In an ideal democracy, all voters would be objectively informed on issues by unbiased, fair and straightforward language. After hearing the facts, they would be able to make decisions solely based on their own judgments and unhindered by partisan influence.

After a decision from an Ingham County Circuit Court judge last week, voters are one step closer to that ideal.

Judge Paula Manderfield said Thursday that a petition circulated by the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative contained language that did not accurately reflect the petition's purpose, which is to have Michiganians vote on the issue of affirmative action and potentially eliminate it from the state Constitution. She blamed the State Board of Canvassers for greenlighting the petition's language in the first place.

According to the petition's wording, the proposal would "amend" the current civil rights section of the state's constitution. Manderfield pointed out that the petition could eliminate the section altogether and, therefore, should contain either the words "alter" or "abrogate." The petition needs to be clear on whether it is altering the wording or eliminating it from the state's constitution.

The State News supports Manderfield's decision to halt this petition and protect the rights of Michigan voters. We hold firm to the belief that affirmative action is not something that can be voted upon. But if voters are asked to make a decision of this magnitude, the language needs to be explicit.

This is not to say that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative should not revamp its petition and attempt once again to gain the 317,000 signatures it needs to bring its proposal to the ballot. And this is not saying Michigan voters necessarily know what the word "abrogate" means. We simply believe that when voters are asked to decide on the civil rights issue in Michigan, there shouldn't be underlying bias in the one place it might have ended up - the voting booth.