Some Call It Democracy, Others Consider It Oppression.

In response to the United States Supreme Court’s 2003 decisions regarding Michigan university’s admissions policies, (Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) 539 U.S. 244, [123 S.Ct. 2411; 156 L.Ed.2d 257] and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) 539 U.S. 982, [124 S.Ct. 35; 156 L.Ed.2d 694]), Michigan voters passed an initiative in 2006 adopting an amendment to its constitution prohibiting the state from granting certain preferences, including race-based preferences, in a wide range of actions and decisions. Several groups challenged the initiative, and the federal district court ruled in favor of Michigan, and the appellate court reversed.  The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, thus upholding the initiative, stating:  “Democracy does not presume that some subjects are too divisive or too profound for public debate.”  Joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor dissented, stating: “We are fortunate to live in a democratic society. But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups. For that reason, our Constitution places limits on what a majority of the people may do.” (Michigan v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Actions  (U.S. Sup. Ct.; April 22, 2014)134 S.Ct. 1623, [188 L.Ed.2d 613].)