 On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com. |
Carroll: High court, low politics
Love or loathe the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, it’s straightforward, simple and easy to understand. No hidden agendas or confusing language. Just a stark ban on government discrimination based on race, sex or the other familiar categories.
So why did three state Supreme Court justices try to sabotage the amendment last week, claiming it violated the rule barring a ballot measure from having more than one subject?
Crass politics is one possible explanation. Given the record of several justices in recent years, crass politics may even be the only plausible explanation.
One summer ago, you may remember, the court invoked the same all-purpose excuse to kill an initiative that would have barred governmental benefits for illegal immigrants. The proposed ballot measure may have been a blunt instrument deserving defeat at the polls — in my view, at least — but it clearly stuck to a single subject.
The Civil Rights Initiative, which in all likelihood will be on next year’s ballot, is even more tightly focused than the immigration measure.
The language approved by the state title board says “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.”
It then permits exceptions related to federal law and court decrees, while defining “state” to include higher education and local government.
Yet despite its clarity, the measure survived a legal challenge only because the court knotted in a tie. Three justices (Nancy Rice, Nathan Coats and Alison Eid) agreed it was a single subject, while three others (Mary Mullarkey, Greg Hobbs and Alex Martinez) said it wasn’t. Justice Michael Bender did not participate.
Justices don’t have to explain themselves when the court upholds a title board decision, but it’s no mystery what Chief Justice Mullarkey and her two colleagues were probably thinking given the legal briefs in the case.
The amendment’s opponents claim its language implies that preferential treatment “is simply a subcategory of ‘discrimination,’ ” and they dispute whether that’s the case.
Preferential treatment “can certainly involve forms of ‘discrimination,’ ” the litigants concede, but it also “involves a good bit more than that.” In fact, they say, some forms of preferential treatment “disadvantage no one.”
The short answer to this argument is that the measure’s sponsors obviously disagree. They believe “preferential treatment” is a subcategory of discrimination. That’s why they want it on the ballot — to end practices they consider wrong.
Nor are the measure’s sponsors unusual in mentioning discrimination and preferential treatment in the same breath. As the title board’s brief points out, “The United States Supreme Court has long acknowledged the close relationship between laws or actions that discriminate against an individual or a group based upon race, gender, nationality or ethnicity, and those that grant preferential treatment toward an individual or group.”
Every statute or amendment contains unanswered questions regarding its application, and the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative is no exception. But given the amendment’s overall clarity and narrow focus, it’s nothing less than scandalous that three justices of the state’s highest court were prepared to prevent voters from ever ruling on it.
If you want to understand their high-handed attitude, you could do worse than consult Squealer, the propagandist in George Orwell’s Animal Farm.
“Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure,” Squealer explains at one point. “On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountain
News.com.
Mr. Carroll,
As editor of the editorial page, you must have some ability to influence the organization of comments on this website.
There should be a section to post a comment for every main article on this website.
Sorry for posting this here. The paper does not provide an option to post where it should be posted.
There are too many horse drawn carraiges downtown. Reduce the permits, and restrict them to the mall.
It is only a matter of time before someone hits a horse carraige on 17th street, or 15th street, in traffic, where drivers and horses should not have to have the stress of encountering each other.
The umbrella test is understandable for people walking on the mall, but finding one in front of you, at 30 miles an hour, is a stress neither person or horse needs.
Also, include in the test, manners. Too many carraiges smell bad, and the driver should be much more considerate to the public walking by, the riders, and the horse. Require poop rules, more than leaving it in a poop sack attached to the rear of the horse.
In the manners test, add how a driver is sensitive to not overworking the horse in 100 degree heat, or making the horse endure rain and hail unprotected. There should be a rule, that when the temperature exceeds, 90 degrees, the horses should not be worked.
Posted by jupiter on September 19, 2007 10:06 AMConsider Justices Rice and Mullarkey, both Democrats; whereas Justice Rice puts legal principles above politics (and having worked with then Judge Rice in the Denver District Judicial System, she has been consistently above board and principled), Justice Mullarkey has consistently placed politics above her role as a jurist. The latter is the very epitome of a partisan judge and is the very embodiment of her pronounced surname. (For those a little thick - Jay, I'm thinking of you, buddy - this is a play on words given that "malarkey" is talk intended to deceive.)
Posted by SlouchingtowardBoulder on September 19, 2007 11:21 AMwow...don't pout slouch.
if your ego can't stand the constant evidence that you can't keep up intellectually...maybe you shouldn't play this game...for your ego's sake that is...
Posted by jay on September 19, 2007 07:01 PMWhat the hell was that last comment about? As to the issue at hand, Mullarkey is a partisan. Anyone who has practiced before the Colorado Supremes understands this and tailors their arguments accordingly.
Posted by CCC on September 19, 2007 08:56 PMThe continued practice of discrimination mandates that the advocates of discrimination get the Civil Rights Initiative banned from the ballot. The voters will approve it, by a wide margin, as these state level intiatives represent the first time voters have EVER been directly asked if they favor or oppose discrimination. Since the general public overwhelmingly is anti-racist and in favor of equality, this intiative will pass if it makes it to the ballot; a fact that clearly offends modern day bigots.
Posted by RS on September 20, 2007 06:11 AM