PHOENIX  Arizonans will decide next year if they want to outlaw affirmative action programs and any special programs or preferences for women and minorities.

Ward Connerly, architect of the original California constitutional measure to ban affirmative action and other similar programs, applauded Arizona lawmakers Monday after the Senate gave final approval to putting a similar measure on the state ballot in 2010. Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park, sponsored the measure, saying Arizonans should vote on whether they want to allow what he called discrimination by government. (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)

On a 1711 vote the Senate gave final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit preferential treatment or discrimination by government on the basis of race, sex or ethnic origin. The measure, which already has been approved by the House, now goes on the 2010 ballot.

It will be the first time Arizonans get to vote on the issue. A similar initiative drive in 2008 failed when backers did not get enough signatures.

But Californian Ward Connerly, who helped craft this measure, said that does not mean Arizonans don’t want the language in the state constitution.

He said it reflected instead on the difficulties in getting measures on the ballot. And Connerly said the fact that other issues managed to qualify  and some actually were approved  is irrelevant.

The measure is aimed at any law, rule or regulation that would give any group preference in public employment, contracting or education. These range from admissions to the state’s two publicly funded law schools to the setaside and bid preferences offered by Tucson for minorityowned businesses.

“It is unconscionable that we are allowing government to discriminate in these areas,’’ said Rep. Steve Montenegro, RLitchfield Park. “That’s not equal treatment.’’

Connerly, who pushed through a similar measure in his home state in 1996, said it “sets the tone that government should not be discriminating against its citizens or granting anyone preferential treatment.’’

He also said that this measure simply mirrors the intent of other civil rights laws that already ban discrimination.

“We sometimes forget that these laws are not just there for women and minorities,’’ he said.

“They’re there to apply to everybody,’’ Connerly continued. “Black people aren’t the only ones to have civil rights.’’

Federal courts have outlawed numerical quotas which spell out that a certain percentage of school admissions, jobs or contracts must go to minorities or women.

But judges have upheld various “affirmative action’’ programs designed to help those whose groups have been underrepresented. And the courts also have allowed certain bid preferences if the government can show that minority or women are not getting a share of contracts.

Montenegro said such programs are not justified.

“We cannot try to get rid of discrimination by foster and allowing government to discriminate,’’ he said. “It doesn’t add up.’’

Connerly, who is AfricanAmerican, agreed.

“If you could convince me that there was compelling evidence that brownskinned people, black people, Latinos, Native Americans, are genetically inferior and therefore we are disabled ... I would probably say, ‘Yes, we need to allow preferences to make sure that those individuals could have a proper role in American life,’’ he said.

While Connerly says the measure is crafted to ensure that government treats everyone equally, it contains no prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Connerly said he wanted to keep this measure simple by mirroring the language of the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act and did not want to invite litigation by adding other issues.

The measure also makes no mention of religious discrimination. Lobbyist Nick Simonetta said the design is to limit it to things that people cannot change like their race or sex.