 | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Discrimination and Preferential Treatment by Governments | |||||||||||||
| Results | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Amendment 46, also known as the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, was a proposed initiative on theColorado ballot for the state during the 2008 U.S general election. If ratified, Article II of theColorado Constitution would have stated:
The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
The proposed initiative was sponsored by CalifornianWard Connerly. In April, 2008, a Colorado group sued, claiming that over 69,000 signatures on the ballot petition were invalid.[1] Some citizens also claimed that they signed the petition through voter fraud.[2]
GovernorBill Ritter opposed the amendment,[3] along with the Colorado Council of Churches.[4]
National Ballot Access was hired to manage this petition drive.[5][6]
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 No | 1,138,134 | 50.81 |
| Yes | 1,102,046 | 49.19 |
| Total votes | 2,240,180 | 100.00 |
Initiatives with the same language have been introduced and approved in five other states, includingCalifornia (1996),Washington (1998),Michigan (2006),Nebraska (2008), and Arizona (2010); Colorado was the first state where it was defeated. On December 17, 2010 theUniversity of Colorado at Boulder released a report[8] analyzing the factors that led to the defeat of Amendment 46. According to the study, "...Coloradans overwhelmingly intended to support affirmative action on Election Day; arguably, were Amendment 46 a clearly worded referendum on attitudes toward affirmative action, it would have failed by a much wider margin: 66 to 34 percent." The report also found that (a) many voters were confused by the initiative, (b) voters who followed the measure in the media were more likely to oppose it, and (c) proposed alternative initiatives in support of equal opportunity contributed to the measure's defeat.[9]
