By focusing resources on key states, Connerly’s network of funders and activists has attempted to influence the climate of state and national elections by filling the airwaves with “independent” ad buys, confusing and dividing swing voters, and driving up turnout of the conservative base. The California model that propelled Connerly and his supporters to victory in the 1996 anti-affirmative action Prop 209 campaign—combining deceptive ballot language, the heavy use of out of state money, the use of dodgy professional signature gatherers, and aggressive court tactics—has spread across the country.

Status of the Campaigns: Fraud, Deception and Division

This year, as in years past, Connerly has been carpet bagging his ballot measure campaigns across the county while refusing to disclose his donors, aggressively challenging state disclosure and petitioning laws, employing unsavory characters and fraudulently gathering signatures resulting in lawsuits.  He failed to qualify in three targets (Missouri, Arizona and Oklahoma).  He remains on the ballot to date in Colorado and Nebraska, despite those efforts being marked by massive fraud. Click here to download map. 

PBS's NOW program exposed Connerly fraudulent initiatives. Watch one women explain her feelings about being lied to by Connerly's campaign.

As the Lincoln Journal Star editorialized on Connerly's effort, "It's a Trick." (Lincoln Star Journal, June 10, 2008)

Colorado: On the ballot.  The New York Times detailed the deception being used by Connerly to collect signatures. Connerly's paid staff targeted people at Obama rallies and a Martin Luther King Day parade, telling then that his initiative would "end discrimination" when in fact it will end affirmative action and outlaw equal opportunity programs.

Connerly faced a legal challenge in Colorado where half the signatures he turned in (70,000) were the subject of a lawsuit. Over 56,000 signatures failed to match any registered voter, even using the broadest screen possible to combat any data entry errors.  Colorado law requires circulators to be Colorado residents, and swear that they reside at the address given on the petition form; however numerous circulators used old, invalid, or even false addresses, bringing into question nearly 7,000 signatures. The Associated Press has reported that "Connerly said about half the signature gatherers hired for his initiative were out-of-state workers who travel across the country working on ballot proposals."  Unfortunately, the Colorado court has refused to

Nebraska:  On the ballot; lawsuit pending. Connerly has faced charges that petition collectors collected signatures illegally- filling out information for people signing petitions, misleading voters by not reading a required statement, and leaving signature sheets unattended.

On June 6, the Omaha-World Herald wrote in an editorial titled, ‘Kill This Petition', writing "Certainly the notion of eliminating ‘all gender and race discrimination in Nebraska' is quite desirable. But that is not what this effort is about."

The editorial exposed the deceptive tactics Connerly and his paid-petition gathers have been using across the country and concluded, "Don't buy this garbage. Don't sign the petition."

On June 10, Lincoln Journal Star, wrote in an editorial, "Workers circulating petitions to end affirmative action in Nebraska have dishonored the citizen initiative process by using misleading tactics." The paper also said, "the people collecting the signatures on petitions are using deception to meet their goals."

A legal challenge has now been filed against Connerly's campaign in Nebraska. The lawsuit challenges the fraudulent and illegal actions of paid petition circulators and notaries public employed by Connerly. The lawsuits challenges at least 40,228 signatures submitted to the Secretary of State by Connerly because of the pattern of fraud and illegality. 

Connerly's signature gathering firm, National Ballot Access, has a long history of allegedly engaging in initiative fraud in Nebraska.

Oklahoma: Off the ballot - he asked to withdraw signatures.  Connerly and his signature gathering firm, National Ballot Access, failed to receive enough citizen support to get his divisive initiative on the ballot. When Connerly turned his signatures the Oklahoma Secretary of State referred a report on Connerly's petitions to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court citing numerous problems with the signatures including; circulators who signed the petition multiple times, numerous duplicates, and ninety-two people who gave different versions of the same address.  In an unprecedented move, Connerly requested to have his initiative withdrawn in an acknowledgement that fraud and irregularities plagued the petitions he submitted to the state.

Missouri: Despite an aggressive attempt, failed to submit signatures. Connerly faced charges of using deceptive tactics and desperately recruited people from out-of-state to help him gather signatures, including a racist group from California. It has also been reported that that one of Connerly's paid signature gathers was picked up by police because he was wanted in three states for voter fraud related charges.  At the end of the day, the so-called "Civil Rights Initiative," failed to gain enough valid signatures to make the ballot in Missouri.

Arizona: Failed to qualify after submitting signatures. Connerly turned in enough signatures to qualify for the ballot but he faced yet more charges of fraud and deception by local groups of citizens organized to oppose the measure.  Connerly spent nearly $1 million in out-of-state funding to re-write the Arizona constitution. He faced charges by a local coalition of opponents to the measure, including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce that those hired to gather signatures have misled voters by not informing them that the initiative would eliminate equal opportunity programs.

Connerly refused to list the names of his paid circulators on his Web site and he has failed to conduct criminal background checks on them to prevent those convicted of identity theft, sexual assault or other crimes from gaining the personal information of Arizona voters.

Some of the equal opportunity programs that Connerly's initiative would have outlawed include:

• Governor's Commission to Prevent Violence against Women would be eliminated because this program focuses on protecting women.
• City of Phoenix Teen Parents Program that helps teen mothers learn skills so they can get off welfare and provide for their children.
• Arizona State University Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) program. This program supports university women as they pursue careers in science and engineering.
• In addition, the initiative would have banned an Arizona State University's Hispanic Mother-Daughter Program, in which nearly every East Valley Arizona school district participates. The program recruits seventh-grade Hispanic girls who don't have college graduates in their families. The girls and their mothers participate once a month in a class at ASU where they learn study skills, test preparation and how to write personal statements and apply for financial aid. In the 2006-07 school year, nearly 200 girls from East Valley schools participated.

In the end, Connerly had over 130,000 signatures thrown out by the Secretary of State. The widespread irregularities found by state and local officials in the signatures Connerly turned in forced his initiative to be stripped from the ballot.

On top of the signatures that were thrown out, an additional 100,000 fraudulent or suspicious signatures turned in by Connerly to Arizona's secretary of state are the subject of a lawsuit.

Michigan (2006):  Passed in 2006; though marked by fraud.  The Michigan Civil Rights Commission released a report that presented "evidence of shameful acts of deception and misrepresentation" by paid agents of Connerly. The report included the testimony of over 500 people on the issue of how signatures were gathered to put the Connerly's Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) on the November 20006 ballot. A court ruling found that "the MCRI engaged in systematic voter fraud by telling voters that they were signing a petition supporting affirmative action."

The court also wrote, "All Michigan voters, whether supporters or opponents of affirmative action, should be concerned by the actions taken by MCRI in its attempt to place the proposed amendment on the November 2006 ballot. In particular, opponents of affirmative action should be concerned by what the MCRI has done while purporting to act in their name. If the proposal eventually passes, it will be stained by well-documented acts of fraud and deception that the defendants, as a matter of fact, have not credibly denied."