Ward Connerly

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.

The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which attempts to counter conservative ballot initiatives, has long battled Ward Connerly's efforts to end affirmative action. This fall, BISC gets intensely personal, accusing Connerly of seeking to profit from his not-for-profits in new TV ads that BISC says are being aired in Colorado and Nebraska (the two states where his anti-affirmative action initiatives qualified for the ballot this year). Ironically, there's a real question whether Connerly has the money to respond. While this ad paints him as deep-pocketed, he and his allies have had a hard time producing the resources and signatures to qualify ballot initiatives this year. (He failed in three states).

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.

McCain tells ABC he backs the initiative to end affirmative action programs in Arizona; in the past, he has opposed such initiatives while saying he opposes quotas. This was one of the day's stories in the presidential race, in part because Obama accused McCain of flip-flopping.

While you were at the beach or barbecuing hot dogs, petition circulators were practicing democracy. The final sigs are pouring in. Four measures were filed at the last minute in Oregon: a measure to devote a percentage of lottery proceeds to crime fighting, a cap on attorney's fees, a measure to reduce the number of lawsuits, and the open primary "top two" measure.

In Arizona and Nebraska, Ward Connerly's local supporters have filed the signatures on their anti-affirmative action initiatives. The Nebraska initiative is the only measure that appears to have the signatures in that state. (Hat tip, Ballotpedia).

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.