ACORN, an organization known for its heavy handed voter fraud tactics, was recently caught on tape harrassing petitioners and blocking free speech.

This video shows an individual admitting he is an employee of ACORN blocking free speech in broad daylight.

BAMN claims they can keep civil rights initiatives off the ballot in Nebraska, Arizona and Colorado. They cite initiative opponents “successful” track record: initiative proponent Ward Connerly’s group had to withdraw from efforts in Missouri and Oklahoma, after signatures didn’t come fast enough.

BAMN would do well to remember what happened in Michigan in 2006, when they brought suit in federal court to keep a CRI off the ballot, and lost.

Badly.

If you want to stop a CRI initiative, you can call it fraud, sling it with accusations of “misleading,” or “lies,” or physically get in the way of those excercising their right to support it.

But they tend to get on the ballot anyway, and they tend to be passed.

Overwhelmingly.

Check out this recent editorial from Phoenix’s East Valley Tribune. The Arizona Civil Right Initiative is in; it’s passed; it’s on the ballot. So now blockers are trying to get it off, complaining that “civil rights” in the title misleads the voters of the state, who are clearly incapable of judging the bill on their own. A group opposing the initiative filed against it in court last week.

What does the editorial board of the Tribune say?

“We’ll set aside for another day whether affirmation action hurts or helps. But BAMN has offered a grave insult to petition signers by claiming they couldn’t figure out what the proposed amendment would do and a judge needs to protect voters from themselves.”

“Even a quick glance at the written details tells the average person where the initiative is headed. Just to pile up the slurs on Arizonan intellect, BAMN chairwoman Shanta Driver admitted to Capitol Media Services she’s also worried too many voters are simply racist.”

“The courts should quickly knock down this ridiculous lawsuit, with a bag of hammers if necessary.”

BAMN? Wait … who? That’s right, it’s the obnoxious group from Michigan that shows up in CRI states, complains about out-of-state support, and annoys and assaults petition gatherers.

It’s clear the board of the Tribune is one group of Arizonians they haven’t hoodwinked.

This week the Ninth Circuit court unanimously ruled in Nader v. Brewer that Arizona’s state residency requirement for petition circulators is unconstitutional. The courts decision immediately affects those states in the same circuit, Alaska, California, Montana, North Dakota, all who have similar restrictions.

The three-judge panel court struck down Arizona’s statutory requirement – which established that only Arizona state residents could circulate petitions – because it violated citizens right to political speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

The case Nader v. Brewer was brought by independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader and Donald Daien, an Arizona supporter of his 2004 campaign.

This court decision in Nader is wonderful!

The government has no business regulating who can or can’t circulate petitions, it’s absurd.

Here’s a heads-up about a rather bad column by Boulder Daily Camera writer Doug Thorburn. In his piece, he argues that people on the Right hold to a myth that “derives from a bizarre distortion of Dr. King’s "I have a Dream Speech" in which he offers a dream of a future where his children ‘…will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’”

Whatever Thorburn’s thoughts on King’s philosophy, his allegation that King wanted society to orchestrate special concessions on the basis of race, 45 years after his death, is hard to believe.

Like most writers lambasting the CRI’s, Thorburn takes a moment to decry the funding pouring from Ward Connerly’s organization in California. Thorburn fails to recognize the blocker support (in Colorado) of By Any Means Necessary (BAMN ), clearly from Michigan and loudly in the camp of illegally disruptive petition opponents.

It’s a long campaign, Mr. Thorburn, and there’s no use pretending both sides won’t rely on some out-of-state support for their respective cause. And it’s wrong to assume that the words of Dr. King will always fit the perspective of those who still Americans should be judged by the color of their skin, instead of the content of their character.

An Associated Press article this week documented a sentiment held by some of those who support civil rights initiatives in Colorado, Nebraska and Arizona: after the Democratic primaries, what glass ceilings need yet be broken?

“The primary rationale for affirmative action is that America is institutionally racist and institutionally sexist,” said Ward Connerly, who is orchestrating the various efforts. “That rationale is undercut in a major way when you look at the success of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.”

The article makes some good points. No one in America could argue that minorities have lifestyles or incomes equitable with whites. But the real question is whether they have nearly equal opportunities, and whether it is just to remedy their misfortunes by penalizing the hard work of other classes and races.

Whether you support their policies or candidacies, the successes of Obama and Clinton are evidence of an America moving more toward the equity that, ideally, defines this nation. That movement, however, requires a reconsideration of the need for racial and class preferences, and of the ever-stronger arguments against them.

It’s a start.

Nebraska media outlets report that Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative supporters have gathered enough signatures to get the proposal on November’s ballot. More than enough: gatherers need 114,000 signatures, and they’ve presented 167,000.

The CRI’s progress during that past few weeks has been steady enough to make this milestone unsurprising. But a one fact proves that the initiative has more widespread support than its opponents are willing to admit. The petition needed signatures from 5 percent of registered voters in each of 38 counties. The group says it reached the 5 percent level in all 93 Nebraska counties.

Nebraskans United, the group recorded unfairly and unreasonably opposing the ban, has already threatened legal action, and attempts to invalidate most of the signatures. But while no signature drive can be perfect, those 53,000 extra John Hancocks could be all the insurance against opposition the NCRI needs, and it’s augur of success in November.