Tag: Prop 2

Of course said nuttiness joined by what we might have expected to see; a particular "wise Latina woman" making a mockery of equal protection under the law. A fascinating read of the first day's hearing on the case reveals even liberal biases will not paint the 2006 referendum result as an unconstitutional achievement.

"Arguing that a referendum that bans racial discrimination and preferences is itself a violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause was always a stretch. Neal Katyal, a former solicitor general in the Clinton administration told USA Today that the lower court ruling striking down the referendum was  "an indefensible decision."  The liberal Slate writer Emily Bazelon called Schuette "the affirmative action case liberals deserve to lose."  And the Obama administration, which intervened in last term's affirmative action case of Fisher v. University of Texas, did not participate in the Schuette case."

Also revealed; the percentage changes mentioned in yesterday's post appearing to be more of a 'census guidelines' effect, and cannot be completely attributed to actual numbers of minorities attending the school. (given the President of the university promised to break the law anyhow, should we be surprised?) The numbers as noted by Michigan solicitor general John Bursch, revealed the changes as expected from a 30 school study are not different than what the actual percentages showed.

And I did mention the self designation of Sonya Sotomayer.  Her commentary should not really be of any great surprise, yet reveals that elections do indeed have consequence.

"It's always wonderful for minorities that they finally get in, they finally have children and now you're going to do away [with] that preference for them.  It seems the game posts keep changing every few years for minorities."

Sadly, its being sold from the equivalent of sniper on a clock tower using a scope that reaches the entire country.  We are all targets if a "wise Latina Woman" wishes it.

I'll let Henry cover this one

Replacing retiring President Mary Sue Coleman offers the University of Michigan a historic opportunity to reboot with an administrator who embraces a 21st century, colorblind admissions policy that is succeeding in states like California. The university's board could signal the new era by including Jennifer Gratz on its presidential search committee.

Protecting Michigan Taxpayers today announced the filing of multiple campaign finance complaints against personal injury lawyer and failed gubernatorial candidate Geoffrey Fieger and his law firm, Fieger & Fieger, P.C. in connection with hidden spending by the firm in support of Proposal 2, the government union boss power grab overwhelmingly rejected by voters on Tuesday.

"Geoffrey Fieger may be a high-powered personal injury lawyer but that doesn't mean he is above the law," said Jared Rodriguez, Spokesman for Protecting Michigan Taxpayers.  "His decision to flout campaign finance law and to illegally hide his spending on behalf of Proposal 2 from voters raises serious questions about the real amount of money spent by big labor on this failed, divisive attempt to put union bosses above the members they claim to represent."

Violations of Michigan's campaign finance law committed by Fieger and referenced in today's complaint include:

• Violation of Section 24 of the MCFA by failing to file a Statement of Organization with the Michigan Department of State;
  
• Violation of Section 34 of the MCFA by failing to file the pre-general campaign statement due October 26, 2012; and
  
• Violation of Section 47(4) of the MCFA by failing to indicate that advertisements paid for by Fieger were paid for "with regulated funds."

"How Will Virg Bernero Pay for Annual Increased $1.6 Billion Costs Per Year for Proposal 2?"

Maybe he is also counting on Prop 3 to pass.  The voted-in magic unicorns will be ALL OVER Lansing along with their Leprechaun riders to spring gold and fairy dust all over the town.  Yeah, that will work.

CPMC is all over Virg's inability to touch base with reality on this issue:"

"Newspapers across Michigan have reported that Proposal 2 will increase costs to taxpayers by $1.6 billion a year.  Last month, Virg Bernero appointed a financial advisory team in Lansing to deal with his cities burgeoning deficit, making this the worst possible time to raise costs on taxpayers and local governments.

"Whether it's using city money to maintain an aquarium and personalized pencils, or dealing with the city's deficit, Mayor Bernero needs to explain to Lansing taxpayers how he will pay for the $1.6 billion annual price tag attached to Proposal 2.  This Constitutional hijacking attempt by the government worker unions is costly, dangerous and irresponsible and voters should say no to Proposal 2."

CPMC just cut loose with their latest ad titled "Dangerous," featuring metro Detroit police officer Terry Fortuna exposing the truth about Proposal 2.  The state's Attorney General and law enforcement leaders from across Michigan have been educating residents about the devastating effect Proposal 2 would have on 170 laws that voters, parents, Sheriffs and police count on to protect Michiganders.

Officer Fortuna says:

"I'm pro-union, its just that I'm not pro Proposal 2.  They are trying to sell this as collective bargaining, but collective bargaining is already protected by federal law.  You don't have to know anything about Proposal 2 except that its dangerous.  Vote NO on Proposal 2."

According to Proposal 2's own language, the proposed constitutional amendment would give union contracts veto power over state laws, by "invalidat(ing) existing or future state or local laws" and will "override state laws that regulate...conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements," giving government union contracts veto power over the laws that keep Michigan kids and families safe.

AG Schuette found that this language would invalidate over 170 different laws and reforms, including many that keep Michigan kids safe at school like laws establishing minimum safety training standards for bus drivers and empowering school districts to immediately remove teachers from the classroom who have been caught under the influence or selling drugs at school.

The Michigan Education Association, the state's largest teachers union and one of the most prominent financial backers of Proposal 2, concurred with Schuette's findings earlier this year when they issued a confidential legal memo that claimed passage of Proposal 2 would "immediately" overturn the law that gives public schools the right to immediately remove teachers caught selling drugs in the classroom or under the influence of drugs or alcohol at school, among others.

Putting the dot on the 'i', the Bay City teachers union wrote a $40,000 check to the ballot committee behind Proposal 2 shortly after receiving an internal legal memo from the Michigan Education Association. (MEA) The memo that claimed Prop 2 would reinstate controversial Bay City contract provisions that prevent the school district from firing teachers caught selling drugs or under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the classroom, according to campaign finance reports.

The Bay City Education Association wrote the $40,000 check, one of the single largest contributions by any local teachers union in the state, to the "Protect Our Jobs" ballot committee on May 23rd, only a month after an MEA circulated legal memo declaring Proposal 2 would overturn the law identified in the local union's contract that barred provisions requiring a teacher to be caught drunk five times or under the influence of drugs three times before being fired.

The same contract had provisions where a teacher could be caught selling drugs on school property in some circumstances not once, but twice before the teacher could be terminated. (Contract pages 92-93.)

"The more parents learn about Proposal 2 the less they like it," said Nick De Leeuw, Spokesman for Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution. "The possible consequences in Bay City prove that Proposal 2 is not just bad policy, it is not worth the risk to Michigan children."

Lawmakers and the governor teamed in 2011 to enact Public Act 103, which legally overturned the kind of shocking contract provisions found in the Bay City teachers' contract but the contract itself explicitly states (contract page 87) that should Public Act 103 be struck down, the protections for teachers who abuse drugs and alcohol on school property or sell drugs in class would go back into effect.

According to an internal memo from the MEA's Legal Department (see attachment) delivered to the Bay City teachers union only weeks before their massive contribution, passage of Proposal 2 would "immediately" overturn Public Act 103.  The MEA is also one of Proposal 2's most prominent financial backers.

The MEA's leaked memo states in part: "The new prohibited bargaining topics created by 2011 PA 103 and included in Section 15(3) of PERA would NO LONGER exist. This law currently prohibits bargaining over...Teacher discipline policies..."

This Not-For-Sale ad continues the message that our constitution is not for sale to the leftist interests which will bankrupt Michigan.  Particularly with proposals Two, Three, and 4.