Prop. 107 Uses Deceptive Language, Tactics, and Out of State Funding: Opponents Call for voters to reject misleading out-of-state campaign that will cost Arizona jobs and efforts to promote equality.

FIVE REASONS TO REJECT PROP. 107

1) The “Arizona” Civil Rights Initiative is not from Arizona nor based on an Arizona movement.

“The so-called “Arizona” Civil Rights Initiative is deceptive through and through, starting with its name,” said Delores Grayam, Co-Chair of We Can! The Equality and Opportunity Committee Against Prop. 107. “Voters need to know this is not change in law being sought by Arizona voters. Prop. 107 is being funded by big money from out-of-state by a private special interest group based in California. This is an anti-civil rights initiative that is deceptive and is harmful to the advancement of women.” “The group funding Prop. 107 is not from Arizona. They should take their out-of-state money and deceptive tactics and go home,” said Vince Rabago, a former Assistant Attorney General serving as the Campaign spokesperson for We Can! The Committee for Equality and Opportunity against Prop. 107.

According to reports filed with the Ariz. Sec. of State, the Yes on 107 effort is funded almost entirely by a private California special interest group, ACRC (American Civil Rights Institute), which has given more than $100,000.00 to push 107, while less than $250 was given by Arizonans. [Campaign Finance Reports for Yes on 107; see www.azsos.gov/cfs/PublicReports/2010/5DF73809-A8CD-497D-923D- C84A7869FD38.pdf; see www.acri.org.] The measure was put on the ballot by the Legislature, not average citizens, after efforts in 2008 by Ward Connerly, a former California regent, and ACRI, failed to get a citizen-initiative because not enough Arizonans supported the measure in the petition process.

2) Prop. 107 Deceptively Claims it will End Discrimination, but Discrimination is Already Illegal.

Supporters claim it will end ‘reverse’ discrimination. It will amend the state constitution, but the fact is that discrimination is already illegal under state and federal civil rights laws (eg. A.R.S. 41-1463), and Equal treatment is guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution -14th Amendment.

3) Prop. 107 is Actually an Anti-Civil Rights Law that will Roll Back Equal Opportunity Efforts.

“The supporters don’t believe in truth-in-advertising. They should call Prop. 107 the Anti-Civil Rights Initiative, since they are seeking to end any state programs designed to help woman or people of color make advancements in public education, jobs and business,” said Rabago. “This law will end hard- fought efforts which resulted from the Civil Rights movement, which wasn’t all that long ago.”

4) Prop. 107 Deceptively Urges Voters to End Quotas, But Quotas Do Not Exist in Arizona.

Yes on 107 is using deceptive claims that Arizona uses “quotas” for women or race in public education, jobs and procurement. Prop. 107 billboards falsely urge voters to end racial preferences and “End Quotas.” The Yes on 107 group cites the affirmative action “goals” of the University of Arizona to claim that this proves race is “the deciding factor” in hiring decisions.    See www.arizonacri.org. The problem? Arizona does not use quotas in public jobs, education, or public procurement. The false claims are just political spin designed to trick voters into voting for the initiative.

“Quota” means a prescribed mandatory number. But this has not stopped Prop. 107 proponents from falsely claiming that the word “goal” really means “quota” and that you will rarely see the word quota. See www.arizonacri.org.    “The Yes on 107 folks need a Reality Check,” said Rabago. “The reason that no one uses the word quota in Arizona is very simple … because quotas are not being used for state or local hiring, education or contracting. Furthermore, racial quotas in University admissions were made illegal in the 70s by the Supreme Court in Bakke v. Calfornia. The blatant twisting of language and reality shows that the Prop. 107 folks will stop at nothing to push their out-of-state political agenda.”

5) WHY ARE PROP. 107 SUPPORTERS LYING?    PROP. 107 WILL COST ARIZONA JOBS.

Prop. 107 will cost Arizona jobs and hurt the economy by wiping out women and minority-owned businesses. California passed their own version of Prop. 107 in 1996 with California Proposition 209. As non-partisan research proved 10 years later, the effects were catastrophic for women and minority- owned businesses. Nearly two-thirds of the Woman and Minority Business Enterprises certified with the California Transportation Department went out of existence. See Free to Compete? Measuring the Impact of Proposition 209 on Minority Business Enterprises, Executive Summary at pages 2-3 (8/2006) (available at: www.impact209.org/wp-content/uploads/…/drc_-_free_to_compete.pdf ).

“Prop. 107 is deceptively based on the premise that everyone has reached equality in education, hiring, and business, but women and people of color are not at the same starting point. The numbers do not lie: women and people of color lag far behind in business and job advancement. And unfortunately, discrimination still exists.” said Susy Bravo, a small business owner based in Tucson. “Women and disadvantaged groups still need a hand to open that door of business opportunity,” added Bravo.

MOMENTUM BUILDS AS ARIZONANS ACROSS THE STATE UNITE AGAINST PROP. 107

On October 12, at a a non-partisan educational forum held in Tucson about the potential impact of Prop. 107, hosted by the Pima County/Tucson Women’s Commission, business and community leaders alike unanimously blasted Prop. 107 and opposed the measure. Not a single person or group spoke in favor of Prop. 107.    Groups and individuals speaking against the measure included several Southern Arizona business chambers such as the Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Southern Arizona Black Chamber of Commerce, CEPHAS (Camera de Empresarios Profesionistas y Hispanos de Arizona), as well as other business and education leaders, elected and community leaders such as Ned Norris – Chairman of the Tohono O’odham Nation, the Chinese Civil Rights Association, the Vietnamese Cultural Association, and other individuals, including students.

Today, Oct. 27, the Arizona Students’ Association held press conferences at all universities calling for students to vote against Prop. 107 and educate others.    University of Arizona student Jonathan Garcia, a junior majoring in Public Administration, spoke against the measure as a first-generation, Hispanic student who plans on becoming the first in his family to graduate. “I’ve been successful due to the opportunity of being a U of A Hispanic Alumni Scholar and due to the services of the Chicano/Hispano Student Affairs office, which will be at risk if Prop. 107 passes. I wouldn’t be where I am today without that assistance. I couldn’t have done it without their support,” said Garcia. “But Prop. 107 will only create more barriers to succeed. I hope Arizonans see through the deception and vote No on 107.”
“In short, Prop. 107 is a deceptive out-of-state agenda that will cost Arizona jobs, hurt the economy, and end local efforts to promote equal opportunity in education, jobs and business,” concluded Rabago.

“Prop. 107 is bad for our communities and bad for our economy. Arizonans need to Vote NO on 107.”

---

Press release from the We Can! United to Defeat Proposition 107 committee.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 29th, 2010 at 1:27 pm and is filed under Activism, Civil rights, Election 2010, Headline news, Hotdogs Sonoran, political news. Tags for this post: affirmative action, arizona news, Headline news, phoenix news, progressive news, proposition 107, tucson news, vince rabago, ward connelly, we can. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.