Language set for human rights proposal

ROYAL OAK — The Royal Oak City Commission has unanimously approved the human rights ordinance ballot language that will go before voters in November.

And while Commissioner Jim Rasor supported it, he still wondered how City Attorney David Gillam chose the ballot language because many of the exceptions, such as religious organizations, owner-occupied housing and governmental and educational institutions are not listed.

“It seems to me if you are going to say how the ordinance works you might want to say who it doesn't apply to as well,” he said.

Gillam said the ballots are “supposed to state the nature of the ordinance in terms sufficiently to identify it.” He said the ballot language is the statement of purpose that came directly from the ordinance itself.

“I thought that provided sufficient information, but at the same time was short enough without having to put the entire ordinance on the ballot,” he said.

Letting voters decide the fate of the ordinance was not what the commissioners envisioned happening when they approved it at the commission table in March, but a petition campaign by resident Fred Birchard thwarted those plans and forced the law to go before a vote of the people.

The ordinance, which appears as Proposal A on the ballot, intends to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status and a host of other characteristics.

The proposal reads: “An ordinance to amend the code of the city of Royal Oak to prohibit discrimination based upon actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, condition of pregnancy, marital status, physical or mental limitation, source of income, family responsibilities, sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status, and to provide penalties for the violation thereof.”

It then asks voters to vote for or against the ordinance.

Commissioner Kyle DuBuc said the more words the proposal contains, the harder it is on voters.

“My inclination is the more complicated and dense you make it, the less likely someone is going to read through the entire thing at the ballot, consume it and be inclined to support it,” he said.

(2013-05-19/hometownlife)