THE STATE OF PREFERENCES:

Ehrhart steers clear of swamp~ Atlanta Journal Constitution

As Republican state Rep. Earl Ehrhart of Powder Springs, a businessman, fends off a battery of adversarial questions from a professionally armed contingent of House Judiciary Committee lawyers, an observation occurs:
In the four years that he has been pressing the state to outlaw discrimination and preferences based on race, color, creed, gender or national origin in public employment, education and contracting, he has become a knowledgeable and skilled advocate for his party's beliefs.

He lost, 9-8. Nine Democrats voted to continue preferences as they exist; eight Republicans voted for Ehrhart's substitute bill. That bill has been expanded to say that the prohibition will not apply to "any otherwise lawful bona fide qualifications based on gender where they are reasonably necessary for the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." Exclusions are granted, too, for "any otherwise lawful classification" that: "is gender based and is necessary for gender privacy or medical or psychological treatment." "is necessary for undercover law enforcement activities." "provides for separate athletic teams based on gender."

The outcome was foregone. Democrats who never show up for a committee meeting were there. Judiciary Chairman Jim Martin of Atlanta devoted an hour to a laborious analysis of a bill affecting probate, while his majority assembled. "This bill in no way, in no line or no paragraph in no way mentions affirmative action," Ehrhart explained. "This is about preferences, set-asides and those who discriminate against others." There is, he said, good affirmative action that involves government outreach, mentoring, notice of the availability of contracts and taking legislative action to increase the educational preparedness of students so that everybody is qualified for college admission.

"We can shout past each other from now to Doomsday," said Ehrhart, "but this bill has nothing to do with good affirmative action." Thereupon, the lawyers had at him. Some really good lawyers, too. State Rep. Roy Barnes of Mableton, a Democratic candidate for governor, inquired whether a white student who got "three legacy points" at the University of Georgia, because his father, grandfather and great-grandfather attended the university, should be chosen over an equally qualified black.

Rep. Tom Bordeaux (D-Savannah), Arnold Ragas (D-Stone Mountain) and Greg Hecht (D-Jonesboro), lawyers all, attempted to draw Ehrhart into legal and moral debates with hypothetical questions about when preferences can be given. Even the one non-lawyer on the panel, Rep. Doug Teper (D-Atlanta), armed with a big lawbook, joined angrily in the grilling, though it's not real clear what set him off, as his debate points are sometimes obscure to the untrained ear.

The questioners invited Ehrhart to dance with them into the swamp. They quoted law and asked about Supreme Court decisions, including one Teper found that, to the best of my knowledge, has escaped Supreme Court notice on previous race and gender rulings. Ehrhart defended his proposal, refused to engage in debate about matters outside the realm of his legislation and avoided the swamp. Effective legislators are those who make themselves knowledgeable about a coming issue ---and then power the debate when it hits the public's radar.

Outside the Republican delegation, Ehrhart may have escaped notice until now, but on this issue his leadership time has come. He may lose. Probably will. But he has done his homework. He is prepared.

Copyright 1998, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, All rights reserved. JIM WOOTEN, THE STATE OF PREFERENCES: Ehrhart steers clear of swamp., 02-04-1998, pp A12.

For a better Georgia...