In the wake of voters’ approving the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, the racial bean counters are trying to figure out ways around it. Their first option, of course, is litigation:

“There will be both offense lawsuits and defensive lawsuits filed to understand what this actually means for Michigan,” said Kary L. Moss, executive director of the Michigan office of the American Civil Liberties Union. “I do think it’s necessary for the courts to slow this thing down and . . . interpret some of the language.”

But is it really so complicated? The language of the law is as clear as day. At the heart of the new law is this statement:

Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.

One irony for opponents of the measure is that this language includes the term “affirmative action programs.” Advocates of MCRI were irritated when it was placed into the ballot language because they thought that although it’s a part of popular lingo it’s also a euphemistic and weasely way of describing color-coded public policy. That fact that Michigan voters chose to eliminate it anyway suggests strongly that they knew precisely what they were doing, even if the ACLU and its allies think it will take the Solomonic wisdom of judges to unravel the mysteries of Prop. 2.