Ritter: Amendment 46 'undercuts Colorado'
By Jerd Smith, Rocky Mountain News
Published September 29, 2008 at 6 p.m.
Photo by George Kochaniec Jr. © The Rocky
Gov. Bill Ritter during a news conference on Monday to discuss the economy as well as his opposition to Amendment 46.
Gov. Bill Ritter made formal his opposition to Amendment 46 today, saying the measure would set Colorado back years.
The initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot prohibits the state from granting preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of race, sex or ethnicity in hiring, education and contracts.
"We're in a time in this state when we need to do everything we can to keep this economy moving forward. Amendment 46 undercuts Colorado and destroys years of progress on education, health care and workforce development," Ritter said at a Capitol news conference attended by Hispanic and African American business people, religious leaders and others.
Jessica Peck Corry, executive director of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, which is behind the measure, said, "The governor can line up as many special interest groups as he wants. But we believe the people are with us on this one."
Even as Ritter announced his opposition, Amendment 46 backers complained his administration had used state resources to campaign against the measure, which would be a violation of state law.
Ritter denied that. But later, his director of economic development, Don Elliman, acknowledged his office had used state time to invite people to a Sept. 22 forum on Amendment 46, which featured a well-known opponent of such measures, but no one who supported them.
"We blew it," Elliman said. "It would appear from the wording on the invitation that we were taking a position. The governor can take a position, but that doesn't mean we can spend state money and time on it."
Elliman said Wells Fargo sponsored the event, but that about three hours of state time was used on the invitation.
"Obviously, we'll have to make up that time," he said.
Corry said the campaign deserved a public apology for the error.
"As long as we get an apology, we would not see a need for litigation," Cory said.
Ritter's office did not respond to a request for comment.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
September 29, 2008
6:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaybyrd writes:
How does this Amendment "set Colorado back", as taxandspend Ritter says? Former (thank God) Roy Romer had his own personal "diversity program" within State gov't, which is to say people were hired and promoted at his racial and ethnic perogative, regardless of skill level and educational achievement. Such abusive programs became the impetus for 46, which citizens should vote for and thereby hinder elitists such as Ritter from playing God.
September 29, 2008
6:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
BikerChick writes:
..
VOTE Y E S ON 46.
..
DISCRIMINATION IN ANY FORM IS OUTRAGEOUS.
This Governor is way off base here. When he advocates discriminination and favoritism, he is advocating anarchy.
Repeat after me, Bill Ritter, ABSOLUTELY NO DISCRIMINATION AT ALL, period.
Your opposition to 46 is a racist rant. Stop it.
All children of THE One God are created equal. Favoritism is stupid, wild-eyed bigotry.
Chat with the parents of the losers to get your attidude checked.
Visit the University of Michigan to see for yourself why the courts believe you are a fool, Bill Ritter.
..
September 29, 2008
6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
I love laws like this they even the playing field for everyone.
It causes everyone to compete on a level playing field.
What is unfair about the law is some people will no longer get first shot at government money.
They must compete and prove a worth to society and not play the race or gender card to do it.
Seems fair to me how about the rest of you?
September 29, 2008
7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
Yes on 46....it is fair for everyone!
Ritter and his group has broken the law.
Maybe he should be found guilty of agriculture tresspass??
Yes on 46
No to Ritter
Nuff Said!
September 29, 2008
7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
SanctuaryCity writes:
Tax ritter undercuts colorado. Hey bill, the circus is in town in october. They need you
YES on #46
NO on #58
September 29, 2008
7:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gonzopozo writes:
Just for the record, the State currently has programs that guarantee a certain level of business for women-owned and minority-owned local business.
Kiss those goodbye. The business will go to the big multi-nationals who can low bid the locals out of business.
That's what Ritter is talking about, the RMN accidently left that out.
Vote NO to support Colorado businesses. Or maybe you want a Wal-Mart on EVERY corner????
September 29, 2008
7:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
My vote will be yes
September 29, 2008
8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
newsreader1 writes:
Gozo, you are wrong. The current racist/sexist set asides have nothing to do with local vs. non-local businesses. They are simply quotas based on the color of skin.
September 29, 2008
8:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
Funny how the Democrat Party is all for "equality" unless one of their sacred oxes is being gored. The intent is to outlaw the kind of discrimination that penalizes qualified workers because they happen to be white. If you've checked any job applications for the City of Denver lately, they won't hire you unless you are bi-lingual in Spanish. Since when should a United States municipality have THAT as a "requirement"? Vote YES on 46.
As to Ritter breaking the law, what else is new? He refused to uphold his oath of office as District Attorney. He's violated his oath as Governor to protect Colorado CITIZENS. So, what else is new? We need to VOTE and make sure he and the rest of the illegal immigrant pandering state house members are OUT. Apology, my aching behind. I say sue them, lets see how much ink that gets in the local papers. Mike
September 29, 2008
8:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
snuffalupagus writes:
If Ritter is against it, I am FOR it. Vote YES on 46!!!
September 29, 2008
9:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
wisdomwriter writes:
Please read this and tell me you agree with Ward Connerly:
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to
achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town
smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and then Harvard Business school, and yet, still be seen as just an average guy (George W. Bush) while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then to Harvard Law, makes you "uppity," and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks.
White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your
college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.)and that's OK, and you're cut out to be president, but if you're black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make good decisions in office.
White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she's
disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you're black and married for nearly twenty years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the "lesser adversities" faced by other politicians.
September 29, 2008
9:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
rage_against_the_stupid writes:
White success is now a quiet emblem of true accomplishment.
This society is now anti-white men, anti-white women, anti-european, anti-individual, anti-family, anti-business, anti-religion and all supported by mis-informed guilt.
How does "wisdomwriter writes:" and his plagarism from above want to correct this?
September 29, 2008
9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
coarizona writes:
Wisdomwriter, the 1950's called and they want your brain back.
September 29, 2008
10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
skippy71 writes:
Just wanted to make a comment (I am not stating my position on this issue).....
Before anyone makes judgment on this amendment one way or another, don't rely on media to give you all the info. This article is a classic example. The writer states that the initiative,
"...prohibits the state from granting preferential treatment to anyone on the basis of race...". If you read the actual initiative, it states, "The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race..."
Note the difference by the writed omitting just a few words. Figure out what that difference means to you. Then go make an informed vote on the issue. Don't be fooled by media. Unless you understand the mind and position of the writer, you are simply pawns of his/her ulterior motives.
September 29, 2008
10:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
SteveM writes:
Sorry People, but Gonzo is one of the few people in this thread that gets it and the Governor's position.
September 29, 2008
10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
happymike44 writes:
Dear Wisdomwriter
How or why do you think it is fair to call it white priviledge.
I have worked hard all my life and never have I thought of myself as priviledged.
I have worked and completed my tasks as assigned by my boss.
While others have stood around and whined and cried about
how they have been descriminated against.
The descrimination I have seen has always been in the whiners head.
They have been the one trying to sue and win a settlement from the boss.
How is it fair that the special person says things like I don't have to do that.
When the rest of the group has to work while one person calls and organizes little protests rallies and does this on the company dime.
I have seen the foul language and bad attitude and the threats of litigation up close and pesonal.
So here is a piece of information do your job.
Compete like everyone else for a job and educate yourself and quit blaming the whole world for your problems.
Also one last thing I have never nor has anyone in my family ever owned any person as a slave.
Did I mention my ancestors came to America as indentured servants.
This means they came to America and worked seven long years to have a chance at a better life.
That means I am as much a child of slavery as anyone else can make a claim.
We are proud of our ancestry and the fact that we paid so high a price to become Americans.
We look at it as the price to pay to be free from tyranny and starvation.
God Bless America and long may she stand as a beacon for the rest of the world.
A bright light in the darkness of tyranny and imprisonment.
So please stop trying to destroy our country with the anger and hatred.
All because you believe someone owes you a buck.
If that was the case millions of us are owed the same buck as you.
September 30, 2008
12:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Noose_Worthy writes:
Wisdomwriter quotes the wrong source. The source is Tim Wise and the article more graphic in language and thought, but something definitely to chew on:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/This...
Ward Connerly speaks out against Affirmative Action programs from what I gather from his website.
http://www.acri.org/
My strong feeling is that morality cannot be legislated. However, there are times in American history when bigotry was far more open than it is now and the legislation helped to break some barriers--frankly to most of us what ML King Jr., Rosa Parks, and the little girl that started Brown vs. the Board of Education went through would be shocking to see in modern times--yet it is still the sort of mentality that exists particularly in parts of the deep South and Midwest.
That is not to say that bigotry still does not exist. It is there--look at the very recent surveys of racism as an element in the US election.
Still, I think that the playing field is open enough for most people with talent and ambition to succeed, even if they must work a little harder to get there. It's certainly not fair, but it does make the individual stronger and helps to break the stereotypes that hold back opportunities for others.
If we really want equal opportunity and equal pay, regardless of race, sex, creed, etc., then discrimination on all fronts must be taken to task and the playing field levelled.
Play ball.
September 30, 2008
6:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Noia writes:
Your anti-white is showing Wisdom.
Affirmative Action had it's time and place but that's gone now. It's time everyone was seen as one color. It maybe a pipe dream but this is just one step towards that dream.
September 30, 2008
6:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
wisdomwriter - being white isn't a guarantee of anything. My single mother worked to support me while I was a kid. From high school straight into the Army in 1963, I've worked my entire life. No one ever gave me anything because I'm white, except for undeserved hatred and scorn from people like you who think being white is some sort of gift.
Those who blame the world's problems on the white race have not studied history objectively. They assign racist labels instead of debating the issues.
September 30, 2008
6:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
MrJim writes:
Lack of Wisdom.....
since no one really likes to read long posts here, let me just deconstruct a few highlights of your rant.
Being the mayor of a town and governor of a state includes the Executive Experience, being a senator does not. Of the time being a senator and/or state rep, voting "Present" on item after item so you can avoid taking a stand on something which could come back to haunt you is what makes you untested. Wasn't your hero, Bill Clinton 'just' a governor?
If you were to watch Obama's interview w/ O'Reilly, you would see that in most, not all cases, he did dodge the question, or try and change the subject. Ask Biden what Obama's 'record' is and even he can't answer.
Obama's education isn't what makes him "uppity" - its his attitude. Its his attempts at class warfare, its his comments about 'bitter Americans' that makes him uppity, its his attending a race-baiting hate preaching church for 20 years, then trying to claim he "didn't know" that makes him uppity. Its his talking to the middle class and telling them its the rich mans fault they are having problems vs. talking about personal responsibility that makes him uppity. Its saying "I am my brother's keeper" while his brother lives in a hut on $12 a month that makes him uppity. Shall I go on?
Graduating top or bottom of harvard Law doesn't mean you can or cannot make good decisions. Views of your judgement used is what shows your ability to make good decisions. Having to judgement to not see what Wright and his church stood for for 20 years shows a lack of judgement. Being part of crooked real estate deals shows a lack of judgement. At least this one he admitted too. Launching your political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist shows a lack of judgement. Voting "Present" vs. having the spine to take a stand and go on record shows a lack of judgement. Giving your wifes employeer a $1.6M earmark then her getting a 60% raise right after shows a lack of judgement.
Being married to the same woman for 20 years and raising a family does not cause you to be viewed as unamerican. Having her say "America is a down right mean country" or "For the first time in my adult life I'm proud of my country" causes you to be viewed as unamerican. Belonging for 20 years to a church that preaches "God D@mn America" and America gave Aids to Blacks causes you to be viewed as unamerican. He wasn't there, Ok, but he was there long enough to know that the church has its allegiance to Africa, not to God, and preaches to its members that their problems are the fault of the US Government, not preaching personal responsibility, that causes you to be viewed as unamerican.
The rest of your post it dribble too, but this makes the point.
September 30, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
The point about out of state businesses taking the jobs is baloney, if they bid lower, they get the contract. they will pay wages that are taxed by the state, income from housing and food etc. The post that cited Palin's pregnant daughter is baloney, when whites have a 70% statistic of unwed mothers, then he has a say, but don't compare apples and oranges. Obama isn't uppity I don't think, but, I do have a low opinion of lawyers, so he sure fits that category, slick talker of little substance. I will vote yes on this, and, no on any tax increases, no matter what the cause. the politicians will figure out a way to divert the money, and, anything the government does will cost twice as much as private enterprise can do it for.
September 30, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
Based on the above comments, RMN readers are the reason this state earned the nickname "The Hate State."
September 30, 2008
11:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
COGrownFarmBoy writes:
I wasn't going to comment on this because while I think that there are still levels of inequality and that minorities do not have an equal chance, I do think that we have gone to far in some areas, but I do have to question the wisdom of anyone who is against something just because Governor Ritter is in favor of it. Amendment 58 is effectively a repeal of a tax break that has been given to oil companies for many, many years and which costs the Colorado Taxpayer $321 million a year. We are giving the big oil companies these tax breaks at our own expense. Take a look at the contributors to the anti-58 campaign and you will see that over $10 million of that came from the oil companies. They argue that it will increase energy prices which seems unlikely given the significant profits which they are making at this time...but even if they were to increase prices to cover the costs that increase will be spread out amongst everyone in the United States (and perhaps other countries) resulting in a significantly minimal impact on the Colorado Taxpayer. Voting Yes on 58 means more money for Colorado and will help fund higher education in our state at little cost to all of us resulting in better jobs and a better economy. Don't believe everything anyone tells you and voting against something just because someone else is in favor of it is just stupid. Take a hard look at the facts involved.
September 30, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
covoter writes:
Ritter couldn't have gotten it more wrong. I feel sorry for him and can't wait to see him OUT of office. Vote YES on 46!
September 30, 2008
4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:
And so Ritter is FOR discrimination, right? Here's for "diversity night" up at CU law school but only for invited "people of color", right?
Here's for giving differing treatment to people based on their skin color? Right?
October 1, 2008
11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
Can someone please tell me why the Rocky gives such a bully pulpit to lobbyists from the Independence Institute? (and then not identify them as such)
Anyone?
Bueller?
Bueller?