Michigan Constitutional Convention, Proposal 1 (2010)

From Ballotpedia

Michigan Constitution
Articles
Preamble • I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • Schedule

A Michigan Constitutional Convention Question appeared on the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot in Michigan as an Automatic ballot referral where it was defeated.^[1][2]

Section 3 of Article XII of the Michigan Constitution mandates that Michigan's voters be asked every sixteen years whether they want a constitutional convention. The last time the question was asked was in 1994, when voters rejected Proposal A by 28 percent to 72 percent.^[3] Voters similarly rejected the idea of calling a convention by 76.7% in 1978.

The current version of the Michigan Constitution was adopted in 1963. Since then, voters approved 31 amendments.^[4][5]

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

Proposal 1 (Con Con)
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		1,960,573	66.60%
Yes		983,019	33.39%
Total votes		2,943,592	100.00%
Voter turnout		%

Official results via Michigan Secretary of State.

Text of measure

According to the Michigan Secretary of State's office, the ballot text read as follows:^[6]

A PROPOSAL TO CONVENE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRAFTING A GENERAL REVISION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION

Shall a convention of elected delegates be convened in 2011 to draft a general revision of the State Constitution for presentation to the state’s voters for their approval or rejection?

Yes __ No __

Support

Supporters of Proposal 1, led by the Yes on Proposal 1 campaign committee, argued that it was time to modernize the Michigan Constitution and a constitutional convention would offer the opportunity to do so. They also highlighted the fact that constitutional conventions were not unusual in Michigan; the state had had six conventions since statehood with one on average every 33 years.

Senator Tom George introduced legislation that would handle the administrative and procedural elements of a constitutional convention, including the pay of delegates -- $1 a month, should Proposal 1 been approved.^[7] As co-chairman of Yes on Proposal 1, George had been one of the leading voices in support of a constitutional convention. "Michigan's 21st century challenges require 21st century solutions. A constitutional convention allows us to wipe the slate clean and start anew," said George.^[8]

Governor Jennifer Granholm supported a constitutional convention. Granholm argued that the state's current government was based on a manufacturing-based economic model, a model that she said no longer exists. The constitutional convention, she said, would provide for an opportunity to modernize the Michigan Constitution.^[9] According to her office, Granholm "believes the state of Michigan is dramatically different than it was in 1961, and we need a foundation document that reflects the 21st century. Having a constitutional convention would help set the stage for a streamlined government that moves Michigan forward in a comprehensive way."^[10]

Opposition

A group dominated by registered lobbyists, unions and trade associations formed Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution to oppose Proposal 1.^[11] Opponents of the automatic ballot referral argue that a "yes" vote would allow for special interests to play too large of a role in re-writing the state constitution.^[9]

Joseph G. Lehman, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, argued that a constitutional convention wouldn't fix Michigan's problems, as argued by proponents. "Michigan has serious problems, but they should be fixed without a constitutional convention. The problem with Michigan government isn't so much what's under the hood, it's what we're letting the driver get away with. If your teenage driver is irresponsible, no mechanic can change that. Instead, you need better control and accountability of the driver," said Lehman.^[12]

Rich Studley, chief executive officer of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, argued that the state's deficit and the status of the economy was reason enough to reject the proposed measure. According to Studley, the chamber of commerce was working with business, labor and service groups to oppose the proposed constitutional convention.^[13]

Opponents said that although there was no doubt that the government needed structural changes, such changes could be made through executive order or legislation on a case-by-case basis. Andy Johnston, director of legislative affairs at the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce, said that the uncertainty of a constitutional convention could potentially scare away businesses. "It certainly isn’t what businesses like, especially those looking to make an investment in Michigan," said Johnston.^[13]

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Michigan ballot measures, 2010

Support

• The Detroit Free Press supported Proposal 1. In an editorial, the board wrote, "Opponents of a convention sometimes suggest that the Constitution can be fixed gradually, through the amendment process. But lawmakers will never propose any of the fixes themselves, and moneyed interest groups will not propose and fund campaigns for most of the needed changes because they're happy with the current political landscape. If you can envision a different Legislature -- and who in Michigan can't these days -- you'll want to vote in favor of a constitutional convention."^[14][15]

• The Jackson Citizen Patriot endorsed a constitutional convention, saying, "This process can lead to a better, more nimble governmental structure to help job creation. It could make changes that consider the huge technological advances that have occurred since 1963. Before the process ends, companies looking to move to Michigan should be impressed by this state’s willingness to reinvent itself. A constitutional convention can start to tackle people’s frustrations with Michigan government at all levels. The public should support much-needed reform by voting yes on Proposal 1."^[16]

• The Midland Daily News supported Proposal 1. An endorsement in August said, "The question is, after more than 45 years, is it time for another review of Michigan's constitution. The answer is an unequivocal yes."^[17]

• The Oakland Press supported the proposed constitutional convention. In an editorial, the board wrote,"A new constitution would give us a chance to fix some of the lingering problems in Lansing...Also, a constitutional convention could examine such innovative changes as a part-time legislature and revamping our tax structure to help attract business...Voters need to remember that, yes, it will cost the state some money to have a Constitutional Convention but the potential for successful change is priceless."^[18]

• The Blade endorsed Proposal 1, saying, "Michigan voters should try to fix what's clearly broken. The Blade urges a YES vote on Proposal 1, for a state constitutional convention."^[19]

• The Saginaw Valley Journal supported Proposal 1. "The economy is the worst in the country. Young people and families are leaving at unprecedented levels. Schools are broke. Police and firefighters are being laid off. Government at all levels is dysfunctional. Proposal 1 on the Nov. 2 general election ballot is the state’s one chance — perhaps its last chance — to, in the words of Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Snyder, reinvent herself...Without a constitutional convention, Michigan’s challenges will only worsen. Thus we endorse Proposal 1 and encourage our readers to vote YES," said the editorial board.^[20]

• The Bay City Times said, "It’s a chance to debate weaknesses in our constitution and to answer perennial questions such as the value and the harm of our term limits amendment for state lawmakers. In the end, it’s the people’s choice in some future ballot measure whether to accept the proposed changes, or to reject them. When so much is wrong in Michigan, our state has an opportunity to consider righting our listing ship of state government. Or, simply tweak what is in the constitution and call it good for another 16 years. On Nov. 2, a Constitutional Convention has our vote."^[21]

• The Traverse City Record Eagle said, "This is an opportunity to address issues that have plagued Michigan for decades, including the size and makeup of government, our antiquated tax structure and ensuring funding for core functions like education."^[22]

Opposition

• The Holland Sentinel was opposed to Proposal 1. In an editorial, the board said, "...in our view Michigan’s problems don’t stem from poorly written rules but from the irresponsibility of too many of the officials we elect to serve in Lansing. We need better players more than new rules, and it’s up to voters to do that. Sure, we’d like to see changes to the state constitution, but they can be added one at a time through the amendment process...A new constitution won’t cure what ails Michigan government — it may even harm the patient. We urge voters to say 'no' to Proposal 1."^[23]

• The Detroit News opposed the proposed measure. In an editorial, the board said, "Well-focused constitutional amendments are a better way to update the Constitution or deal with any problems that may arise than creating a whole new document. This is an era in which various interest groups are focused on single issues, often to the detriment of the greater good. Many would want their issues enshrined in a new constitution, reducing the ability of state lawmakers to deal with problems as they occur. This is a risk the state does not need now. Vote No on Proposal 1.^[24]

• The Daily Telegram was opposed to Proposal 1. "Michigan already has the means to make major changes. There is no reason to vaguely assume that an expensive convention would be any better at solving issues and avoiding special interests," said the editorial board.^[25]

• The Press & Argus said, "The basic problem facing Michigan is a crisis in leadership; it's the elected leaders who are dropping the ball. A constitutional convention won't change that. Vote NO."^[26]

Polls

See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures

• An August 9-10, 2010 poll, conducted by Glengariff Group and sponsored by Detroit News-WDIV, revealed that of 600 polled Michigan voters 46% supported the proposed constitutional convention, while 32% were opposed and 26% were undecided. The poll was conducted via telephone and was reported to have a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.^[27][28][29]

• An August 21-23, 2010 poll, conducted by EPIC-MRA, revealed that 43% of polled voters would vote "no" on Proposal 1, while 35% said they would vote "yes" and 24% remained undecided. A total of 600 registered voters were polled. According to reports, the poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4%.^[30]

• An October 20-25, 2010 poll, conducted by EPIC-MRA, revealed that 31% supported Proposal 1, while 57% were opposed and 12% were undecided. A total of 600 registered voters were polled. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.^[31]

Legend      Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
August 9-10, 2010	Glengariff Group Inc.	46%	32%	26%	600
August 21-23, 2010	EPIC-MRA	35%	43%	24%	600
Oct. 20-25, 2010	EPIC-MRA	31%	57%	12%	600

Path to the ballot

Constitutional conventions on the ballot in 2010

See also: Automatic ballot referral, Amending the Michigan Constitution

Constitutional convention ballot propositions are a form of automatic ballot referral in some states whose constitutions state that every so often, a statewide ballot proposition must be placed on the general election ballot asking the voters of the state if they wish to have a constitutional convention. In Michigan, the measure appears on the ballot at 16-year intervals.

See also

• 2010 ballot measures
• Michigan 2010 ballot measures
• Automatic ballot referral

Similar measures

• Constitutional convention questions on the 2010 ballot
• Constitutional convention questions on the Michigan ballot

Articles

• Michigan voters reject constitutional convention but say yes to felon ban
• Myths and realities of Constitutional Conventions discussed in Washington D.C.
• Michigan Senator prepares bills for possible constitutional convention

External links

• Yes on Proposal 1
• Ballot proposal status page
• Analysis of Proposal 1 by Citizens Research Council of Michigan

Additional reading

Editorials

• Lansing State Journal,"Byrum: Constitutional Convention would put end to our progress," September 26, 2010
• Detroit Free Press,"Logie/Watkins: The 1963 Constitution has grown ineffective," September 26, 2010
• Detroit Free Press,"Michigan needs constitutional convention," August 13, 2010

References

v • d • e 2010 ballot measures I&R States Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming Non I&R States Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Louisiana • New Jersey • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Tennessee • Vermont • Virginia Political topics (Certified topics only): Abortion • Administration of government • Affirmative action • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil rights • Constitutional conventions • Earthquakes • Education • Elections • Eminent domain • Energy • English • Firearms • Gambling • Government accountability • Health care • Hunting • Direct democracy measures • Insurance • Judicial reform • Labor • Law enforcement • Marijuana • Natural resources • Property rights • Redistricting • State budgets • Taxes • Term limits • Tobacco • Transportation • Veterans • Water Other Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines • Polls • Litigation (Lawsuits) • Potential measures • Tuesday Count • Changes in 2010 to laws governing ballot measures • Official voter guides • Petition signature costs • 2010 ballot measure campaign websites • Certified but removed • Media endorsements • Not on the ballot Post-election 2010 analyses • 2010 election results • 2010 amendments to constitutions • Campaign contributions

	v • d • e State of Michigan Lansing (capital)
Ballot measures	List of Michigan ballot measures | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | Campaign Finance Requirements | Recall process |
Government	Michigan State Constitution | House of Representatives | Senate | Legislative Service Bureau |
State executive officers	Governor | Lieutenant Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Treasurer | Auditor General | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Director of Agriculture and Rural Development | Director of Natural Resources | Director of Labor and Economic Growth | Chairman of Public Service Commission |
Judiciary	Michigan Supreme Court | Supreme Court Elections | Court of Appeals | First Circuit Court of Appeals | Second Circuit Court of Appeals | Third Circuit Court of Appeals | Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals | List of Michigan Circuit Courts | Judicial Nominating Commission | Judicial news | Judicial activist organizations |
Transparency Topics	Freedom of Information Act | Transparency Checklist | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | Transparency blogs | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations |
Divisions	State | List of Counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts | Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of school district websites |