November 17, 2009
LANSING -
Attorney General Mike Cox's office this morning will argue before the U.S. Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in defense of the Michigan Civil Rights
Initiative, also known as Proposal 2. Proposal 2 is a constitutional amendment
passed by voters in 2006 that prohibits public institutions from discriminating
against, or granting preferential treatment based on that person's race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin. Cox filed briefs in July 2009 after two groups
-
one led by the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action and another group referred
to as Cantrell, lost their challenge against the constitutional amendment at the
U.S. District Court in Detroit.
"Three years
ago, Michigan families spoke loud and clear when they overwhelmingly voted to
amend our constitution and end the use of preferences in public institutions,"
said Cox. "Today my office is defending that choice at the Court of Appeals and
I am confident the court will again reject this attempt by activists to overturn
the will of the people."
Cox was the
only statewide public official to support Proposal 2 in 2006, which was passed
by the voters by a margin of approximately 58% to 42%. It then became Article
1, Section 26 of the Michigan Constitution.
In November
2006, a group of plaintiffs lead by BAMN filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court challenging Proposal 2 on federal equal protection grounds. In December
2006, a group known as Cantrell, consisting of university students, prospective
students, professors and others filed a second lawsuit against Proposal 2 in the
District Court, also on federal equal protection grounds.
On March 18,
2008, the Federal District Court in Detroit agreed with Cox's arguments and
ruled that Proposal 2 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United
States Constitution. Both groups of plaintiffs appealed that decision to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, leading to today's filing.
The Attorney
General is arguing before the Court of Appeals that Proposal 2 is constitutional
because it does not violate concepts of equal protection, it prohibits
discrimination in all forms, and it properly eliminates any advantage given to
individuals based on race, sex, ethnicity or national origin.
The cases are
commonly known as Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, et al. v. Attorney
General Mike Cox, and Cantrell, et al. v. Attorney General Mike Cox.
-30-