I give the ACLU a bit more credit. Yes, they litigated the issue in the previous cycle (the “single-subject” issue), but it wasn’t the centerpiece of the case since they didn’t file the initial lawsuit. Their arguments are all directly lifted from the Florida 2000 arguments and I’m sure they hope to expand that precedent even though Missouri’s rule is different. I suspect they hope to brief this argument in more depth and change some judge’s mind. The phraseology is unfair argument is straight out of the BAMN-Michigan playbook (and before) and its never gotten anywhere. But both arguments were raised – even if only as part of a larger block of issues – in the 2007-08 Missouri cases, so you’d think these cases would be quickly dismissed.

As regards the law suit filed by the ACLU ( Jones et al. vs. Carnahan), I read this frivolous document in its entirety. It’s false premises are startling.

Under COUNT I.11. and I.12., plaintiffs claim that banning affirmative action programs based on race, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin (considered “5 different groups”)in public employment, public education, and public contracting (considered “3 different public areas”) violates the “single subject rule.” Since the “5 different groups” are immutable characteristics owned by “one” individual, and the “3 different public areas” are actually “one” public area (the public employment sector), it is false and misleading to claim that the “Initiative Petition combines at least fifteen (15) different questions together in a single proposed amendment.”

furthermore, under COUNT II.17, plaintiffs object to the second clause of Carnahan’s summary statement. Specifically, plaintiffs deem the use of the phrase “preferential treatment” unfair and insufficient, in that it “falsely implies that affirmative action involves giving unfair advantage to certain classes of people.”

FALSELY implies?? Any public employee across this nation knows that the original intent of affirmative action (providing equal opportunity) has long been transformed to mean “preferential treatment” (aimed at equal outcomes)— and that indeed results in giving an unfair advantage to some over others.

Thus, the familiar cycle of legal challenges and counterchallenges will have to be repeated — and that on account of Robin Carnahan’s cynical move to adopt ballot language that the court previously found to be “insufficient and unfair.”

Shame on you, Miss Carnahan!

If Carnahan is a lawyer, you should go after her bar card, and either way seek a ruling of contempt and other legal action. This proves that the only rational reason for Carnahan’s action or the ACLU lawsuit is solely to force MoCRI legal bills to increase by forcing them to file.