Michigan Natural Resources Commission Referendum, Proposal 2 (2014)
- 1 Text of measure
- 2 Background
- 3 Support
- 4 Opposition
- 5 Media editorial positions
- 6 Related lawsuits
- 7 Path to the ballot
- 8 Similar measures
- 9 See also
- 10 External links
- 11 Additional reading
- 12 References
The Michigan Natural Resources Commission Referendum, Proposal 2 is on the November 4, 2014, ballot in Michigan as a veto referendum. The measure, upon voter approval, would uphold Public Act 21 of 2013, a law that allows the Natural Resources Commission to directly designate game species and determine hunting seasons.
Before the signing of PA 21, game animals needed to be declared in law, which subjected them to potential referendums. In 2006, for example, Michiganders overturned Public Act 160. PA 160 would have allowed for the hunting of mourning doves.
The Wolf Hunting Referendum, which is also on the ballot, is an attempt to overturn PA 520. However, PA 520 was superseded by PA 21, thus rendering the wolf hunting referendum merely symbolic. The Natural Resources Commission Referendum is an attempt to overturn the newer law, PA 21.
Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management, a pro-wolf hunting group, initiated their own measure - the Natural Resources Commission Initiative. As an indirect initiated state statute, the state legislature had the opportunity to vote on the measure. Both legislative chambers approved the initiative by August 27, 2014. The initiative rendered the Natural Resource Commission Referendum moot. Keep Wolves Protected and the Humane Society, along with Common Cause and Progress Michigan, started a coalition called "Let Michigan Vote." Humane Society of the United States President and CEO Wayne Pacelle stated, "The Legislature is allowed to do this, but it’s not good government. It’s a subversion of the (democratic) process."
In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. Therefore, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote.
Text of measure
The official ballot text is as follows:
Public Act 21 of 2013 would:
Should this law be approved?
Gov. Rick Snyder (R) signed the 2012 Public Act 520 on December 31, 2012. The statute established wolf hunting seasons in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Normally, a law would be suspended from measure certification until the statewide election. However, this was not the case when veto referendum supporters turned in valid signatures. Due to PA 21, the state's hunt is no longer designated by the legislature and thus the referendum is an attempt to overturn a law that has been superseded.
State Senator Tom Casperson (R-38) sponsored Senate Bill 288, which essentially rendered the referendum meaningless. SB 288 empowered the Natural Resource Commission to declare game animals and establish hunting seasons without legislative action. Prior, game animals needed to be declared in law, which subjected them to potential referendums. Gov. Snyder signed the law on May 8, 2013 and the legislation became known as Public Act 21. Snyder justified his signature by noting, “This action helps ensure sound scientific and biological principles guide decisions about management of game in Michigan.” Referendum supporters initiated the Natural Resources Commission Referendum to overturn PA 21.
- Note: Supporters are campaigning for a "no" vote.
Keep Michigan Wolves Protected sponsored the measure's signature collection and is leading the referendum campaign.
- Wolfwatcher Coalition
- The Humane Society of the United States
- Nancy Warren, Executive Diretor of the National Wolfwatcher Coalition, said, "Decisions of the NRC cannot be challenged by the public. P.A. 21 is a blatant attempt to silence the voices of Michigan residents and it takes away the rights of citizens to challenge game designation decisions."
- Reviewing statistics from the state’s first wolf hunt, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected’s Jill Fritz said, “But when 1,200 hunters get out in the woods looking for wolves, they discover what scientists and many people in the U.P. have been saying all along: that wolves are shy, elusive animals who want to avoid human contact.”
As of April 25, 2014, Keep Michigan's Wolves Protected committee has received $1,473,615.71 in contributions. Contributions will be utilized for both this referendum and the Michigan Wolf Hunting Referendum. The following information is accurate as of June 25, 2014.
|PAC||Amount raised||Amount spent|
|Keep Michigan Wolves Protected||$1,473,616||$1,046,062|
Top 3 contributors:
|Humane Society of the United States||$1,015,783|
|Humane Society Legislative Fund||$255,127|
- Note: Opponents are campaigning for a "yes" vote.
- Michigan United Conservation Clubs
Drew YoungeDyke, grassroots manager for Michigan United Conservation Clubs, labeled opponents "radical out-of-state animal rights organizations." He argued the following:
- "We need to pass this law, otherwise HSUS will continue to target Michigan to take away our hunting and fishing rights, one by one. Contrary to how it raises its money, HSUS spends much of it attacking hunting rights, not sheltering pets. In fact, it has spent over $1 million in Michigan attacking hunting rights just through its two referendums. I wonder how many dogs and cats they could have sheltered with that money if they actually spent it how most of their donors thought it would be spent?"
- "Some of the anti-hunters claim this is only about wolves, but it’s much larger than that. This is fundamentally about whether we manage wildlife species in Michigan with biology, scientific data and sound management principles, or if we manage wildlife based on how misleading HSUS can make a political commercial or how much money they can spend airing it... Hunting and fishing are vital parts of our heritage and our economy. Our fish and wildlife deserve to be managed with the best available science, not the slickest television commercials."
Media editorial positions
- The Oakland Post said, “Regardless, the fact is that the reasons for hunting the wolves do not add up. There aren’t any recorded wolf attacks on humans in Michigan. There are non-lethal ways to deal with the wolves. And nobody eats wolf meat anyway. Get out there and sign that petition. At least 161,305 signatures will have to be validated and they’re due March 13. For those reading hot off the press, that’s tomorrow folks.”
- See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2014
Humane Society v. Johnson et al.
|2014 measure lawsuits|
| Alaska • Arkansas • California |
Illinois • Michigan • Missouri
Montana • Nebraska • New York
|By lawsuit type|
|Ballot text |
Motivation of sponsors
The Humane Society Legislative Fund and Keep Michigan Wolves Protected filed a federal lawsuit with Judge Robert Cleland of the Eastern Michigan District Court. The groups asked the court to strike down a state statute requiring petition circulators to be residents of Michigan. Sherri Ferrell, a resident of Florida, desired to help circulate a petition for the referendum, but could not. She alleged, as did the appealing organizations, that her legal inability to do so infringes upon her free speech. The lawsuit stated, "Michigan’s state residency requirement for petition circulators severely restricts the abilities of non-Michigan-residents – including volunteer members of HSLF and Sherri Ferrell – to engage in core political speech in Michigan and to associate with the organizations and Michigan residents who support the initiatives." The lawsuit named Secretary of State Ruth Johnson (R), Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) and Colleen Pero, chairperson of the Board of State Canvassers, as defendants.
The ACLU deemed circulator residency requirements to be unconstitutional. They noted that similar laws have been recently struck down by federal judges. The Local Initiative and Referendum Initiative, which is currently being circulated in Michigan, would eliminate residency requirements.
Judge Cleland dismissed the lawsuit on March 31, 2014 because the legislature passed a law, known as House Bill 5152, that allows for out-of-state circulators on March 27, 2014. Cleland said, "It appears to the court that, upon the Governor’s anticipated approval, the Plaintiffs’ case will become moot. In view of this impending change in the law, the parties have agreed to dismiss this matter."
Commentator Jack Lessenberry, who is against wolf hunting, stated his opposition to the lawsuit, saying, “They’ve asked U.S. District Judge Robert Cleland to throw out this law. Well, I hope he doesn’t. State residents should decide state law. If anybody can come in here to collect signatures, it will make it far easier for people like the Koch brothers to slap all sorts of anti-democratic referenda and amendments on the ballot.”
Path to the ballot
In order to qualify the proposed referendum to the statewide ballot, supporters were required to collect 161,304 valid signatures and turn them in 90 days after the final adjournment of the Legislature.
Proponents submitted signatures to the Michigan Secretary of State on March 13, 2014. They claimed to have gathered 66,000 more than the 161,305 required to put the measure on the ballot. On May 6, 2014, the Michigan Board of State Canvassers certified 182,732 signatures, thus placing the referendum on the ballot.
- Michigan Wolf Hunting Referendum (2014)
- Michigan Natural Resources Commission Initiative (2014)
- Michigan Dove Hunting Referendum, Proposal 3 (2006)
- 2014 ballot measures
- Michigan 2014 ballot measures
- Laws governing the initiative process in Michigan
- The Detroit News, "Wolf hunting opponents form coalition to push against legislative action blocking vote," July 8, 2014
- MLive.com, "Keep Michigan Wolves Protected launching second petition drive after new law blocked original effort," July 2, 2013
- MLive, "Wolf hunt law approved by Michigan House after heated debate, Capitol protest," August 28, 2014
- The Detroit News, "Wolf hunting opponents form coalition to push against legislative action blocking vote," July 8, 2014
- Michigan Secretary of State, "Proposal 14-2," accessed September 5, 2014
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- Michigan Legislature, "Senate Bill 1350 (2012)," accessed January 16, 2014
- Michigan Legislature, “Senate Bill 0288 (2013)”, accessed January 13, 2014
- Detroit Free Press, “Gov. Rick Snyder signs off on gray wolf hunt in the U.P.”, May 8, 2013
- MLive, "Keep Michigan Wolves Protected launching second petition drive after new law blocked original effort," July 2, 2013
- Keep Michigan Wolves Protected
- Wolfwatcher Coalition, "Michigan Wolves," accessed February 27, 2014
- The Detroit News, "Let our wolves go unhunted," February 18, 2014
- Battle Creek Enquirer, "First Michigan wolf hunt falls short of quota," January 4, 2014
- Michigan Secretary of State, "Michigan Committee Statement of Organization," accessed April 2, 2014
- The Detroit News, "Letter: Manage wildlife with sound science, not soundbites," March 4, 2014
- The Oakland Post, "Join the OU wolfpack: Protect Michigan wolves from hunters," March 12, 2014
- MLive, "Wolf hunt opponents challenging Michigan law on collecting signatures for ballot questions," February 10, 2014
- Washington Times, "Mich. sued over residency rule in petition drives," February 10, 2014
- MLive, "Judge dismisses ballot proposal suit after Michigan Legislature OKs out-of-state petition circulators," April 1, 2014
- Michigan Radio, "People defending wolves need to fight fairly," February 13, 2014
- WEMU, "Wolf Hunt Issue getting Closer to Ballot," March 12, 2014
- MLive, "Another anti-wolf hunt proposal approved for Michigan ballot," May 6, 2014
State of Michigan
|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 |
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 |