July 01, 2006

Henry Teutsch

Carl Williams, Hassan Aleem and Percy Harris have been hard at work to prevent the Anti Affirmative Action initiative from reaching the ballot here in Michigan. They are not lawyers but they do practice the law. They are not watchdogs who wait for something to happen and then scrutinize an entity, decisions or the happenings and then complain to the public. They are proactive who take heed against those who might use the less fortunate to make others more fortunate. Three friends they share a love for the Black community and the city of Detroit. But broader than the city, they realize that as citizens of Michigan they have the ability to use the laws of this state to protect themselves from others who would attack the rights of Michigan citizens. They are also members of Hood Research, a non profit think tank and share the title of co chairs of the legal issues committee. If you have ever attended a Hood Research meeting then you have heard them explain the law, legal issues and provide analysis on the current topics. The actions taken by the three however were independent of any group or body in their desire to protect others on what is a hot political topic with the strong possibility for political revenge or retribution by the legal system.

What these gentleman did is to notice how the Michigan Civil Rights Institute, MCRI, a group working to change Michigan’s Constitution to prevent Affirmative Action, and their supporters, were violating the law in order to get their proposal approved for the ballot. Many Michigan Republicans, both elected and their supporters used their position, influence or money to help push this initiative. During the meetings before the state Board of Canvassers, who would eventually vote on the petition, the three presented their concerns and findings. But it wasn’t until MCRI filed suit against the board to force them to approve the petitions that these three legal guardians joined in the lawsuit against MCRI to stop what they considered an injustice and an affront to the citizens of this state.

While others were focusing on the emotional aspect of this case, Carl, Hassan and Percy instead looked at the legal options and precedents. They focused on the rules of law. They are no strangers to a petition drive having provided counsel on the proper way to conduct a petition drive and the requirements needed to have it accepted by the elections clerk. They knew where mistakes were likely to be made and how best to check for them with little effort and time. What they found is that the petitions are invalid. With this experience they noticed problems with the petitions collected by MCRI. Once they noticed this they began to find other problems and then turned their attention to the courts when the initial lawsuit was filed.

Almost a year ago MCRI turned in thousands of signatures in what they called a successful petition drive. MCRI’s goal is to get rid of any Affirmative Action programs in the State of Michigan. This means any action, law, or executive decision by any government body in the state would not be able to apply Affirmative Action programs and would cease the ability to develop better actions in the future. Much hype has been given to Ward Connelly, who was the spokes person for a similar drive in California. But while he lends his name to this effort, the groups and people pushing the initiative are Michigan political operatives composed primarily of Michigan republicans. Some republicans, like the Michigan State Attorney General Mike Cox have openly expressed their support for MCRI and their desire to get rid of Affirmative Action even though that support and actions are in some cases a direct conflict of interest. He and Michigan Secretary of State, Terri Lynn Land, also a republican, have failed to do their job according to the trio from Detroit. They have indicated that the chief elections officer of the state did not properly check the signatures and the legal attorney for the state failed to adequately represent his client. Land is supposed to certify the petitions as the final authority in the state, especially for a statewide item. Any problems with the petitions rest on her shoulders. Cox was to defend the board of Canvassers against MCRI but instead of appearing himself, he had a lower lever employee perform the duties of the elected office. The representation presented by his office in front of the courts for the lawsuit lacked in necessary performance and skills of an assistant attorney. The Board of Canvassers barely had legal representation and would have been better served if they had hired an outside independent legal representation. “They are the ones who do crazy shit. We don’t do it because we have to read this stuff two and three times.” Says Hassan when talking about the actions of the courts, the attorneys and what they file or how they rule. Carl and Hassan would research each ruling and lookup the laws used to back an argument. They could offer an education in the legal system that any lawyer would benefit.

Being familiar with the petition process Percy, Hassan and Carl reviewed the results of MCRI and their claim of having sufficient signatures. By using the analysis of the Secretary of State’s office they found that there were insufficient signatures turned into the support the petition. The basis for this conclusion is in state law where it outlines how many signatures must be turned in as well as how those signatures must be submitted. These three men determined that the petitions lacked the required notarization. This has the authority of someone swearing that the signatures were real and signed by separate individuals in the presence of the circulator. Then the circulators affidavit was not present. This is a statement by the circulator that they were present for each and every signature on the page that each circulator must sign. Additionally according to state law, each circulator can only collect signatures from the county where they are registered to vote. Some circulators are reported to have collected signatures outside of their county. Those petitions would then be invalid and not counted towards the total number required. Each page of signatures can have as many as twenty signatures making a full page significant to the overall process and goal.

These three men took this and then applied an analysis written by former Detroit City Clerk, Jackie Currie. Curie wrote her analysis after presiding over a recall petition against former mayor Dennis Archer. Curie ruled that the recall petitions were invalid due to an insufficient number of signatures. Her findings were upheld by state election laws. At the time when the court case was initially filed, Currie was still the elected Detroit clerk and therefore her analysis was presented along with the facts revealed by Carl, Hassan and Percy in their court filings.

While these three were filing this in court, they also did their best to alert people, groups and organizations as to what was occurring. They declared it a gross violation of the law far beyond a mere miscarriage of justice. Some would describe it as a vast republican conspiracy since it was republicans who were managing all parts of the petition process. However there were actions available to a great many people, democrats and republicans, who could have righted the described wrongs. When it comes to the signatures, any county clerk in Michigan could have reviewed those signatures to determine if they were valid. That is part of their duty described in their job description. The clerks in Southeastern Michigan, especially Wayne County, where most of the signatures were collected could possibly have voided this process if they agreed with the analysis by the three gentlemen. County prosecutors could have reviewed the allegations of fraud, made by others not connected with the three above, and determined if any crime had been committed. To date, no one has looked into these signatures, or any of the allegations,

MCRI sued the State Board of Canvassers who votes to place petition initiated proposals on the ballot. The board did not vote in favor of the petitions, postponing votes due to various reasons. Some of those reasons were reported by the press. They reported on the disruption of the board meetings making it difficult to conduct business. But what was not reported, but was in the court filings, were statements by the board members who agreed with Carl, Percy and Hassan’s findings. Lynn Bankes, one of the two republicans on the board who eventually voted to approve the petition stated at one of the board meetings, “I have deep concerns about the validity of the number of signatures gathered in predominantly Black communities.” There were about 200,000 signatures from Black communities for a petition that is supposed to hurt Black persons. This is the case when persons who read the petition would understand that it was meant to get rid of Affirmative Action. Bankes wanted to review the signatures but the board chair, Katherine Degrow, also a republican and wife to former elected official Dan Degrow pushed the vote without discussion to get the signatures on the ballot. Even after the board voted once and was unable to get a majority to vote yes she pushed to vote again. Degrow issued an order to the other board members that they could not speak or respond to the audience unless asked by her, the board chairperson. Degrow’s husband is a former State Senator who was instrumental in the take over of the Detroit Public School system. Together they share an anti Detroit history.

The Michigan Court of Appeals, acting due to the suit by MCRI, eventually ordered the Board of Canvassers to place the item back for a vote and to put it on the ballot. The judges essentially assumed the job of the board members. Responding to the court rulings board member Doyle O’Conner said, “The court has ruled in a fashion which takes out of the hands of this board any authority whatsoever.” He stated this one of the board meetings yet failed to take any action on his own. Although it’s unknown at this time if he had any conversations with the governor on this issue. Any additional vote by the board would have only been symbolic due to the court order. But the board again could not get a majority of votes to place the issue on the ballot. Out of the two democrat board members Paul Mitchell voted no and Doyle O’Conner did not vote. Today there is a call for punishment for violating the court order. Carl, Hassan and Percy filed in the lawsuit where they said that according to state law, MCRI should have filled their grievance with the Board of Canvassers with the Michigan Supreme court and not the Court of Appeals. Their fillings state that the court had no jurisdiction to make any court order and therefore the court order is not enforceable. A Supreme Court decision of similar nature would have been to remove the board members who failed to perform their duty and the governor would have to appoint new members. In addition to a lack of jurisdiction there are serious questions as to if the appeals court violated the state constitution. Still the Democratic Party has stood silent despite the seemingly obvious partisan actions. Carl Williams responds to the actions by the courts and the court system, “If people knew about the lawlessness and lengths the judges have gone to push this ballot onto the people they would lock them up.” He has stated that at times the official file for the court case was missing documents, or was missing. Or the items that should have been in the file were not recorded. In some cases it appeared that when the file called for a board meeting transcript that a transcript from another meeting other than the date specified in the file would be included. This would not allow a person to defend or litigate the case if they had to solely rely on the contents of the legal case file. But Carl and Hassan had done their homework and knew the transcripts that applied so they would be able to respond to the actual items instead of tripping over non-essential items.

Carl, Hassan and Percy have been trying to get more persons to become aware of the facts as opposed to the rhetoric. They have spoken to many news organizations only to get turned away or ignored. They have been asked onto radio talk shows who claim to want to inform the community only to have them cancel at the last minute. Recently Hassan appeared as a guest on the Reverend Jim Holly radio talk show. Holly asked him why more people did not know about what was going on. “It’s the best kept secret” replied Hassan. Many organizations have been focusing on the accusations of lying by the circulators which has not been proven to have occurred. Much of those organizations have expressed their interest in an end to affirmative action.

The recent reported ruling by the Court of Appeals where the presiding judges agreed to do nothing, does not affect the other court actions still open in the case. As other media outlets reported on the Courts press release, which was distributed after business hours, and after the courts were closed and in the wee hours of the night, but just in time to make newspaper publishing deadlines, Carl and Hassan received notice that part of their case was granted For further review. Other fillings concerning fraud were dismissed by the courts. With these rulings the court case continues. There is still a possibility that the initiative will not appear on the November ballot. But more organizations that were formed to deal with this exact type of situation are content instead for a fight at the polls in November. That fight is one of getting out the vote. Many have already made up their minds as to their feelings of support or disregard for Affirmative Action, there are few who are undecided. If the signatures are ruled invalid then the process won’t allow the proposal to continue and the process would have to start over. This may have been the desire by MCRI in their haste to get a vote by the Board of Canvassers and Court of Appeals well before the ballot deadline. The newly formed organization, One United Michigan, which is a group formed by many of the large companies and non profit organizations in the state dispatched one item in the court case during the past nine months asking why MCRI wanted such a quick ruling if the deadline was still, at the time, eight months away. It’s unclear where they ever received a response.

Political Polls are strongly suggesting that the anti affirmative action initial will easily pass in November. They also suggest that this issue will strongly assist the republicans in getting their voters to the polls and republican candidates elected. It does not agree with many democrats and those in the Black community who believe that this will energize the Black community and turn out larger numbers of Black voters. There are many Black voters who would vote against Affirmative Action. Being Black is no longer a sure sign of a vote for support. That is a problem for those people who are counting on the Black communities votes. Carl believes that, “The republicans have put all their eggs on this petition hoping to walk it through to 2008.” If that is the case, and these three are astute political observers, then this action is part of a larger strategy for the state and possibly national Republican Party. More people are becoming aware of the actions by Carl, Hassan and Percy although it’s still a slow process. When you are the people with no permanent support base, no funding arm, no strong political connections or influence, a real grass roots effort, its tougher and harder to win. But they are not quitters and they have said they will not give up.

###