Colorado Voters Reject Ban on Affirmative Action

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:51:07 AM EST
Tags: Colorado 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Colorado is now the first state in the country where voters rejected a ban on affirmative action programs.

The only votes still uncounted are about 55,000 in Boulder (dust got on the paper ballots, another first) but the remaining Boulder votes are 70% against the ban so the papers have called the it.

Amendment 46 would have barred state officials from considering race or gender in decisions on hiring, contracting and admissions to public colleges and universities.

...In Colorado, the proposal would have amended the state constitution to declare that the state may not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, individuals or groups based on race, color, sex, ethnicity or national origin.

More....

We had 18 ballot initiatives. All but one or two lost. I think a lot of voters just looked at the list, many of which called for new taxes and funding for special projects, and said "no" to all.

I voted no on every one that called for an amendment to the state constitution, consistent with the principle that the Constitution is not a rough draft, it has served us well for 200 years -- pass a law if you want change but leave the constitution alone.

< Politics: The Art of the Possible vs. the Art of Control | MN Sen: Coleman's Lead Dwindling, Before The Recount >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Colorado Voters Reject Ban on Affirmative Action | 10 comments (10 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Interesting. Was Ward Connelly (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:56:02 AM EST

the mover and shaker behind the anti-affirmative action?

P.S. He spoke out against CA's Prop 8.

Yes. (none / 0) (#2)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:59:55 AM EST

See here...

http://tinyurl.com/6qjp9e


: After reading about him in Wiki, (none / 0) (#4)
by oculus on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:06:16 PM EST

I'm curious. He's a buddy of Pete Wilson, who encouraged him to leave state employment in CA. He started his own land use and dev. consulting business and became a millionaire. Wonder how many minority-owned business contracts he had with state and local governments back in the day?

for whatever reason, (none / 0) (#3)
by sancho on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:00:02 PM EST

i am glad it did not pass. i wonder to what extent obama's victory is in part a result of the success of affirmative action policies.

I think you might be right... (none / 0) (#5)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:10:12 PM EST

As the old saying goes, "when in doubt vote no on the numbers and yes on the letters".

I too tend to vote down amendments to the state constitution, although there were a couple that I voted "yes" on--54 for one.

Douglas county voted against funding for... (none / 0) (#8)
by magster on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:43:50 PM EST

schools and libraries. Who votes against schools and libraries? (Oh yeah, Republicans).

I guess my daughter will have to be home schooled and get information off cable TV.


: Really? (none / 0) (#10)
by bocajeff on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:28:26 PM EST

Again, lots of people vote "no" on just about all initiatives.

To be brutally honest.... (none / 0) (#6)
by kdog on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:29:18 PM EST

Amendment 46 would have barred state officials from considering race or gender in decisions on hiring, contracting and admissions to public colleges and universities.

That doesn't sound like a bad thing. I totally understandd the need for affirmitive action programs to right the wrongs of racism and sexism in our not so distant past...but I also long for the day when we no longer need to reverse-discriminate.

Are we at that point yet? Hard to say, but I think if we aren't we're pretty damn close. Hopefully within one more generation, 20 years or so, affirmitive action can join classic discrimination in the dust bin of history...and the dream can be fully realized...finally. When we are judged solely on our ability and the content of our character.

that's an interesting theory (none / 0) (#7)
by cpinva on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:35:02 PM EST

you have jeralyn:

consistent with the principle that the Constitution is not a rough draft, it has served us well for 200 years -- pass a law if you want change but leave the constitution alone.

i believe that would put you in the "original intent" camp of constitutional interpretation. in my opinion, by definition, the constitution is a rough draft, and intentionally so. were that not the case, the author's wouldn't have included the power to amend it. indeed, the bill of rights wouldn't exist.

i think the author's weren't quite as narrow minded as you would have us believe; they recognized that, not knowing what the future may hold, the constitution should be able to evolve with the times, not remain static, running the risk of losing relevancy and authority.

i'm not suggesting amending the constitution, state or federal, should be an easy process, it shouldn't. only incredibly important issues, affecting pretty much the entire citizenry, should find their way into an amendment, anything else should be addressed solely by legislative process.

: I absolutely agree (none / 0) (#9)
by Cream City on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM EST

and disagree, too, with the absolutists on this.
The Founders had the humilitas to put in place an amendment process, or this country might have had a coup to abolish its Constitution several times, too.
I applaud humilitas in politics. I'm sure looking for it to be seen again soon!