Obama’s Postracial Test
How will the Democratic candidate deal with potentially divisive ballot initiatives calling for an end to affirmative action?
The next test of Barack Obama's "postracial" persona may come from some unlikely places: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma. That's where Ward Connerly, the country's most innovative and successful opponent of affirmative action over the past decade, is launching an effort to get an initiative on the ballots that would prohibit public institutions from considering race, sex or ethnicity in areas such as hiring and college admissions. Connerly's political savvy on matters of race is worth considering. Since cutting his teeth in 1996 as a key backer of the California ballot initiative known as Proposition 209--which amended the state Constitution to prohibit affirmative action in the public sphere--Connerly has steered successful ballot drives in Washington and Michigan to do the same.
His decision to target these five states in 2008 has less to do with their electoral impact than the fact they allow for ballot initiatives and that Connerly thinks he can win big in all of them. But given Obama's oft-declared intention to redraw the political map, it's hard to see how he can avoid the issue of affirmative action in some, if not all, of the states Connerly is targeting.
Mounting a ballot initiative in even one state, much less five, can be prohibitively expensive and logistically tough. Thousands of voter signatures have to be gathered in support and verified months ahead of time, all while building a war chest to pay for issue ads in the fall. But Connerly, who describes himself as one-quarter black, appears to have a wealthy donor base; his nonprofit American Civil Rights Institute has drawn big contributions from right-wing tycoons like Rupert Murdoch (two donations totaling $300,000 during one 2003 campaign) and Joseph Coors (a $250,000 loan for the same race). (Connerly is not required to disclose current donations. Those donor disclosures were compelled due to a California lawsuit over that particular campaign, though current contributions to his group are private by law.)
Obama has yet to take a definitive public stance on affirmative action in this campaign, but he did voice a radio ad in opposition to Connerly's successful 2006 campaign in Michigan. Darren Davis, a professor of political science at Notre Dame, calls the emerging Connerly question "one of the most profound" of Obama's campaign--especially in the wake of the controversy over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. "Basically, on every racial issue Barack Obama is walking the tightrope," Davis says. "The more he supports traditional black issues like affirmative action, the more that will eat into his white base of support." Obama has been careful when broaching this issue; in a 2007 ABC News interview he suggested that the affirmative action of the future should consider economic status more than race.
If Connerly's successful in making this an issue for Obama, it wouldn't be the first time state ballot initiatives affected a presidential campaign. In a forthcoming study, political scientists Todd Donovan, Caroline Tolbert and Daniel A. Smith claim that in 2004, voters in the 13 states that offered anti-gay-marriage initiatives or referenda were more likely to consider that issue as being important in the presidential race, compared with voters in states with no such campaigns. Stephen Nicholson, author of "Voting the Agenda," says other research suggests that the initiatives' influence spilled over into the national electorate at large. "By putting an issue on the ballot, what you wind up doing is giving an institutional push to an issue that voters may not have deemed relevant," Nicholson says. "By qualifying an initiative on a ballot, or multiple ballots, you are putting it side by side with the candidates." This year, that is exactly what Connerly wants to do.
Some Democrats suspected the GOP of coordinating the gay-marriage initiatives as a way of rallying support and getting out the vote of the right. Connerly, however, appears to be a genuinely independent actor, if one with a wealthy donor base. Given his perfect record thus far in passing initiatives where they have qualified for the ballot, and his high-profile support from pillars of the right (including National Review president Thomas Rhodes), it's a good bet that Connerly will have the resources to mount serious campaigns this year in the states he's targeted.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »


Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: makame @ 04/29/2008 9:36:06 PM
Comment: Obama is for affirmative action for those who are underprivileged. He specifically said that since his daughters came from a well-to-do background, they should not be given preferential treatment. His feelings on the matter have little to do with race, and a lot to do with economic standing.
Posted By: JohnPolitico @ 04/16/2008 9:15:01 PM
Comment: Not that anybody cares or should care ... but I have a confession to make as a lifelong Republican:
I'M BITTER!
What the heck's WRONG with being a little bitter about the way our corrupt politicians treat us?! What's wrong with speaking up about it?! How else are we suppose to address various tough and/or sensitive issues that face this country today?
What? Are we all suppose to say or believe that everything's hunky-dory (e.g., economy, Iraq occupation, real estate bust, credit crunch, outrageous gas prices, general inflation, etc)?
How 'bout no! Let's face it ... things kinda do stink right now. But I really hope that people across the nation are really doing something to change things in their communities---RATHER THAN JUST TALKING OR BLOGGING ABOUT IT!
We can't just talk a great game. You gotta take action!
At the very least ... write or call your local senators and congressmen/women often to let them know exactly how you feel. What's important to you! Otherwise, how do you expect them to keep a FINGER ON THE PULSE OF AMERICA? Last time I checked, not one politician owns a magic crystal ball---they can't read minds!
They need to hear from us on a continuous basis. If you really and truly LOVE THIS COUNTRY ... it's your duty and obligation to speak up when you think things are going sour. Don't let the "POLITICAL ELITIST" (e.g. the Klintoonies) and/or MEDIA control your minds. Don't let these elitist that like to throw around words and labels such as "BITTER" discourage you from speaking up.
That's just a ploy to shut you up! Make you feel bad about having an opinion. Sorry folks! But I love this country way too much to bury my head in the sand! If anybody should be bitter it's ALL US REPUBLICANS that have seen our PARTY get HIJACKED BY THE NEOCONS for the past 7 long years!
TALK ABOUT BEING DISENFRANCHISED!
Trust me! Dems aren't the only people that are bitter! Respectfully ...
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
John McCain 2008!
Endnote; I shouldn't paint all politicians with a broad brush ... that's unfair. I would have to say that most politicians are good-hearted people. But all it takes is a FEW BAD APPLES IN HIGH PLACES to spoil the whole darn tree. To all the GOOD POLITICIANS OUT THERE ... please weed out the BAD ONES! Thank you!!!!
Posted By: Army4RangeR @ 04/08/2008 10:30:23 PM
Comment: LET ME SEE!!!!! This is a really, really HARD DECISION...do I want to vote for a National
treasure (McCain) or a crak smoking, white hating, anti-American???? Hmmmm, this is
gonna be really difficult...I think I'll go for the DECORATED VETERAN, who has generation
after generation of family WHO STEPPED up to serve their country....
GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA