HEARTWELL: I WILL SACRIFICE MY OFFICE!

This morning the Grand Rapids City Commission met for the first time since Mayor George Heartwell proposed that the city government should file a lawsuit to overturn the voters' approval of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative in last month's election.  Heartwell's proposal was the first item on the agenda, and the mayor declared at the outset that he was willing to lose his office over this issue.  (Although he didn't seem so eager to do so by the end of the discussion.)

Here is what everyone had to say this morning ...

Mayor Heartwell stated that sometimes in life you have to take a stand.  He had always fought for equal rights and affirmative action, so he opposes the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.  He thinks the city government must file a lawsuit to stop implementation of the new law.  Heartwell rationalized his readiness to defy the voters by noting that a small majority of voters in the City of Grand Rapids had voted against the ballot initiative.  He said that he is willing to lose his office over this fight.

Heartwell that his proposal to overturn the decision of the voters has generated a firestorm.  He has received over 180 e-mails about this, mostly in opposition to him.  He complained about being called a "despot" and a "dictator".  Curiously, he then said that he was able to divine that those who sent him critical e-mails were white.

Heartwell concluded his remarks by noting that the issue was too contentious to settle by a vote of the city commission today.

City Manager Kimball did not have much to say other than the costs of a lawsuit to overturn the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative would have to paid for from the city's general fund.  That may entail cutting services elsewhere or increasing taxes.

City Attorney Balkema said that the lawsuit proposed by Heartwell would not make any claims or legal arguments that the federal courts have not already rejected.  He noted that California passed a similar initiative banning government racial and gender preferences ten years, and that law was repeatedly challenged in the most liberal circuit of the federal judiciary and still stands.  Balkema further noted that the "By Any Means Necessary" group, who have already filed a lawsuit along the lines proposed by Heartwell, raises no issues that the federal courts have not shot down.  Precedent is against the Heartwell lawsuit succeeding.  Furthermore, Balkema consulted with a civil rights attorney who advised that such a lawsuit would be very expensive, and even if an attorney represented the city government pro bono, there would still be considerable costs beyond attorney fees the city would have to pay.  Although Balkema made clear that Heartwell's proposed lawsuit was a loser, he waffled in declaring himself against it.

Second Ward Commissioner Bliss and Third Ward Commissioner Lumpkins did not have much to say other than the city government should research the issue further.  Neither gave any indication that they had consulted their constituents about this.

First Ward Commissioner Schmidt praised Heartwell for his courage.  However, his constituents were strongly against Heartwell's proposed lawsuit because it thwarted the "will of the people".  Schmidt said he understood the sentiment of constituents.  He recalled how a measure he had once voted for was overturned by the courts and left him with a sour attitude toward government.

Third Ward Commissioner White was unequivocal in supporting the Heartwell lawsuit.  He stated that the city government had the best affirmative action program in the state, and that the city shouldn't let whites trample over the rights of minorities.  White declared that we should fight to overturn the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, but spend no money on doing so by filing amicus briefs in support of other lawsuits against the new law.

Second Ward Commissioner Tormala declared that he, like Heartwell, has fought for civil rights and supported affirmative action.  He had opposed the Michigan Civil Rights ballot initiative, but the bottom line was respecting the will of the people.  Tormala then covered the financial and legal problems confronting Heartwell's proposed lawsuit, as had been addressed by Kimball and Balkema.  Furthermore, he was concerned that Heartwell's battle to overturn the election would drive wedges between city residents.  He thought the right course of action was to review city policy, implement the new law by the deadline of December 22nd, and begin hiring city employees and contractors on merit.

First Ward Commissioner Jendrasiak stated that either democracy counts or it doesn't.  Americans have given their lives to defend the right to vote, and so a fair vote must stand.  He then challenged Heartwell's characterization of opposition to his proposed lawsuit as "caucasian".  Jendrasiak wanted to know how the mayor could know this from e-mail messages, because he had canvassed his constituents and found opposition to the mayor ran across racial and ethnic lines.  Heartwell responded to Jendrasiak that he knew for a fact that some of the critical e-mails he had received were from whites.  Then looking discouraged, Heartwell wrapped up the discussion by suggesting that city government do some more research into the issue for the time being.

As it now stands, the Grand Rapids City Commission took no action against the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.  Therefore, the city government must implement the law by December 22nd and end all racial and gender preferences in hiring city employees and contractors.  It is not certain that Heartwell, despite his pledge to sacrifice his office over this issue, will raise it again with the city commission.  The only votes he clearly has to file a lawsuit to overturn the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative are his own and White's -- and White doesn't support an independent action.  Schmidt, Tormala, and Jendrasiak are against a lawsuit.  Bliss and Lumpkins are uncommitted.

Comments

[Lee Rozelle]

The mayor should put his money where his mouth is. The will of the people is vary clear. He forgets who put him in office.So be it if will sacrifice his office.

[Brandon]

As one who voted against the proposal and who generally supports the aims of affirmative action policies (albeit with many mixed feelings), I am nonetheless equally offended by the good mayor's apparent 'holier-than-thou' approach to governance.

First it's slapping us all on the wrist like naughty school children for smoking, now it's a blatant disregard for the unambiguous will of the people. What do you suppose Act III will bring?

[Steve Smith]

Heartwell probably thought Ward Connerly was white, until he saw his picture. It's obvious that if any of the commissioners were for Proposal 2 they ain't saying. They are doing the balancing act to get re-elected.

One thing for sure, Heartwell is going down. You won't see him as mayor after this term expires. Potential candidates should begin planning their strategy now.

[Ryan]

I find it humorous that he believes this is his "Profile in Courage" moment and that he's right to fight because a majority of his constituents opposed it.

I'll admit to not being up-to-speed on "Profile in Courage" criteria; but surely opposing a minority of your constituents doesn't count, does it?

Not to mention he's using the will of the people (of G.R.) as part of his reasoning to twart the will of the people (Michigan).

Someone once said that a George divided against himself cannot stand.

[rod brown]

All, once again we have the divisive misleading rhetoric coming from the emotionalism that clouds the discussions anytime race is an issue. What stands-out most to me is that no one has acknowledged the seriousness of the point that this issue should never have even made it to the ballot here in Michigan. Let's not forget the unethical way that the signatures were gathered to get the Proposal on the ballot.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Rodney.

First of all, congratulations on your new job with the GRPS.

As for the issue you raise, it was addressed in U.S. District Court and the judge determined that misconduct in the collection of signatures for Proposal 2 was not cause for remaining it from the ballot.

However, if the allegation of such misconduct remains a basis for opponents of Proposal 2 to go to court to overturn the result of the election, then it is only appropriate that we discuss the activities of "By Any Means Necessary" that raised those allegations. BAMN contacted blacks who signed the Proposal 2 petition and threatened to have local radio stations announce their names over the air. How much of that intimidation caused petition-signers to later say they were misled?

In any event, this issue of misconduct in collecting signatures was prominently reported in the news. Voters could have rejected Proposal 2 as a consequence. They didn't. Maybe they were wrong to do so, Rodney, but the people have the sovereignty to make that decision.

Whether or not Proposal 2 makes good or bad policy, the question now turns on who is supreme in our democracy: The voters or the judges?

Regards, Bill

[rod brown]

Hi Bill, thanks.

This whole ballot initiative was a sham from the start. It was not motivated by the people of Michigan! Outside interests paid for and promoted this ballot initiative and imposed THEIR WILL on the State of Michigan by using unethical means towards satisfying their ends of getting this issue on the Michigan ballot. And yes the judge DID validate the many complaints of deception and determined that there was misconduct in the collection of the signatures to put Proposal 2 on the ballot. The judge was wrong to allow the issue to stay on the ballot.

And the group BAMN did not have to raise the allegations, as the election day approached and local tv, radio and newspaper started to highlight more the issue, many average citizens realized that they fell victim to a "signature gathering scam" perpetrated by these outsiders. But, oh well, since the issue is on the ballot, we here in the State of Michigan might as well vote for the banning of Afirmative Action...we don't care HOW the issue made it to our ballot, we just want to "get rid of it". Is that the logic? This was not the will of the people of Michigan. The people did not speak. This is the will of outsiders who simply imposed their will upon us all.

[Steve Smith]

Oh yeah, now I remember how they forced me to vote for it.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Rodney.

It's no secret that Ward Connerly, the Californian who successfully promoted a ballot initiative in the Golden State to ban affirmative action, is on a nationwide mission to do the same in other states. The spread of ballot initiatives, legislation, and executive policy by people of one state to another is very common in the history of our country.

However, it must be remembered that the driving force behind Proposal 2, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, was Jennifer Gratz, the Michigander who was the plaintiff in the successful federal lawsuit to end racial quotas in the admissions policy of the University of Michigan. So, Proposal 2 was home-grown even if there was considerable out-of-state interest in its success.

I don't have any problem with non-Michiganders getting involved in Michigan politics. I don't know how you could stop that from happening without curtailing freedom of political speech. However, I also think it is a legitimate political response to show that a proposed law is receiving support by out-of-state interests. It's up to the voters to decide if that matters.

In the case of Proposal 2, the voters decided that it didn't matter. They supported the principles behind Proposal 2 by a large margin, even though most of the media was vociferously against it and BAMN was doing its part to thuggishly quell debate on it. At the end of the day, the voters decided that a generation after Dr. King and the civil rights revolution they could now trust their government to treat people fairly without racial bigotry.

So, whatever the means by which Proposal 2 got to the ballot (and it's no small matter that the U.S. District Court did review this and declared that it had met all the legal requirements), Michiganders voted on what Proposal 2 offered and supported it. I don't see how the facts permit the conclusion that Proposal 2 was forced upon the voters.

Regards, Bill

P.S. As I have written elsewhere, I do think that it is bad policy to allow the payment on a per-head basis to collect signatures. It is one thing to cover the costs of volunteer signature-collectors. It is another thing to pay someone a bounty for each signature collected. Although the voter is, and must be, responsible for understanding what he is signing, that isn't a reason to sanction a practice that invites abuse and fraud.

[rod brown]

Bill, I understand where you are coming from with your analysis. Although, my thoughts remain the same. This issue, in spite of Jennifer Gratz, was organized and promoted, as you acknowledge, by outside interests who have a national political agenda to do-away with Affirmative Action. This was not home-grown Bill. There in fact is a bi-partisan state-wide group that is seeking to change the ability of these outside interests being able to push ballot initiatives here in the State of Michigan. This is one of 60 or so recommendations they are making to state leaders on changes to our state constitution. And again, the judge that acknowledged the fraud took place with the signature gathering, he himself, "sanctioned a practice that invited abuse and fraud". The vote itself by the people of Michigan sanctioned this fraud too. And yes, individuals are responsible for being knowledgeable about what they are signing and voting for, but this style of signature gathering with all of the allegations of impropriety, should have been enough that the judge should have forced the issue off the ballot.

If the people of Michigan truly wanted this to happen, the people of Michigan would have taken-up the case, not "nationally based ambulance chasing activists" hell bent on proving a point By Any Means Necessary. Connerly and his ilk were the ones who utilized political thuggery from the onset, and again, everyone else here in the state were and are reacting to the will of Connerly and his handlers.

At least that's how I see it. Take care.--Rodney

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Rodney.

First, there is nothing nefarious in out-of-state groups pushing for a state to pass a certain law. It happens all of the time. You have MADD pushing for a lowering of DUI limits. You have national pro-life groups pushing for restrictions on abortion. You have industry groups promoting model legislation. The Uniform Commercial Code is a good example of this. There's nothing wrong with that sort of politicking.

Second, without regard to the U.S. District Court's finding that there were unethical practices in the collection of signatures to put Proposal 2 on the ballot, he did not find that the improprieties were of a magnitude that would have removed enough signatures from the petition to Proposal 2 ballot access. So even if all the improperly collected signatures were tossed out, there were still enough to put the proposal on the ballot.

Third, you say the U.S. District Court should have removed Proposal 2 from the ballot, but it didn't and no appellate court overturned that decision. You also say that the voters didn't think for themselves but went along with "Connerly and his ilk". If you think neither the courts nor the voters can be relied upon to determine what are laws are, what recourse do you recommend?

Well, old friend, maybe it's time for revolution. I'll bring the pitchforks if you bring the placards. ;)

Regards, Bill