In a 6–2 ruling, the Supreme Court held that it was permissible for the voters of Michigan to pass a referendum prohibiting the state’s public universities from considering race in the college admissions process. 

While affirmative action is the key player in this ruling — and essentially what the case was based on in the first place — the real issue at hand is whether Michigan voters should be able to make a decision like this. And we don’t think they should be able to — not because of any reservations with the democratic process or challenges with people’s right to vote, but because of other complications with this ruling.

It’s a given that the Court can’t dictate what voters can and cannot think about a particular subject, such as affirmative action. And while we agree that we cannot simply limit the agency of voters to make decisions, the majority bolstered its opinion using some points we take issue with.

First of all, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that “voters may eventually change their minds and vote to reinstate affirmative action.” While we have seen these sorts of decisions implemented before where voters “change their minds” such as through alcohol prohibition and gay marriage rights, the time it takes to put these resolutions into effect is lengthy, which is why decisions surrounding these hot-button issues require careful consideration.

And despite any outcome this decision has on Michigan, reinstating affirmative action later is easier said than done — mounting referendums costs time and money and requires swaying minds and meeting a variety of procedural requirements.

These hurdles can be difficult to overcome for any group, particularly minority voting groups advancing initiatives meant to benefit minority interests. This ruling serves as another barrier to the advancement of policy that benefits minority interests.

That’s not to say that all minority policy interests should be able to supersede majority opinions. Rather, the access that minority interests have to tools that can affect change should be equitable to those enjoyed by the majority.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who dissented from the bench’s decision, further explains this point. She refers to the fact that there are limits to the abilities of the majority of voters based on constitutional law, and that they cannot “change the ground rules of the political process in a manner that makes it more difficult for racial minorities alone to achieve their goals.”

Although many people have their various stances and opinions regarding affirmative action, we feel that because of the difficulties with potentially reinstating affirmative action down the line and the strong opposition of some minority group members, this decision should not have been left to Michigan voters.