Rocky did not identify proponent of "anti-preferences measure" as Independence Institute policy analyst

Summary: A March 4 Rocky Mountain News column by Vince Carroll about two proposed state ballot issues related to affirmative action stated that Jessica Peck Corry is "a proponent of Initiative 31," but omitted her position as a policy analyst with the Independence Institute, a "free-market" think tank. Carroll described Initiative 31 as "the real anti-preferences measure," claiming that supporters of the competing Initiative 61 "have already broken new ground in the abuse of the initiative process."

Discussing competing proposed state ballot initiatives concerning affirmative action in his March 4 column, Rocky Mountain News editorial page editor Vincent Carroll identified Jessica Peck Corry as "a proponent of Initiative 31," but did not further identify her as a policy analyst with the "free market" Independence Institute. Carroll also omitted that Corry supported a controversial anti-affirmative action bake sale held by College Republicans at the University of Colorado in Boulder that charged different prices for baked goods depending on the customer's skin color, as Colorado Media Matters has noted.

Also known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, Initiative 31 -- which Carroll described as "the real anti-preferences measure" -- would amend the Colorado Constitution to declare that 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." After noting similarities in wording with Initiative 31, Carroll later stated that supporters of Initiative 61, which Colorado's Initiative Title Setting Review Board approved on February 20, "have already broken new ground in the abuse of initiative process."

As The Denver Post reported, according to its backers, Initiative 61 "would preserve 'modest equal opportunity programs' " by adding the following sentence to the proposed amendment:

Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as limiting the State's authority to act consistently with standards set under the United States constitution, as interpreted by the United States supreme court, in public employment, public education, or public contracting.

As Colorado Media Matters has noted, the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative is being promoted by Ward Connerly, chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI). According to the organization's website, ACRI was "created to educate the public on the harms of racial and gender preferences." As the Post noted in an April 26, 2007, editorial, "Colorado is one of eight states targeted by Connerly for anti-affirmative action initiatives on the November 2008 ballot. He led the fight to pass a 1996 California initiative that barred preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education and contracting. Clones of that California ban later passed in Washington state and in Michigan."

On February 27 Corry filed a motion for a rehearing of Initiative 61, and the review board will reconsider it on March 5.

From Vincent Carroll's column "Confusing the issue," published March 4 in the Rocky Mountain News:

Why would any group subject itself to the brain damage and expense of collecting perhaps 100,000 signatures to put a measure on the Colorado ballot that would change ... nothing?

What would be the point?

For proponents of Initiative 61, which the state title board approved late last month, the point is betrayed in the ballot title's opening line:

"Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado Constitution concerning a prohibition against discrimination by the state, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting 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, and public contracting ..."

Hmmm, sounds familiar, doesn't it? Why, those are also the opening words of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, which was approved for the ballot last year as Initiative 31 and which would outlaw government affirmative action programs involving preferences of the sort described above.

Backers of the new amendment have a very different purpose. They want to save preference programs, and they do this in the next sentence. It says the state can also take any action "consistent with the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court" -- which of course preserves every single program that Initiative 31 would outlaw. [emphasis in original]

So Coloradans could face two ballot measures this fall that begin with nearly identical language claiming to ban programs based on preferential treatment. Yet only one would actually do so. Confusing? You bet. Now you know the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this column. The reason a group would subject itself to the trouble of putting a measure on the ballot that would change nothing is to confuse voters and undermine honest debate. It is a strategy of remarkable cunning and cynicism, but whether it succeeds is another matter.

Last week, an attorney for Jessica Peck Corry, a proponent of Initiative 31 -- the real anti-preferences measure, remember -- filed a formal motion for a rehearing on the pro-affirmative action measure. The motion's arguments might provide all the fodder the title board needs to muster the courage to kill 61 when it takes up the matter Wednesday. [emphasis added]

[...]

I've always believed the title board and state Supreme Court should give every reasonable benefit of the doubt to citizens trying to put initiatives on the ballot -- unless the measures made little sense or their advocates flagrantly violated the rules -- so I don't envy the board as it takes up Corry's request. But whatever the ruling, supporters of Initiative 61 have already broken new ground in the abuse of initiative process -- no minor achievement, when you think of it.

—E.B.