2008 Colorado Amendment 46

Last updated

Amendment 46
Flag of Colorado.svg
November 4, 2008

Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Governments
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes1,102,04649.19%
Light brown x.svg No1,138,13450.81%
Total votes2,240,180100.00%

2008 Colorado Amendment 46 results map by county.svg

Amendment 46, also known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, was a proposed initiative on the Colorado ballot for 2008. If ratified, Article II of the Colorado Constitution would have stated:

Contents

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.

Controversy

The proposed initiative was sponsored by Californian Ward Connerly. In April, 2008, a Colorado group sued, claiming that over 69,000 signatures on the ballot petition were invalid. [1] Some citizens also claimed that they signed the petition through voter fraud. [2]

Governor Bill Ritter opposed the amendment, [3] along with the Colorado Council of Churches. [4]

Petition company

National Ballot Access was hired to manage this petition drive. [5] [6]

Result

Amendment 46 [7]
ChoiceVotes %
Light brown x.svg No1,138,13450.81
Yes1,102,04649.19
Total votes2,240,180100.00

Aftermath

Initiatives with the same language have been introduced and approved in five other states, including California (1996), Washington (1998), Michigan (2006), Nebraska (2008), and Arizona (2010); Colorado was the first state where it was defeated. On December 17, 2010 the University of Colorado at Boulder released a report [8] analyzing the factors that led to the defeat of Amendment 46. According to the study, "...Coloradans overwhelmingly intended to support affirmative action on Election Day; arguably, were Amendment 46 a clearly worded referendum on attitudes toward affirmative action, it would have failed by a much wider margin: 66 to 34 percent." The report also found that (a) many voters were confused by the initiative, (b) voters who followed the measure in the media were more likely to oppose it, and (c) proposed alternative initiatives in support of equal opportunity contributed to the measure's defeat. [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1992 Oregon Ballot Measure 9</span> Referendum on gay rights

Oregon Ballot Measure 9 was a 1992 citizens' initiative concerning LGBT rights in the state of Oregon. It sought to amend the Oregon Constitution to prohibit anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation and to declare homosexuality to be "abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse". Listing homosexuality alongside pedophilia and sadism and masochism, it has been described as one of the harshest anti-gay measures presented to voters in American history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ward Connerly</span> American political activist and businessman (born 1939)

Wardell Anthony "Ward" Connerly is an American political and anti-affirmative action activist, businessman, and former University of California Regent (1993–2005). He is also the founder and the chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, a national non-profit organization in opposition to racial and gender preferences, and is the president of Californians for Equal Rights, a non-profit organization active in the state of California with a similar mission. He is considered to be the man behind California's Proposition 209 prohibiting race- and gender-based preferences in state hiring, contracting and state university admissions, a program known as affirmative action.

In the politics of the United States, the process of initiatives and referendums allow citizens of many U.S. states to place legislation on the ballot for a referendum or popular vote, either enacting new legislation, or voting down existing legislation. Citizens, or an organization, might start a popular initiative to gather a predetermined number of signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The measure is placed on the ballot for the referendum, or actual vote.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 209</span> Referendum banning affirmative action

Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed, thereby banning affirmative action in the state's public sector.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions</span>

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions of several different types passed, banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, referred to by proponents as "defense of marriage amendments" or "marriage protection amendments." These state amendments are different from the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage in every U.S. state, and Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, more commonly known as DOMA, which allowed the states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. The amendments define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized, though some of the amendments bar only the latter. The Obergefell decision in June 2015 invalidated these state constitutional amendments insofar as they prevented same-sex couples from marrying, even though the actual text of these amendments remain written into the state constitutions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michigan Civil Rights Initiative</span> American ballot initiative

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2, was a ballot initiative in the U.S. state of Michigan that passed into Michigan Constitutional law by a 58% to 42% margin on November 7, 2006, according to results officially certified by the Michigan Secretary of State. By Michigan law, the Proposal became law on December 22, 2006. MCRI was a citizen initiative aimed at banning consideration of race, color, sex, or religion in admission to colleges, jobs, and other publicly funded institutions – effectively prohibiting some affirmative action by public institutions based on those factors. The Proposal's constitutionality was challenged in federal court, but its constitutionality was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Arizona Proposition 107</span> Failed referendum on a statewide same-sex marriage ban

Arizona Proposition 107 was a proposed same-sex marriage ban, put before voters by ballot initiative in the 2006 general election. If passed, it would have prohibited the U.S. state of Arizona from recognizing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The state already had a statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Colorado Amendment 44</span> Referendum that would have legalized marijuana

Amendment 44 was a proposed amendment to the state statutes submitted for referendum in the 2006 general elections in the U.S. state of Colorado. The amendment proposed the legalization of the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana for any person twenty-one years of age and over, as long as marijuana use does not occur in public. The measure was eventually defeated at the polls by 59-41 percent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Colorado Amendment 38</span>

Amendment 38 was a measure on the 2006 ballot in Colorado. If passed, it would have amended the Colorado Constitution. It would have extend the petition process to all levels of state government to expand citizens' ability to propose changes to state laws and local ordinances or resolutions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Colorado Amendment 41</span>

Amendment 41 was a citizen initiative adopted by Colorado voters in the 2006 general election. The amendment was approved by 62.6% of voters. Amendment 41 has three main sections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leon Drolet</span> American politician

Leon Drolet is a Michigan Republican politician and Anti-tax activist elected Macomb County Commissioner. He is a political activist known for his conservative fiscal views, which have caused criticism from politicians from both sides, including Candace Miller, L. Brooks Patterson and Mark Hackel. From 2001 to 2006, Drolet served in the Michigan House of Representatives. Drolet also served as a Macomb County, Michigan county commissioner from 1999 to 2000 and from 2006 to 2008. Drolet was active in the Southeast Michigan Tea Party Movement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of Colorado</span>

The Constitution of the State of Colorado is the foundation of the laws and government of the U.S. state of Colorado. The Colorado State Constitution was drafted on March 14, 1876; approved by Colorado voters on July 1, 1876; and took effect upon the statehood of Colorado on August 1, 1876. As of 2020, the constitution has been amended at least 166 times. The Constitution of Colorado derives its authority from the sovereignty of the people. As such, the people of Colorado reserved specific powers in governing Colorado directly; in addition to providing for voting for Governor, state legislators, and judges, the people of Colorado have reserved initiative of laws and referendum of laws enacted by the legislature to themselves, provided for recall of office holders, and limit tax increases beyond set amounts without explicit voter approval, and must explicitly approve any change to the constitution, often with a 55% majority. The Colorado state constitution is one of the longest in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Successful referendum on banning same-sex marriage

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Colorado Amendment 59</span>

Initiative 126 or the Savings Account for Education Initiative appeared on the ballot as Amendment 59. The measure would have created a savings account in the state education fund funded by 10 percent of the monies deposited into the fund, including revenue that would otherwise be rebated under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights rules.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Colorado Amendment 47</span>

Amendment 47 was a proposed initiative on the Colorado ballot for 2008. It was defeated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Colorado Amendment 48</span>

Colorado Amendment 48 was an overwhelmingly defeated initiative to amend the definition of a person to "any human being from the moment of fertilization".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Nebraska Initiative 424</span> Referendum banning affirmative action at the state level

The Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative, also known as Initiative 424, was a 2008 ballot measure that proposed a constitutional amendment which would prohibit the state from discriminating against, or granting 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." The measure, in effect, banned affirmative action at the state level. It passed with 58% of the vote.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 Colorado Amendment 62</span> Referendum that would have banned abortion

Colorado Amendment 62 was an initiated constitutional amendment that appeared on the November 2, 2010 ballot defining personhood as “every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.” It sought to ban abortion in the state of Colorado and challenge Roe v. Wade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 16</span> Measure to undo the states ban on affirmative action

Proposition 16 was a failed California ballot proposition that appeared on the November 3, 2020, general election ballot, asking California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal Proposition 209 (1996). Proposition 209 amended the state constitution to prohibit government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of race- and gender-based affirmative action in California's public sector and public university admissions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1992 Colorado Amendment 2</span> Referendum on gay rights

Amendment 2 was a ballot measure approved by Colorado voters on November 3, 1992, simultaneously with the United States presidential election. The amendment prevented municipalities from enacting anti-discrimination laws protecting gay, lesbian, or bisexual people.

References

  1. David Montero (April 24, 2008). "Suit filed over Amendment 46", Rocky Mountain News .
  2. Blake Wesley (April 16, 2008). "Colorado Anti-Affirmative Action Legislation Amendment 46 Archived 2008-10-10 at the Wayback Machine ", electionunspun.org.
  3. Jerd Smith (September 29, 2008). "Ritter: Amendment 46 'undercuts Colorado'", Rocky Mountain News.
  4. Associated Press (June 10, 2008). "Group Opposes Anti-Affirmative Action Measure [ permanent dead link ]", KCNC-TV.
  5. Dan Hayes Denver Ballot Proposal A Success The Minutemen Civil Defense Corps
  6. Unions may lose a labor-state The Union News, April 10, 2008
  7. Buescher, Bernie (June 29, 2009). "Official Publication of the Abstract of Votes Cast for the 2008 Primary 2008 General" (PDF). Secretary of State of Colorado . Retrieved October 3, 2024.[ dead link ]
  8. Michele Moses, et al (September, 2010). "Investigating the Defeat of Colorado's Amendment 46: An Analysis of the Trends and Principal Factors Influencing Voter Behaviors. Archived 2011-10-13 at the Wayback Machine ", Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights.
  9. Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights (December 17, 2010). "Report Analyzes Successful Campaign to Defeat Colorado's Anti-Equal Opportunity Ballot Measure. Archived 2011-07-07 at the Wayback Machine "