Michigan Taxation Amendment, Proposal 5 (2012)
|Topic:||Taxes on the ballot|
The Michigan Taxation Amendment was on the November 6, 2012, statewide ballot in Michigan as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. If enacted this measure would have required that increases in state taxes must be approved by either a 2/3 majority in the Legislature or by a statewide vote. The measure was sponsored by Michigan Alliance for Prosperity.
- See also: 2012 ballot measure election results
|Michigan Proposal 5|
- Official results from the Michigan Secretary of State.
Text of measure
The official ballot text read as follows:
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT
This proposal would: Require a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.
This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.
Should this proposal be approved?
- In a guest column for MLive.com, Lana Theis argued in favor of the measure saying, "This [Proposal 5] gives lawmakers and special interest groups the chance to make their case to the taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill on the necessity of the tax increase over some other type of solution or reform."
In Michigan campaign finance information related to ballot measures is organized by ballot question committees. The following data was obtained from the state Campaign Finance Committee:
|Committee||Amount raised||Amount spent|
|Michigan Alliance for Prosperity||$1,886,000.00||$1,852,961.84|
- In a press release published in September 2012, Gov. Snyder said, "What's does this proposal mean for you and me? It means that special interest groups and even a small group of lawmakers could stop our ability to make the necessary policy changes we need in Michigan. It means that it would be more difficult for us to pay for our schools, fix our roads, or make sure that our law enforcement officers have the tools they need to protect us. Also, it will be viewed as negatively by bond ratings agencies which could raise our interest costs and make us look less attractive to job creators."
Path to the ballot
- See also: Michigan signature requirements
- Arguments Against Proposal 5, Michigan's 2012 Taxation Amendment
- Michigan Alliance for Prosperity - support for the amendment
- ↑ Initiative and Referendum Petitions from the Secretary of State (as of May 9, 2012)
- ↑ Michigan Secretary of State,"Proposal 5," retrieved September 10, 2012
- ↑ Michigan Alliance for Prosperity campaign website
- ↑ MLive.com,"Michigan Decides 2012: Vote YES on Proposal 5 to protect Michigan taxpayers (guest column)," October 4, 2012
- ↑ Pre-primary campaign statement, accessed September 7, 2012
- ↑ Detroit Free Press,"Poll: Michigan voters skeptical about collective bargaining, bridge ballot proposals," September 16, 2012
- ↑ Press release from Gov. Rick Snyder, September 2012
- ↑ Detroit Free Press,"Bridge, union rights, tax measure make Nov. ballot but casino effort blocked," September 6, 2012
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 |
Freedom of Information Act | Transparency Checklist | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | Transparency blogs | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations |