 |
In 1997 the Houston City Council changed the ballot language; Voters weren't allowed to vote on the actual Houston Civil Rights Initiative! On July 1, 1999 the TX Supreme Court said "Conduct a New Vote with the Real Language!" |
 |
On June 26, 1998 Federal District Judge Sharolyn Wood ruled that the City's re-wording of the Houston Civil Rights Initiative as it appeared on the ballot last fall was misleading, and it inaccurately portrayed the intent of the initiative! The Judge determined that Houston would need to conduct a new referendum.
[ Also see Feb. 4, 1999 Update, below -- Courts leaning toward NEW ballot! ] As of July 1, 1999 the Texas Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the City of Houston did, in fact, mislead the voters by re-wording the language of the initiative (see below), AND that Judge Sharolyn Wood does have the authority to order a new, more fair, ballot using more accurate language (as signed by over 20,500 registered Houston voters). As of July 14, 1999 District Judge Sharlyn Wood ordered the City of Houston to conduct a new, honest ballot with the actual, intended language! On August 30, 1999 Judge Wood will decide the date of the new vote, and other issues such as whether she will be able to prevent Houston from illegally re-wording the ballot again! The "Houston Strategy", as it has come to be called, is a technique developed by supporters of racial preferences to prevent citizens from being able to vote directly on the issues of racial preferences and racial quotas. It is a simple, straightforward strategy: get the City Council, or other legislative body with proper jurisdiction over referendum ballot wording, to substitute the phrase "Affirmative Action" for "racial preferences". Thus the citizens are faced with voting against the entirety of Affirmative Action instead of just against racial quotas and preferences. Examine for yourself the difference between the original ballot language (on the left) and the misleading re-wording which the City printed on the ballot (on the right):
Under current law, the City of Houston sets aside 20% of city contracts for women and minorities. Firms owned by white males are specifically excluded from 20% of Houston's city contracts, while minorities and women are allowed to bid on 100% of city contracts. Wealthy Opposition to the Houston Civil Rights Initiative: Firms which contributed significant funds and/or political support in 1997 to de-railing the Houston Civil Rights Initiative included: Arthur Andersen, Brown & Root, Browning-Ferris Industries, Duke Energy, Enron, Kroger, Marathon, NationsBank, Paine Webber, Shell, Southwestern Bell, and Texaco. These firms all gave freely to preserve Houston's racial preferences and set-aside programs! They probably won't disclose this in their next report to shareholders, but the public should know.
Boycott these firms! If you believe in democratic representation, in your right to vote on laws which affect you, and in "equal representation for all regardless of race" then you should boycott these firms! And when you withdraw your business, your deposits, or your funds from these firms, you should let the President or CEO know exactly why you are taking your business elsewhere! Seattle, Washington: The ACLU recently failed to derail the November 1998 "Washington State Civil Rights Initiative" (I-200) by using the "Houston Strategy". Washington's Thurston County Superior Court Judge Berschauer saw through the ACLU's sham and ruled that the original ballot language of I-200 accurately reflected the initiative's sole purpose to end racial preferences and racial quotas. The Judge refused to allow ACLU to misrepresent this important Constitutional issue to the voters! ACLU unsuccessfully argued before the court that the Washington Initiative actually seeks to end all of Affirmative Action (this is, of course, false) and therefore, ACLU argued, language should be included on the ballot that this referendum seeks the end to "Affirmative Action". Thank you, Judge Berschauer for seeing the truth! Voter referendums and ballot initiatives are becoming more popular among other states and communities seeking to end racial quotas, preferences and reverse discrimination. It is anticipated that the "Houston Strategy" has found a comfortable home in the arsenals of racial special interests who don't think the citizens should be allowed to cast their votes on this issue. But the city didn't let them vote on the initiative that 20,500 voters signed. The city changed the language in order to help ensure the measure was defeated. Therefore, the original initiative was NOT defeated because it was never voted on! In June 1998 State District Judge Sharolyn Wood said that the ballot language as presented to the voters did not accurately reflect the intent of the referendum. BUT she has yet to sign a final judgment ordering a new, valid ballot. [Postscript: We'll see what Judge Wood does now, in the face of the July 1, 1999 unanimous, favorable decision from the Texas Supreme Court.] Meanwhile, lawyers for both sides will argue a narrow point of law to the Texas Supreme Court on April 8, 1999. They will argue whether or not Mr. Edward Blum, who spearheaded the original petition drive, had legal standing to seek an injunction to stop the election, NOT whether he should have been given an injunction. Apparently the state's Supreme Court will not even consider the issue of the city's re-wording of the ballot. Hopefully, Judge Wood will order the new election. Hopefully the various courts of appeal will uphold her decision. Because the NAACP, the city government, and their racial-special-interest supporters (Arthur Andersen, Brown & Root, Browning-Ferris Industries, Duke Energy, Enron, Kroger, Marathon, NationsBank, Paine Webber, Shell, Southwestern Bell, and Texaco) WILL pour vast resources into appealing any order for a new, valid ballot. Hopefully, the Texas Supreme Court will rule that Mr. Edward Blum and, by extension, representatives of future referendum petitioners, had (and will have) standing to seek an injunction in cases like this where the ballot language has been changed. Texas Supreme Court to Hear Houston Ballot Language Case Apr. 8, 1999
Former Houston Mayor Bob Lanier and the Houston City Council totally changed the meaning of the initiative by making it sound like it would end all affirmative action, including outreach, rather than the initative's stated purpose of simply ending racial preferences and quotas. (See "Comparison of Wording", above.) On June 26, 1998, Houston Judge Sharolyn Wood ruled this wording change was improper and illegal, saying this manipulation went well beyond the City's limited authority to alter wording in the interest of clarity. In a post-election comment to the New York Times, Rice University Professor Bob Stein stated that HCRI would have passed had the original language been on the ballot. The Texas Supreme Court will examine whether a petitioner has standing to challenge a ballot initiative and also whether the petitioner can be granted injunctive relief by the courts before an initiative takes place. Kevin Jewell with the Houston law firm Magenheim, Bateman, Robinson, Wrotenbery & Helfand will represent HCRI in Thursday's Supreme Court hearing. HCRI Chairman Edward Blum said, "We are confident that the Texas Supreme Court will eventually affirm Judge Wood's decision to safeguard the integrity of citizen initiatives against politically motivated meddling by politicians. This case is not ultimately about racial preferences, but about making sure that a democratic process designed to empower citizens is not destroyed simply because it produces results that conflict with the politics of a powerful elected official." Blum continued, "The entire purpose of the initiative process is to provide a means by which citizens can make their voices heard without interference from entrenched politicians and powerful special interests. A decision in our favor by the Texas Supreme Court will not only allow the original language of the HCRI to be placed on the ballot, but it will send a message to all Texas elected officials that they may not play political games with the wording of citizen initiatives." Related Story: Ballot
wording incites constitutional battle (04/09/99) Texas Supreme Court Rules Unanimously
News Coverage of the Opinion
by the Houston Chronicle (07/01/99) "The Texas Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that affirmative action foe [emphasis added] Edward Blum is legally justified in challenging the city's rewording of his November 1997 ballot proposition. The court also ruled that a state district court has the authority to prevent the city from using vague and misleading language, but cannot stop an election. The mixed decision could clear the way for a new vote on the anti-affirmative action proposition that voters rejected, thereby upholding Houston's Minority and Women Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. The ruling returns the legal dispute to state District Judge Sharolyn Wood's court, where Wood, a Republican, threw out the results of the Proposition A referendum in a preliminary ruling last year that is not yet final. "... Patrick Zummo, a lawyer for the city, said Blum and his supporters are far from assured of a new election. 'Right now I think the other side still has to prove the rewording of the ballot language changed the outcome of the election,' Zummo said. 'They haven't done that, and until they do that they aren't entitled to another election.' "Mayor Lee Brown, whose election as the first black mayor aided the defeat of the proposition because of record black-voter turnout, said in a written statement issued late Thursday that he was confident the contracting program would survive another election. ... Many of the core issues at stake in the case remain unresolved.
"The justices ruled in Thursday's decision that Blum does have legal standing
to challenge the city's rewording of his ballot proposition without ruling on the merits
of his case. The court, however, also noted the city has the authority to alter such
ballot language, but not to the extent that it misleads voters. The justices also ruled
that a state district court has the authority to prevent the city from using vague and
misleading ballot language, but not to stop an election. Whether the city's rewording is
vague and misleading as Blum contends is a matter for Wood's immediate consideration --
and the judge has already ruled the wording on the ballot did not reflect the
intent of [the 20,500 registered voters] who signed Blum's petition. If the judge
enters a final order determining that the ballot measure was vague and misleading, a new
election on the measure could be called." (Houston Chronicle 07/01/99 by Julie
Mason) NOTE: For the Complete (unanimous) Opinion from the Texas Supreme Court on July 1, 1999 regarding the case of "Edward J. Blum, Petitioner v. Bob Lanier, Mayor of the City of Houston, and the City of Houston, Respondents", please see the following link: Texas Supreme Court - http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/980256o.htm District Judge
Sharolyn Wood Orders On July 2, 1999, the Texas Supreme Court in a unanimous decision found that HCRI organizer Edward Blum had the legal right to bring a lawsuit challenging the City of Houston's ballot language rewording. The Court also affirmed that Judge Wood had the authority to order a new election. "This takes us another step toward ending preferences," said Blum. "Houstonians will finally have a fair and straightforward opportunity to end City policies which discriminate against individuals on the basis of their race, sex, or ethnicity," he added. There will still be a hearing on Monday, July 19 at 10AM in Judge Wood's 127th District Court located at 301 Fannin, but it will only concern legal fees and other peripheral issues. It has been indicated that the City will appeal this decision.
Judge sets trial date on ballot issue (07/19/99) "A judge Monday scheduled an Aug. 30 trial to determine the date of a new affirmative action referendum she will order the city to hold. "State District Judge Sharolyn Wood did not offer any clues during Monday's hearing regarding the date. On Wednesday, she told attorneys it likely would be November. "Even if Wood does order the election, it is not likely to take place any time this year because the city plans to appeal Wood's order throwing out the results of the November 1997 referendum upholding the city's affirmative action program. "Wood said the language the city placed on the ballot did not fairly convey the meaning of the language in the original proposition signed by more than 20,000 people to put the issue up for a vote. The city contends the language was not misleading. "Other issues Wood said she will address Aug. 30 is whether she can prevent the city from using improper ballot language before the election and whether she will order the city to pay the attorneys' fees of the plaintiffs. "The trial will not have a jury, and Wood will rule on all matters.
"Conservative activist Edward Blum, who spearheaded the 1997 effort to put the
referendum on the ballot and later filed suit contesting the results, said he doesn't
trust the city to use proper language in the new referendum. 'The plaintiffs and the
court are still concerned about the city's misuse of ballot language. There is a
possibility that they could do it all over again,' Blum said." (Houston
Chronicle 07/19/99 by Ron Nissimov) New vote looms on affirmative
action for city (08/30/99) "It is unclear when -- if ever -- the new election will be held. Mayor Lee Brown has said since last year that he would appeal Wood's ruling ordering the new election as soon as the judge signs a final judgment, which she is expected to do by the end of the week. "City officials contend the election will not have to be held as long as the case is on appeal and that an appellate court will eventually overturn Wood's decision to throw out the results of the November 1997 referendum in which voters upheld the city's affirmative action program. "But lawyers for Ed Blum, the conservative activist who filed a lawsuit claiming the city improperly changed the 1997 ballot language, said Monday that even if the city does appeal, the election must be held Nov. 2. "They acknowledged that they had said previously that an appeal would delay an election, but on Monday they said an April ruling by the Texas Supreme Court has convinced them the election cannot be delayed. 'I believe if the city appeals, it will not delay an election,' said Alan Magenheim, one of Blum's attorneys.
"Bill Helfand, another attorney for Blum, said if the city does not set a Nov. 2 date
for the election, he may seek a court order to force it to do so. ... Helfand and
Magenheim said this means the election must be held within four months of the final
judgment or on the first available election date, which would be Nov. 2."
(Houston Chronicle 08/30/99 by Ron Nissimov) End Houston Proposition A
|
Use your Browser's BACK button, or make another selection:
Houston Prop. A |
