argument is pathetic. You try to slip in "first generation" as if that has any relevance. It has nothing to do with your family history or education (or lack of it, in your case), but with the pigmentation of your skin, and/or gentitalia. You have been sold the victimhood line, and unfortunately, you've bought it. Be sure and repeat to yourself everyday that you are a victim. It will get you far in life.
Why are urban areas, where whites are by far the minority, such terrible places to live? Is it discrimination? Who will be your scapegoat when there are more brown people than white (which is happening with current demographics)?
Keep up the mantra: you are a victim, and someone whith lighter skin owes you something.
November 6, 2008
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
bookworm writes:
In addition, start taking some responsibility for yourselves and quit blaming others for your failures or shortcomings. When was the last time anyone said "maybe I didn't get picked because I need to improve my skills?" It is so much easier to blame and point fingers at everyone but ourselves.
November 6, 2008
8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
fighting_chance
You are so full of $hit it isn't even funny! You are a racist idiot. Your kind only perpetuates hatred and ignorance. ANY type of preferential treatment is discrimination and therefore is wrong, it was wrong 200 years ago and it is wrong now. Two wrongs do not make a right.
November 6, 2008
8:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
fighting_chance writes "... you clearly dont care for equal treatment." Is what you really mean is that equal treatment should be reserved only for people of color or female gender? Romanesco is right, *ALL* people should be treated equally. The tide is changing. Clearly other states are seeing this, Colorado will follow soon if not after the final count on this go-round. There is no room anymore for people that feel they are entitled to preferential hiring, particularly when the skill sets don't exist. I'd have preferred to see this measure worded to be more inclusive in all sectors however.
We've quite literally carried an individual here that was hired 15+ freekin' years ago on an affirmative action hire, who STILL cannot do his job correctly or even with an average measure of competence, flatly refuses to participate in training to further his technical skills, and gets in-your-face defensive when clients voice frustration with his incompetence. This results in people avoiding him under any circumstance, which he notices of course, then blames them for being racist. Unfortunately the manager here is afraid of an EEOC case and worries about his own job status if that happens. It's all been well documented, but it doesn't matter if nobody will do anything about it.
November 6, 2008
9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
I voted Yes on 46. Affirmative action is legalized discrimination. Numbers are brought up at times about women's pay compared to men's in the workplace, but they don't take into account women taking time off to have children or raise children, or women who work part time. I've read several articles that mention how flawed that thinking is in comparing pay rates. Minorities aren't excluded from the workplace or making similar salaries to white people.
The white male is the most legally discriminated against group of all.
November 6, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
francesca, I have a friend in New Jersey that deals with a minority in the workplace that harrasses her. He even spit on her at one point, and she gets harrassed by the guy's female friends. She's white, and they're black. They work for the state of New Jersey (DMV) and the managers won't even fire the guy because of EEOC. That's part of the problem with affirmative action and unions..... someone can be a putz, borderline assault other people, not work much, yet dismissing that person is difficult because of the protections built in for union employees and minorities.
November 6, 2008
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
chill134 writes:
An African American was just elected President of the United States. We don't need laws giving preferential treatment to minorites. Why don't we use some common sense and hire the most capable candidate regardless of gender or skin color?
November 6, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nicdvan writes:
I am 1/2 Native American and a woman. I went to CU Boulder. I received zero preference in my admission! I had a 1380 on my SAT's a 31 on my ACT's and a 3.6 GPA coming out of high school. It still took 6 months for CU to admit me. When I graduated (owing $78,000+ in student loans), there was a dinner held for the 7 American Indian/Alaskan Native graduates. Seven out of 8,000+ graduates! That's less than 0.09% representation. 95% of Native Americans live at or below the poverty line. A higher percentage than all ethnic groups combined! Don't tell me that they have the same opportunities attending schools with no heat during winters w/average temps below freezing. Don't tell me they need to get off their "duff" and work. Work where? Do you know where the majority of reservations are located? Don't tell me they should get jobs elsewhere. They don't have the skills, and would have to leave everything they know. Don't tell me you have the slightest idea what it is like to be them. I don't even know, but I do know that if one of them has the ability, but not the quite right foundation, then that should be taken into account. BTW, underprivileged Caucasians (including men), veterans, and persons with disabilities are also given preferential consideration under affirmative action as long as they meet the same qualifications as all other candidates (that part is always forgotten).
Side Note: Please stop writing that white men are the group most discriminated against, and are legally discriminated against. You have ruled the world for at least 2,000 years. These affirmative action laws were initially enacted because white men were doing their best to be omnipotent until the end of time. Women have only had the right to vote for the past 88 years, and we have changed a lot of things in that short time. Just because you don't like the changes, doesn't make them wrong.
November 6, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
EP writes:
This white male voted no. What was that lipstick on a pig reference?
November 6, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveM writes:
We need to preserve the rights of the government to utilize affirmative action until such time as we can effectively prove that discrimination is not thriving in our nation. One need only look at the 50,000,000+ votes John McCain received and wonder how many were simply due to the race of Barack Obama. Likewise, one need only look at the 65,000,000+ votes Barack Obama received and wonder how many were due simply to the gender of Sarah Palin. We all heard it, but we don't want to talk about it. Each of us has an acquaintance whom we overheard stating, "I'll live with a Black man as president before any kind of woman," and we heard the reverse.
Sorry, but there are still way, way, way, way, way, way, way too many bigots in our nation which still works to actively take away the rights of people disliked by certain segments of the population whenever and wherever they can.
We need only to look to Arkansas which just voted to make it illegal for gay couples or any single people to serve as much needed Foster Parents or Adoptive Parents in our country. HUH? That's right. Because we all know that straight couples never abuse children or raise gay children. HUH?
We need only to look at all the states that have made it illegal for gay people to get married to see that institutionalized prejudice runs high in the veins of this nation. It's sick, sad, and wrong, but it's a fact. And, it's a fact that there are still people who would and will vote given the chance to limit the rights of women and minorities. In fact, one could look at this amendment as a perfect example, because that's exactly what it would do. There is no way that a new contracting company owned by a woman is going to get a contract. And there are no old contracting companies owned by women--wonder why? Maybe it's because the idea of women owning companies in a man's world was thought to be preposterous only a few short years ago--and it still is to too many.
I am sickened and especially saddened that a millionaire would utilize his fortune to work to prevent states from ensuring a level playing field for all businesses in the state. It's only a matter of interpretation that the same legislation could be used to prohibit states from selecting local vs. national or international companies competing for contracts. Oh, but I bet he'd balk at that notion.
One need only look at the language of the amendment designed to trick anyone who's not a careful reader into voting for it. If you are against discrimination, you might vote for it on principle not reading it thoroughly enough to realize that it's really using the word in a sneaky way.
November 6, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveM writes:
[This is another thing which really bugs me about these amendments is that they are worded in clever ways to trick people into voting the opposite way they might if it were written to say what it really is...
examples:
amendment 47 should have read:
Currently, workers in industries and fields that are unionized are required to join the union to have a job in that industry or field.
Should the Constitution of Colorado be amended to make joining the union optional?
amendment 58 should have read:
Currently, and unlike neighboring Wyoming and New Mexico, Colorado is the only state of the three that gives the oil companies who extract our natural resources of oil and natural gas a $300 million tax subsidy. While our neighbors do just the opposite to the tune of being able to establish giant state trust funds that, for example, in Wyoming, will pay for EVERY STUDENT TO GO TO COLLEGE FOR FREE. Should Colorado join Wyoming and New Mexico in getting what it deserves for its natural resources or should we continue to allow BIG OIL to exploit our land and pay them to do it?
Finally, amendment 46 should have read:
Should Colorado join the growing number of states being tricked by a California Millionaire by the name of Ward Connery into ending the invaluable options of our state and local governments to use policies that ensure local businesses owned by minorities and women have an equal opportunity to bid for and secure contracts that preserve local jobs in Colorado?
If the backers of the legislation were honest with their intentions, well, then, yeah, they probably wouldn't bother to promote them because they know they wouldn't pass. Instead, they use snake oil salesmanship and fear-mongering advertisements to trick people into voting for and against things that they really would or would not ever normally support. ]
November 6, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
SteveM writes:
We need to preserve the rights of the government to utilize affirmative action until such time as we can effectively prove that discrimination is not thriving in our nation. One need only look at the 50,000,000+ votes John McCain received and wonder how many were simply due to the race of Barack Obama. Likewise, one need only look at the 65,000,000+ votes Barack Obama received and wonder how many were due simply to the gender of Sarah Palin. We all heard it, but we don't want to talk about it. Each of us has an acquaintance whom we overheard stating, "I'll live with a Black man as president before any kind of woman," and we heard the reverse.
YOU are hanging out with the wrong people if you think WE ALL heard such stupidity. I never heard anything of the sort. Replacing one form of discrimination with another is WRONG! If you can't understand something as simple as that then we have our explanation has to why you hang out with the wrong crowd.
November 6, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
honey writes: "Get rid of it. I voted YES. Don't treat me like I need special considerations just because I'm a woman. It's condescending and leaves a sense of expected gratitude that I don't want to carry. Let me get there on my own."
honey - I'm proud of you!
The days of Affirmative Action are done. Didn't we just see that last Tuesday? It's time for America to turn the page on this sanctioned discrimination. The best individual for the job. Period.
If Obama scrubs all traces of Affirmative Action off the books, he'll have my support.
November 6, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
"will pay for EVERY STUDENT TO GO TO COLLEGE FOR FREE."
Despite what you might want people to believe, it isn't free bud, nothing is.
The money to pay for this will come from one place, MORE TAXES.
Please explain to me why you think it's morally justifiable to tax people that aren't college students, and receive no direct tangible benefit whatsoever to pay for the operations of these institutions?
November 6, 2008
11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Fred writes:
SteveM only needs to look at the numbers to prove his point. Although something tells me he'd still look at the numbers wrong.
This election did in fact prove that racism is alive and well in the good old USA.
95% of black voters voted for our new president-elect.
Read that again....95% of black voters voted for a man based on his RACE.
It’s ok to discriminate in this country, but only if the target is an adult white male.
November 6, 2008
11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
FRN4U writes:
My O My folks!
We need to redistribute the wealth! There is enough for us all
in the USA!!! The general government has not run out of ink,
paper, bearings, and grease for the Federal Reserve NOTE printing presses. We can all get along and we all can get something for nothing. We are one big family. We ( me and the
mouse in my pocket) get by just fine. Thanks to the EEOC and
many other great equalizing government programs, all one needs
to do is to breathe the clean air!
http://www.georgegordon.com/communist...
November 6, 2008
11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Steve, how do you explain the millions that voted for Obama BECAUSE of his race? Will affirmative action fix that? Government's role in our lives isn't to define how we should like another race or gender. Discrimination exists, from every race and even women against men. Affirmative action won't fix those examples, so why single out minorities and women for benefits from it? I believe we're all one race....... the human race. I don't expect Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson to quit being racist, or for the government to resolve that. Affirmative action is legalized discrimination against whites, particularly white men. There's no way to argue against that.
November 6, 2008
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
By the way Steve, some of those companies "owned" by women are actually owned by men, but they list their wives as owners to benefit from affirmative action so they can get contracts.
November 6, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
SteveM says, "If the backers of the legislation were honest with their intentions, well, then, yeah, they probably wouldn't bother to promote them because they know they wouldn't pass." I do agree with this. I thought a measure was passed a few years back to protect voters from the language swap trick?
Steve, I never experienced or overheard such a conversation with friends and coworkers about race and gender during the campaign. Yeah, there are still plenty of people out there that see color or gender ahead of ability and that's a shame, but times are changing. Look at our new prez! By your interpretation I read that you think color/gender ahead of ability is only a one-way street. It's not that way anymore! At least the majority (in the country) seems to think this and that is certainly a good sign.
I hope you weren't one of those that voted color for the sake of color or for what your friends might think of you otherwise. Anyway, the color/gender issue is detrimental from all perspectives. Enabling the incompetent regardless of their background doesn't help anyone. If this guy were to lose his job tomorrow, there's NO way he'd last in a similar position because he flat cannot do the work at even minimal expectations. If anything, he'd be better of finding something he is better at and sticking with that.