Call it the Ward Connerly bailout. By putting an amendment to eliminate affirmative action programs in state government on the ballot itself, the Arizona State legislature will save Connerly's dysfunctional political organization from the expense -- and logistics -- of qualifying a ballot initiative in the state. Connerly's attempts to qualify just such an initiative faltered last year because of his group's failure to manage the petition process properly. (One lesson: don't trust Maricopa County signature gatherers, some of whom engaged in massive petition fraud). Connerly also failed in attempts to qualify anti-affirmative action initiatives in other states.

Republicans seem to think this issue will be a winner for them in Arizona. I suspect they may find that the issue boomerangs, and offers an opportunity for the left there to organize Latinos in opposition -- and make long term political gains that turn Arizona into a blue state in 2012.

There's a rare event taking place this week in Omaha: a trial in a case involving Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action initiative on this November's Nebraska ballot. The question is whether the initiative should be removed from the ballot because of claims that petition circulators deceived voters in asking for their signatures.

Backers of Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action initiative on Friday abandoned their lawsuit to try to get the measure on the ballot. It had appeared to have enough to qualify, but was kicked off the ballot because of an unusually high rate of invalid signatures. The supporters of the measure were going back through signatures in Maricopa County, but ran out of time to go through all of them, in part because the county was providing them only two computers to do the work. They say they'll try again in 2010.

I'd be surprised if they can get the money. Connerly and his supporters have proven incapable of getting the basics of qualifying initiatives right. He had originally planned to have a similar initiative on the ballot in five states. But he has failed in three states, and his initiative in Colorado is in trouble. The only state he's made the ballot? Nebraska.

Here's the latest in the signature gathering mess that has consumed Arizona, knocking initiatives on the ballot that appeared to have qualified: a judge has blocked state and county officials from printing the November ballots.

The order came as a result of a legal challenge to the state's decision to remove Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action initiative from the ballot. The Initiative's sponsors have gone to court, arguing that some signatures declared invalid are in fact valid. The judge hearing that case issued the order, saying that Connerly's backers deserved the chance to make their case that the initiative should be restored to the ballot.

The latest victim of Arizona's signature gathering mess is Ward Connerly's anti-affirmative action initiative there. Connerly's effort there submitted a number of signatures well over the minimum required for qualification, but the state and counties found so many signatures to be invalid that it has been struck from the November ballot. Connerly is telling the Arizona press that he's not giving up--he's going to show the signatures are valid.

This is the third of five states in which Connerly's organization sponsored anti-affirmative action measures but failed to qualify them for the ballot. In each state, Connerly and his organization have blamed others -- state officials, opponents doing blocking campaigns, or even state laws. But it may be time to regroup and develop a better approach to signature gathering. Connerly is 2 for 5 this year. Batting .400 is good in baseball, but embarssing bad when you've got the funding and are qualifying measures for the ballot. One wonders when Connerly's financial backers will begin to complain that he is wasting their money.

That's the case made by the Columbus (Neb.) Telegram. The group sponsoring initiative, which would ban affirmative action in public programs, is failing to comply with a law requiring that out-of-state donors be disclosed. And groups opposing the measure is hiding the ball by listing varius payments to itself. It's a very strong article, and is here.

Having failed to qualify his anti-affirmative action initiative in Oklahoma and Missouri, Ward Connerly's group gives $90,000 for signature gathering in Arizona; he's given $180,000 so far. That may sound like a lot, but it's not enough to qualify an initiative in the state. Keep an eye on this.

This is getting to be a habit with Ward Connerly. Earlier this year, he said that he would qualify anti-affirmative action initiatives for ballots in five states. But he struck out in qualifying in Oklahoma, failing to get enough valid signatures after facing several challenges. Now he's missed the deadline for signature turn-in in Missouri. So his initiatives only will appear in three states, tops. (Colorado signatures are being challenged in court). What's unclear is why he keeps failing. Connerly blames his opponents and, in Missouri, a blocking campaign, but lots of measures face strong opposition and blocking campaigns. If a signature effort is properly organized and funded, it will qualify for the ballot. In these states, Connerly is effectively wasting money by gathering signatures but not getting enough to qualify on the ballot. If he wants to find out who is to blame for these failures, it might be time for him to buy a mirror.

This Associated Press story from Missouri tries to turn what is routine into a scandal. A reporter watches signature gathering in St. Louis on multiple ballot measures, and interviews a man who signs his name three separate times, not realizing he is signing three separate petitions -- including a Ward Connerly-backed anti-affirmative action initiative he doesn't like -- instead of just one. It appears the gatherer talked ot him only about the first petition, an eminent domain measure, and not the others, including the affirmative action one. This is treated as an outrage.

Yes, it would be nice if gatherers patiently explained everything they are doing, but this is typical behavior and -- in the next phrase I'm practicing law without a license -- doesn't violate misrepresentation laws, despite the claims of the AP. Signature gatherers -- who are paid by the signature -- typically carry all of the better paying petitions in a state on their clipboards, and love to get signatures on multiple measures. It is not the gatherers' job or responsiblity to explain what voters are signing. It's the responsibility of voters. The gentleman in the AP story could have simply taken the time to read each of the things he was signing. It is not too much to ask. Signature gatherers are there to collect signatures, not to protect you from yourself.

The ballot initiative is short of signatures and could fall short of qualifying for the ballot, according to the Arizona Republic, citing anonymous sources. Sponsors of the ballot initiative, which proposes to end affrimative action by public agencies, say it's not true. If the report is correct, it wouldn't be the first time that Ward Connerly and his supporters have had trouble in their efforts to qualify anti-affirmative action measures in five states. They already came up short in one of the five states, Oklahoma, where the political climate has been hostile to petition circulators.