Mad voter: Media hoodwinked in diversity initiative

On April Fool's Day, reporters from near and far eagerly covered a Denver press conference where organizers alleged voter fraud against a conservative civil rights ballot initiative. Two weeks later, however, when such claims are proven to be—at best—extremely questionable, the media remains silent.

The New York Times, in its April 2 edition, carried a report titled "Colorado Petition Draws Charges of Deception." The piece included the story of Dara Burwell, a 25-year-old black Denver woman alleging that she was tricked into signing a petition in support of the Colorado Civil Rights Initiative, a proposed state constitutional amendment (which I have publicly supported) that asks voters to approve the following language: "The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public contracting, or public education."

Under current Colorado law, backers of any statewide ballot initiative must submit more than 76,000 valid voter signatures to secure a spot on the November ballot. CCRI supporters turned in nearly 130,000 to Secretary of State Mike Coffman in March. Coffman approved the validity of the signatures just days before Burwell and her friends took to the pulpit.

According to the Times, "The realization that [Burwell] had inadvertently lent her support to the measure was 'horrifying.' Burwell said she was 'angry, because this is so deceptive. I've contributed to get a measure on the ballot that stands for everything I don't believe in.'"

But how did Burwell get tricked? After all, as it turns out, she works for a firm that gets paid to lead businesses through diversity training. She's a former student activist who dedicated much of her time at the University of Colorado to perpetuating race and gender preference programs.

But let's just assume for a moment that she did get tricked. I won't be so cynical to suggest that Burwell knowingly signed the petition after having heard about it from various media accounts with the ultimate intent to allege that she was wrongfully induced into signing it. No, that would be too cynical. I will assert, however, that she must not be very good at her job. She doesn't know how to interpret basic ballot language relating to diversity.
According to a Rocky Mountain News April 2 report, which was a much more objective account than the one carried in the Times (and one in which I offered my concerns about the claims being made), Burwell maintained that she was approached by a young black man [a signature gatherer] "who talked about the importance of minorities and why the ballot measure should pass."

To Burwell, the man's race was an important part of her story. "Given what he said, the language of the petition and also our shared experience as black people in this country, I believed myself to be signing a pro-affirmative action measure," she told the Rocky's David Montero. "I signed the petition, handed it back to him and in turn he gave me a flier to a hip-hop event - which I felt was further confirmation of that recognition of shared experience."
Burwell told the Times that she signed the petition thinking it was "a standard nondiscrimination clause." Well, maybe that's because it is. And if Burwell couldn't figure this out after reading the initiative's language, she shouldn't have signed on in support. It is not the signature gatherer's obligation to ensure that she knew what she was reading.

The CCRI is designed not to abolish valid affirmative action programs, which I will define as non-discriminatory outreach efforts targeting traditionally economically disadvantaged communities. Instead, as it explicitly states, the proposed amendment will only prohibit programs that "discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin."
So, in practical terms, government would not be allowed to use an applicant's race, sex, or national origin as a factor in college admissions, public contracts, or hiring. Race-and-gender neutral outreach programs, however, would survive and thrive.

Despite standing up at a press conference to allege that she was a victim of fraud, Burwell never bothered to file a formal complaint with Coffman's staff. In fact, while the Times maintains that "dozens" of people alleging fraud attended the press conference, just three people actually filed complaints. With each passing day, their complaints continue to crumble.

One of them, Chloe Johnson, a legislative aide to state Rep. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora, also alleged that she had been tricked. But while Johnson claims fraud, it turns out that she may have committed perjury. Her complaint has been dismissed by a Colorado administrative law judge because she is not a registered voter. At this point, it is unclear if Johnson even signed the petition. But according to Coffman's staff, if she did, she has broken a state law that prohibits non-voters from signing petitions.

Jessica Peck Corry is a public policy analyst with the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.

At this point, just two complaints remain under investigation by the State. One of these, filed by Candace Frie, was stalled due to the fact that she initially failed to follow proper procedures for submission. In her complaint, she claims she was tricked in part because the person asking for support was "a person of color." Like Burwell, Frie assumes that our ideology should be tied to our race.

The last complaint comes from voter Tracy Sear, who alleges that she saw a signature gatherer who was not wearing proper identification as required under state law. So, ultimately, it is a technical, non-substantive allegation that has yet to be proven. Unlike the three other women, Sear did not sign the petition.

Despite these developments, not a single reporter—and certainly not the New York Times—has reported on the fact that Burwell is a paid diversity activist, that Johnson never registered to vote, that Frie's complaints were based on racist assumptions about the skin color of a signature gatherer, or that Sear's complaint was of a technical nature.

But perhaps we cannot expect more from the Times. While its April 2 report was presented as an objective news story, the man who reported it, Dan Frosh, is an openly liberal activist writer who also frequently contributes to Alternet, a news site dedicated to taking on "The right-wing media machine."

With those like Frosh at the wheel, the questionable and likely false accusations made by Burwell, Johnson, and Frie linger out there, doing what they were designed to do—mislead voters.

The ethical response from the media outlets that covered the initial accusations is to now tell the truth. Or in the end, it will be newspaper readers across the nation who will have gotten duped on April Fool's Day.

Editor’s note: Jessica Peck Corry's weekly blogs are part of a feature on PoliticsWest called "Diary of a Mad Voter." The group blog, published in partnership with NewWest.Net/Politics, is intended to give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the 2008 election year.

Bookmark/Search this post with: