on august 29, 2006, the case was decided with judge tarnow, a democratic judicial appointee, refusing to remove the initiative from the ballot. however, judge tarnow declared that "mcri engaged in systematic voter fraud by telling voters that were signing a petition supporting affirmative action." however, because the case was not decided on these grounds, this statement is legally characterized as "dicta"—judicial commentary that is not relevant to the outcome of a case. tarnow also found the testimony of jennifer gratz (mcri's executive director) in the court to be evasive and misleading. his stated reason for refusing an injunction to remove the mcri from the ballot was the mcri "targeted all michigan voters for deception without regard to race." he ruled that the voting rights act was not violated because it "is not a general anti-voter fraud statute, but rather prohibits practices which result in unequal access to the political process because of race."