Michigan Proposal 10-2, Prohibition of Certain Felons Holding Certain Offices Amendment (2010)

Michigan Proposal 10-2
Election date November 2, 2010
Topic Ethics rules and commissions
Status Approved
Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

Michigan Proposal 10-2 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in Michigan on November 2, 2010. It was approved.

A “yes” vote supported prohibiting certain felons from holding certain positions for public office and public employment.

A “no” vote opposed prohibiting certain felons from holding certain positions for public office and public employment.

Election results

Michigan Proposal 10-2
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		2,270,657	74.91%
No		760,586	25.09%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposal 10-2 was as follows:

“

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FELONS FROM HOLDING ELECTIVE OFFICE AND SPECIFIED TYPES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT POSITIONS The proposed constitutional amendment would: Make a person ineligible for election or appointment to any state or local elective office or to hold a position in public employment in this state that is policy-making or has discretionary authority over public assets, if: within the preceding 20 years, the person was convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust; and the conviction was related to the person's official capacity while holding any elective office or position of employment in local, state, or federal government. Require the State Legislature to enact laws to implement the prohibition. Should this proposal be adopted?

”

Support

Editorial support

• The Traverse City Record Eagle said, "Proposal 2 would amend the constitution to prohibit anyone "convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, or a breach of the public trust" in the past 20 years (does the name Kwame Kilpatrick ring a bell?) from holding public office."

• The Detroit Free Press said, "As federal prosecutors press forward in their efforts to identify and punish public corruption, this is not a bad time for Michigan voters to give notice they expect better from elected and appointed officials at every level of government. The Free Press therefore recommends a YES vote on Proposal 2."

Opposition

Editorial opposition

• The Toledo Blade was opposed to Proposal 2. In an editorial, the board said, "This amendment may sound sensible. But it would amount to taking just a little more democracy away, and it continues an unwise tradition of enacting constitutional amendments to deal with problems that would be better addressed by changing current law. Michigan residents should vote NO on Proposal 2."

• The Daily Telegram was opposed to Proposal 2. "Like the medical marijuana amendment, it fails to clearly explain how local officials would track and enforce the statute. We should remember that the worst abuses of office have typically involved officials who were not felons until long after they were elected," said the editorial board.

• The Press & Argus said, " We don't want crooks in office, but we think this a bit of grandstanding that takes choice out of the hands of the voters. Vote NO."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures

• An October 20-25, 2010 poll, conducted by EPIC-MRA, revealed that 76% supported Proposal 2, while 19% were opposed and 5% were undecided. A total of 600 registered voters were polled. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

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
Oct. 20-25, 2010	EPIC-MRA	76%	19%	5%	600

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Michigan Constitution

A two-thirds vote is required during one legislative session for the Michigan State Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 74 votes in the Michigan House of Representatives and 26 votes in the Michigan State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Amendments do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.

See also

2010 Measures

• 2010 Measures
• Local government officials and elections on the ballot
• State executive elections on the ballot
• State legislative elections on the ballot
• Ethics rules and commissions on the ballot
• 2010 legislative sessions

Michigan

• Michigan ballot measures
• Michigan ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Michigan Bureau of Elections, "Initiatives and Referendums Under the Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963," January 2019
• Senate Fiscal Agency, "November 2010 Ballot Proposal 10-2 An Overview,"