The Legitimacy of the MCRI Placement on the Ballot

Reader Steve Sutton has published in the Farmington (Mi) Observer newspaper a letter that says everything that needs to be said about the legitimacy of the MCRI placement on the November ballot. We reprint his excellent comments below:

To the editor:

In the debate over the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) appearing on the ballot in November, the Farmington Observer questioned the wrong group’s credibility (“MCRI's claims raise credibility questions”).



A few overlooked facts:



To gain ballot access, MCRI needed 317,757 signatures. 508,202 were submitted. To prevent it from appearing on the ballot, over 180,000 signatures would have to be proved invalid. BAMN alleged up to 125,000 were acquired fraudulently. Even if their most exaggerated guess was accurate, enough valid signatures remained for ballot access.



The Michigan Civil Rights Commission (MCRC) held hearings 18 months after people signed the petition asking them what the petition gatherer said. I challenge anyone to accurately recall a one-minute conversation that occurred over a year ago.

The MCRC claims it collected 500 – 1000 “affidavits” alleging petitioners misrepresented the petition. None of the “affidavits” are notarized and the MCRC has only released 75 of them to the public for viewing.

197 people spoke before the MCRC. At least 46 of them did not sign the petition and 12 are members of, or affiliated with, BAMN. In addition, a handful of political officials spoke. I leave it to readers to guess what their motivations may be in this election year.

Prior to the circulation of petitions in 2004, MCRC Chairman Mark Bernstein released a press release stating “The [MCRI] is a shameful attempt to confuse and manipulate unsuspecting voters…” At the same time, the MCRC adopted a resolution opposing the initiative. Two weeks after his commission released its report claiming fraud, Bernstein held a fundraiser for the campaign to oppose MCRI.

Finally, MCRI does not claim “that their opposition comes only from a radical fringe group (BAMN).” However, this extremist group is leading the charge. Since 2004, they have filed multiple complaints and lawsuits against MCRI. In fact, their frivolous filings delayed the initiative from appearing on the 2004 ballot. BAMN allegations have been rejected by the Secretary of State, the Court of Appeals, and the Michigan Supreme Court. In addition, they have used intimidation to try and prevent the MCRI from moving forward.

MCRI has conducted itself in a civil and professional manner. Opponents cannot make the same claim. I leave it to voters to decide who is credible in this debate.