Michigan Proposal 2, Affirmative Action Initiative (2006)

Michigan Proposal 2
Election date November 7, 2006
Topic Affirmative action
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Michigan Proposal 2 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in Michigan on November 7, 2006. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported adding Section 26 to the Michigan Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which said that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting.

A "no" vote opposed adding Section 26 to the Michigan Constitution's Declaration of Rights, which said that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting.

Aftermath

BAMN v. Regents

In 2011, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that provisions of Proposal 2 that affected public colleges and universities were unconstitutional. Judge R. Guy Cole wrote, "We find that Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities." Attorney General Bill Schuette appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court agree to hear the case. On April 22, 2014, the Supreme Court upheld Proposal 2 as constitutional, revering the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority's opinion, stated, "This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this Court’s precedents for the Judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, stating, "Today’s decision eviscerates an important strand of our equal protection jurisprudence. For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government."

Election results

Michigan Proposal 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		2,141,010	57.92%
No		1,555,691	42.08%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposal 2 was as follows:

“

A proposal to amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

The proposed constitutional amendment would: Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts. Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.) Should this proposal be adopted?

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

See also: Section 26 of Article I, Michigan Constitution

The ballot measure added Section 26 to Article I of the Michigan Constitution. The following underlined text was added:

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

(1) The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. (2) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. (3) For the purposes of this section "state" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself, any city, county, any public college, university, or community college, school district, or other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State of Michigan not included in sub-section 1. (4) This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state. (5) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. (6) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of Michigan anti-discrimination law. (7) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section. (8) This section applies only to action taken after the effective date of this section. (9) This section does not invalidate any court order or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date of this section.

Support

Supporters

Organizations

• American Civil Rights Institute

Individuals

• Ward Connerly, founder of the American Civil Rights Institute

Opposition

Opponents

Parties

• Michigan Democratic Party

American Indian tribes

• Little River Band of Ottawa Indians
• Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Nation

Organizations

• Detroit Renaissance Foundation
• Michigan Catholic Conference
• NAACP Detroit

Businesses

• AT&T
• Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
• Dow Chemical Company
• Ford Motor Company
• General Motors
• JPMorgan Chase
• Pfizer
• Toyota Motor North America

Unions

• AFL-CIO
• American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
• American Federation of Teachers
• Detroit Federation of Teachers
• International Brotherhood of Teamsters
• Michigan AFL-CIO
• Service Employees International Union
• United Auto Workers National Community Action Program
• United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

Background

Between 1996 and 2020, voters had decided ballot measures to prohibit the use of affirmative action involving race-based and sex-based preferences in seven states. Six of the ballot measures were approved. In Florida, Idaho, and New Hampshire, legislation or executive orders banned or limited race-based affirmative action as of 2020.

With Proposition 209, California became the first state to enact a formal ban on racial preferences, according to the Pew Research Center.

In 1997, Ward Connerly, who chaired the campaign behind Proposition 209, founded the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI). ACRI supported successful ballot measures in Washington (1998) and Michigan (2006). In 2008, ACRI launched a campaign called the Super Tuesday for Equal Rights, which supported ballot initiatives in Colorado and Nebraska. In Colorado, the ballot measure was rejected.

In Arizona (2010) and Oklahoma (2012), their respective state legislatures placed constitutional amendments related to affirmative action on the ballot. Both of the constitutional amendments were approved.

State	Measure	Year	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”	Status
California	Proposition 209	1996	54.55%	45.45%	a Approved
Washington	Initiative 200	1998	58.22%	41.78%	a Approved
Michigan	Proposal 2	2006	57.92%	42.08%	a Approved
Colorado	Initiative 46	2008	49.19%	50.81%	d Defeated
Nebraska	Measure 424	2008	57.56%	42.44%	a Approved
Arizona	Proposition 107	2010	59.51%	40.49%	a Approved
Oklahoma	Question 759	2012	59.19%	40.81%	a Approved

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in Michigan

In Michigan, an initiated constitutional amendment requires a number of signatures equivalent to 10 percent of the votes cast for governor at the preceding election. In 2006, the minimum number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment was 317,757.

On January 6, 2005, supporters of the ballot initiative reported submitting 508,282 signatures. The Michigan State Board of Canvassers rejected certification of the initiative in response to disagreements over the signature gathering process in July 2005. In October, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that the State Board of Canvassers was required to approve the petitions, allowing the initiative to appear on the ballot.

See also

2006 Measures

• 2006 Measures
• Affirmative action on the ballot
• 2006 legislative sessions

Michigan

• Michigan ballot measures
• Michigan ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Michigan Notice of Ballot Proposals - November 7, 2006