Affirmative action is one of the perennial hot-button topics in politics, and the debate surrounding its advantages and disadvantages is always an interesting one. In this state, a coalition called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or MCRI, was seeking to create a ballot proposal to amend the Michigan Constitution to prohibit affirmative action. Various groups, such as the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary, or BAMN, are in opposition to this.
The State Board of Canvassers voted against certifying the measure for the ballot Tuesday after hearing about allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. The MCRI will be heading to an appeals court regarding the decision.
The debate has heated up recently, but instead of focusing on affirmative action itself, it's shifted toward the validity of the methods used by the MCRI to obtain petition signatures necessary to put the proposal before voters. There have been many allegations of petition fraud stemming from accounts and affidavits from those who signed petitions, saying they were misled to believe the petition supported, not opposed, affirmative action.
Although this might seem silly to some at first - much like the case of the Florida senior citizens who were confused into voting for the wrong candidate in the 2000 elections seemed silly - it is real. Among those who gave affidavits claiming the purpose of the petition described improperly by petitioners was Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Robert Ziolkowski.
A case of defrauding the public is enough to get anybody hot under the collar, and a thorough investigation should be done.
Whoever heads the investigation must not become tangled in the debate of affirmative action. This isn't the issue. As a matter of course, the issue is simply whether the signatures are valid or invalid.
Much as the allegations that President Bush lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have clouded the debate over the legality of invading a sovereign country, the allegations of petition fraud might cloud the affirmative action debate here. The opponents and proponents of affirmative action need to keep their focus where it belongs: on the issue itself.
Admittedly, this is hard to do amid such an interesting controversy. Indeed, the outcome of the fraud investigations will reflect poorly on the group which is proven wrong. If it turns out that the MCRI tricked citizens into signing petitions, their movement will be irreparably tarnished. On the other hand, if the MCRI petitions are valid, the protesting groups will appear foolish.
Either way, the stakes are fairly high now that a sworn public official - and a judge at that - has claimed he was defrauded. If this judge was really fooled, it seems anybody could've been.
A thorough investigation will help restore some legitimacy to the fight over affirmative action, which has lately gotten dirty.
