The Denver Post
Article Published: Saturday, March 27, 2004
Senate rejects ban on racial preferences
18-17 vote kills shift in college practices

By Julia C. Martinez Denver Post Capitol Bureau

A majority in the Colorado Senate struck down a measure that would have banned the use of racial preferences in college admissions, hiring and contracting.

The 18-17 vote came Friday after passionate debate in which Democrats called the bill a setback for blacks and other minorities and Republicans labeled racial preferences "government-sanctioned discrimination."

Bill opponents immediately rejoiced, calling it a rare victory.

"The Colorado Senate's vote defends affirmative action ... and takes a stand against divisive attacks on civil rights in our state," said Bill Vandenberg of the Colorado Progressive Coalition, a network of civil-rights supporters. "This was a vote for equity and opportunity."

The decisive vote was cast by Republican Sen. Lew Entz, who joined the 17 Democrats to vote against the measure.

"I feel like I need a bulletproof jacket," Entz said afterward.

The Hooper potato farmer said he had been under immense pressure from fellow Republicans and lobbyists to support the bill. But he made no apologies for his vote.

"I represent my district. I always have and always will," said Entz, whose district has a large population of Hispanics.

The anti-preferences bill was among two significant measures that had generated widespread controversy and that the Senate defeated Friday.

The second measure proposed to make it illegal for booksellers, video store owners and theaters to display or sell to minors materials deemed sexually explicit.

While the bill sponsors said the measure targeted pornography, booksellers, librarians and others feared that its language was broad enough that they could become targets if they sold or checked out books to minors that contained nudity or other materials that "a reasonable adult" might find offensive, as stated in the bill.

There was no debate on the measure, which was killed on a 21-14 vote.

"We have a little First Amendment issue," is all Sen. Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood, would say after voting with Democrats to defeat the measure.

Entz, who also voted with the majority to kill the bill, said, "Sometimes we go too far forcing other people to do certain things."

Rep. Ted Harvey, the bill's author, said he was not happy with the outcome.

"I'm very disappointed that a majority in the Senate feels it's appropriate for the state of Colorado to allow pornographers to sell their wares to minors in the state," said Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch.

Republicans who supported both measures called for roll-call votes to ensure that the names of those who defeated the bills were on record when it comes time to campaign this election year.

The vote on the anti-preferences bill came nine months after a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action in higher education stemming from cases at the University of Michigan.

Republican Sen. Ed Jones, the sponsor of the bill, said his goal was to build a color-blind society. Jones, of Colorado Springs, said that as an African-American who grew up in the segregated South of the 1940s, he experienced racism. But he said that was no excuse to continue discriminating by giving preferential treatment to some groups.

"We do not deny that racism and discrimination still exist today, but we do not solve racism by more discrimination," Jones argued.

Democratic Sen. Peter Groff, a lawyer who teaches at the University of Denver, said the bill was unnecessary "because it is based on faulty and dangerous assumptions."

One of those assumptions is that race would be the sole admissions factor for selecting a particular student.

"That is not the case," Groff said. "Not one school admits students due to your race."

Rep. Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, a strong opponent of the bill, said, "This legislation would have done nothing to increase access to a better life for individuals and a more prosperous Colorado for all of us."

Jones said he might begin working on an anti-preferences initiative to take directly to voters in November, similar to one passed in California.