From: "Thomas W. Holt Jr." Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 07:38:48 EST ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Sat, 28 May 94 16:00:20 EDT From: Ken Sherrill The text of the ballot petition and amendment is below, followed by some questions I have. Ken Sherrill ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- AMENDMENT TITLE: NO SPECIAL CLASS STATUS MAY BE GRANTED BASED UPON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, CONDUCT OR RELATIONSHIPS An amendment to the Charter of the City of Cincinnati to adopt a supplementary Article XII to prohibit the City of Cincinnati from enacting, adopting, enforci ng or administering any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy which provides that homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, status, conduct, or relation ship constitutes, entitles, or otherwise provides a person with the basis to have any claim of minority or protected status, quota preference or other pre- ferential treatment. TEXT: Be it resolved by the people of Cincinnati that a new Article XII be add- ed to the Charter of the City of Cincinnati to prohibit the City from granting special class status based upon sexual orientation, conduct or relationships, to read as follows: Article XII NO SPECIAL CLASS STATUS MAY BE GRANTED BASED UPON SEXUAL ORIENTATION, CONDUCT OR RELATIONSHIPS The City of Cincinnati and its various Boards and Commissions may not enact, adopt, enforce or administer any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy which pr ovides that homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, status, conduct, or relationship constitutes, entitles, or otherwise provides a person with the ba- sis to have any claim of minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment. This provision shall be self-execulting. Any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy enacted before this amendment is adopted that violates the foregoing prohibition shall be null and void and of no force or effect. [Queries:] What do you take this to mean? Does it mean that the government may not use sexual orientation as a category for data collection? (e.g., could the gov't keep track of the spread of infectious diseases among homosexual, lesbian or bisexual populations?) Does it mean that the gov't could not produce or distribute public health messages geared to such populations? If so, does this meet rational basis? My understanding or rational in public administration is choosing the means most likely to achieve policy goals at minimum expense. Am I right about rationality as used in the study of public administration and public management? How would this restrict the police and other agencies designed to protect public safety and property? Does passage of the amendment create a special class? If a group of people are singled out to be denied certain status -- and if no other groups have been so singled out -- do we have evidence of the group's constituting a class? Do we have evidence of powerlessness? Do we have evidence of the group's meeting criteria for judicial protection? Have any othre groups been singled out in this manner in the United States in a fashion that meets constitutional standards? Can we think of examples from other nations? What would professional associations such as the National League of Cities, ASPA, etc. do to evaluate the reasonableness of such an amendment? Is there evidence to lead us to conclude that enforcement of this amendment will increase rather than decrease the costs of governing Cincinnati? Post-California's Prop 14, does anyone know of any good survey data on the ability of citizens to comprehend such a ballot initiative and to cast an informed, nay, rational vote? What else should I be wondering about? Ken