In July 2008, a petition circulator who said he was working for Lamm was arrested and charged with “Bribery of Petition Signers” for allegedly offering people free sunglasses if they signed his petitions. It was not known which specific Colorado petitions the circulator was carrying.

Just read the quote from a BAMN director admitting she is against democracy. She believes your right to free speech ends the moment you disagree with her.

“The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place,” says Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). “That’s the only way we’re going to win.”

If this isn’t outrageous enough read what about a BAMN volunteer tells a petition circulator.

“If you give me your signatures, we’ll leave you alone,” says a BAMN volunteer on one tape to someone who’s earning money by circulating several different petition.

Want to read more?

Read The Far Left’s War on Direct Democracy

-         In Nebraska, Stop Ballot Fraud complains the civil rights initiative kick-off was too “quiet,” and that students were protesting.

-          In Missouri, they’ve complained that CRI petitions were circulated with petitions against eminent domain and stem-cell research. 

There are lots of issues, and only so many circulators. What’s wrong with circulating a few petitions at once?

Voters should know stopballotfraud.com is run by the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, an organization directly supported by the far-from-impartial leaders of Big Labor. When a blocker gets in a petition signer’s face, or moves to take legal action against a civil rights initiative, they always assert their independence, as an interested citizen. But voters need to know about the gorilla, driven by outdated ideology, that’s backing them.

“In just the past 6 weeks in Arizona, we have been blocking signature gatherers in 110-120 degree weather, exposing the ACRI’s voter fraud, getting circulators and leaders in the petition company to come forward and reveal election violations that they and others have committed around the ACRI. We have also filed a preemptive lawsuit that is a part of our petition challenge.”

             Their hope? To invalidate 5 percent of the 330,000 signatures submitted on July 3. (That’s 100,000 more than the required number).

           It’s sad, but unsurprising, that BAMN tried to block the very submission of the petition to the Secretary of State, and civil rights petitioners had to make special arrangements to drop off the signatures.

            And it’s telling BAMN so effortlessly moves to legal action and invalidation. While the Secretary of State’s office should check for bad signatures, BAMN methods prove they’re going to use any means necessary – and it seems even they might admit those means are shameless, unfair and illegal.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.