Home : Racial Justice : Affirmative Action

Missouri Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: Secretary of State's Appeals Court Brief (04/08/2008)
The petition considered in this case is one of a series of anti-affirmative action initiatives being forwarded in 5 states for the fall of 2008, but was deceptively billed by its sponsors as a ban on "discrimination" and "preferences." In this brief, Missouri's Secretary of State explains her reasons for amending the initiative's title to highlight its potential impact on affirmative action programs designed to improve opportunities for and eliminate discrimination against women and minorities. The brief urges the appeals court to reject the trial court's revision of the SOS's title.

Oklahoma Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: Proponents' Motion to Withdraw (04/04/2008)
In this motion, the proponents of the deceptively named Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative ask to withdraw their own measure, stating that they "do not want to waste... taxpayer money on [the initiative] when Movants are reasonably certain that it will fail to garner the requisite number of signatures." Signatures submitted in support of the initiative were called into doubt by the Secretary of State and were under scrutiny by the ACLU and NAACP Legal Defense Fund, representing a coalition of Oklahoma citizens that expressed concern over the OCRI's deceptive practices.

Cantrell v. Granholm Decision (03/18/2008)
The ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense fund and others filed suit against Michigan's Proposal 2, a ban on affirmative action, in December of 2006. A federal judge dismissed the suit.

Oklahoma Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: Signature Challenge Complaint (03/07/2008)
Complaint challenging the sufficiency of signatures submitted in favor of an anti-affirmative action initiative in Oklahoma.

Oklahoma Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: Secretary of State's Report on Signatures (02/07/2008)
Proponents of the so-called Oklahoma "Civil Rights" Initiative submitted signatures in support of their petition in December of 2007. In this report to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the Secretary of State notes an "unprecedented" number of irregularities, including signature-gatherers signing their own petitions multiple times.

Cantrell v. Granholm: Plaintiffs' Reply Memo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (01/22/2008)

Missouri Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: Circuit Court's Ruling in Title Challenge (01/10/2008)
The petition considered in this case is one of a series of anti-affirmative action initiatives being forwarded in 5 states for the fall of 2008, but was deceptively billed by its sponsors as a ban on "discrimination" and "preferences." Missouri's Secretary of State revised the ballot title to notify voters of the petition's likely impact on affirmative action. In this ruling, the Circuit Court upholds the use of the phrase "affirmative action" but nonetheless revises the certified title of the initiative.

Cantrell v. Granholm: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (01/07/2008)

Missouri Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: ACLU Trial Court Amicus Brief in Title Challenge (12/07/2007)
The Secretary of State of Missouri revised the deceptive description of the so-called Missouri Civil Rights Initiative to notify voters that the measure would threaten affirmative action programs. The ACLU submitted this amicus brief arguing that the term "affirmative action" provides voters necessary and fair notice of the initiative's target.

Cantrell v. Granholm: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (11/30/2007)

CO Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: Supreme Court Ruling in Title Challenge (09/10/2007)
The petition considered in this case is one of a series of anti-affirmative action initiatives being forwarded in 5 states for the fall of 2008, each of which is deceptively billed by its sponsors as a ban on "discrimination" and "preferences." In this ruling, a divided Supreme Court of Colorado narrowly upheld the Title Board's certification of the "Colorado Civil Rights Initiative"'s misleading description.

CO Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: Answer Brief of Objectors in Title Challenge (08/06/2007)
The petition considered in this case is one of a series of anti-affirmative action initiatives being forwarded in 5 states for the fall of 2008. Citizens of Colorado objected that the initiative was overly broad and deceptive, and explain these arguments in this reply brief.

CO Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: Title Board Answer Brief in Title Challenge (08/03/2007)
The petition considered in this case is one of a series of anti-affirmative action initiatives being forwarded in 5 states for the fall of 2008, each of which is deceptively described as a ban on "discrimination" and "preferential treatment." In this answer brief, the Title Board defends its certification of the misleading title submitted by the initiative's sponsors.

CO Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: ACLU Amicus in Title Challenge (07/27/2007)
The petition considered in this case is one of a series of anti-affirmative action initiatives being forwarded in 5 states for the fall of 2008, deceptively billed by its sponsors as a ban on "discrimination." In this amicus brief, the ACLU of Colorado argues that the measure's use of the phrase "preferential treatment" is unconstitutionally vague.

CO Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: Amicus Brief in Title Challenge Arguing Against the Prejudicial Use of the Phrase "Preferential Treatment" (07/27/2007)
The petition considered in this case is one of a series of anti-affirmative action initiatives being forwarded in 5 states for the fall of 2008, and was challenged for its misleading and prejudicial description. In this amicus brief, a seasoned public opinion research and strategy advisor contends that "preferential treatment" is an impermissable catchphrase that will unfairly sway voters considering the measure.

Missouri Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: MoCRI v. Carnahan Title Challenge (07/26/2007)
A challenge by the so-called Missouri Civil Rights Initiative to the Secretary of State's revision of their misleading ballot title. The petition in question is one of a series of anti-affirmative action initiatives being forwarded in 5 states for the fall of 2008, but was deceptively billed as a ban on "discrimination" and "preferences." The Secretary of State revised the title to notify voters of the petition's likely impact on affirmative action.

CO Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: ACRI Opening Brief in Title Challenge (07/16/2007)
The petition considered in this case is one of a series of 5 anti-affirmative action initiatives being forwarded for the fall of 2008 by the so-called American Civil Rights Institute. Each initiative is deceptively billed as a ban on "discrimination" and "preferences," and in this brief, the ACRI initiative proponents defend their measure against charges that it is misleading, uses impermissable catch phrases designed to prejudice voters, and is too broad to be considered in a single initiative.

CO Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: Title Board Opening Brief in Title Challenge (07/16/2007)
The petition considered in this case is one of a series of anti-affirmative action initiatives being forwarded in 5 states for the fall of 2008, each of which is deceptively described as a ban on "discrimination" and "preferential treatment." In this opening brief, the Title Board defends its certification of the misleading title submitted by the initiative's sponsors.

CO Anti-Affirmative Action Initiative: Objectors' Opening Brief in Title Challenge (07/16/2007)
The petition considered in this case is one of a series of anti-affirmative action initiatives being forwarded in 5 states for the fall of 2008, each of which is deceptively billed by its sponsors as a ban on "discrimination" and "preferential treatment." In this brief, citizens of Colorado file protest to the initiative's misleading and prejudicial title and allege that the initiative is unconstitutionally broad.

Cantrell v. Granholm Complaint (12/19/2006)
Complaint filed on behalf of a diverse group of students, prospective students and faculty at the University of Michigan, asking a federal court to uphold the Supreme Court's view that it is constitutionally permissible for universities to consider race and gender in university admissions.