Jen Gratz Joins The Cox Campaign

Cox Welcomes Michigan Grassroots Leader Jennifer Gratz to His Fight to Cut Government Spending, Bring Jobs Back to Michigan

LIVONIA, MI—Groundbreaking Michigan grassroots leader Jennifer Gratz today endorsed Mike Cox in the race for Governor and joined his campaign to turn around Michigan as the Mike Cox 2010 Grassroots Co-Chair, praising Cox’s commitment to conservative principles and plan bring jobs back to Michigan by cutting government spending and taxes.

“I am honored and humbled to receive the support of a grassroots trailblazer like Jennifer Gratz,” said Cox.  “Together, we will win the fight to cut government spending, turn this state around and get Michigan families back to work.”

Jennifer Gratz is recognized as one of the nation’s leading figures in the battle to end racial preferences in school admissions and organized and led the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative which voters overwhelmingly approved in 2006.

“Only one candidate for Governor stood with Michigan voters four years ago to support MCRI, and that candidate is Mike Cox,” said Gratz.  “Mike Cox is the only candidate with the plan to cut spending in Lansing, cut taxes and get Michigan working again.”

As Executive Director of MCRI, Gratz spearheaded the effort that secured a record 500,000+ signatures to amend the Michigan constitution to end race and gender preferences. In a landslide victory, MCRI (Proposal 2) passed by a margin of 58%-42%.

3 comments for “Jen Gratz Joins The Cox Campaign

  1. Mike Gillman
    March 16, 2010 at 5:52 pm

    If anyone is ambivalent about a choice for Governor, The courage of Attorney General Mike Cox to stand up for equal protection of the law should tip the scale. Remember when only the people were against institutionalized racism parading under the misnomer of affirmative action? Leading up to that 2006 election every political “leader” of both parties piously stood up for the status quo, including the Republican candidate for Governor who went down to flaming defeat. Only Mike Cox had the courage to say the king had no clothes. He publicly and strongly supported the referendum that overwhelmingly rejected racial preferences in Michigan (80 of 83 counties agreed).It would be refreshing to have a governor who did not duck and cover when controversial issues arise.

  2. Jennifer Gratz
    March 17, 2010 at 11:56 am

    Amen, Mike!

  3. Bill
    March 18, 2010 at 8:00 am

    What exactly did Mike Cox do to end racial preferences?

    After Gratz led the way, Mike Cox, joined with Granholm and the University of Michigan conspired to ignore the clear requirements of the Michigan Constitution to delay the implementation of the new Constitutional Amendment. Cox had absolutely no authority to do that. In slapping down Cox’s effort to thwart the people’s vote, the Sixth Circuit singled Cox out for special criticism:

    “All of this is prelude to the most unusual feature of the stipulated injunction: the premise for granting it no longer exists… in return for the Attorney General’s and Governor’s stipulating to a preliminary injunction [to suspend the effective date of the Constitutional amendment], the Universities agreed to dismiss the request for declaratory relief. So while the district court has suspended the effective date of the law, it no longer has the Universities’ request (or any other request) before it for declaring the Universities’ “rights and responsibilities” under the amendment—or for that matter any other explanation for enjoining the law, save for the fact that some interested parties want it stayed.

    In view of this point, it puzzles us that the Attorney General [Cox], who stipulated to the entry of the preliminary injunction [to suspend the effective date of the Constitutional amendment], now contends that we lack jurisdiction to entertain a motion to stay it.

    Why? Because, [Cox] says, the Universities’ underlying cross-claim has now been dismissed and because the district court did not permit Russell to become a party to the case until after that dismissal. But of course Russell was allowed to intervene in the “action,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), not a cross-claim, and that action is alive and well. The Attorney General, moreover, seems to ignore what would seem to be a corollary to his proposed interpretation of this sequence of events—namely that if the cross-claim had already been dismissed, there would no longer be any basis for a preliminary injunction, see supra, and the district court could not have undertaken the necessary inquiry into the parties’ likelihood of success on the cross-claim, much less found that any such probability of success existed…

    …this is an unusual way [for the Michigan Attorney General] to use the federal courts. Ordinarily, one might wonder why a court would hesitate to delay the implementation of a state law for six months when the State’s Governor, the State’s Attorney General and its Universities stand together in urging its suspension…”

    The state law the court is talking about the Attorney General wanting suspended is the same one Jennifer Gratz had just succeeded in getting passed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Loading Facebook Comments ...