U.S. President & Vice President
Representative in Congress, 6th District
University of Michigan Board of Regents
Michigan State University Board of Trustees
Wayne State University Board of Governors
Michigan Court of Appeals, 3rd District
State Representative, 60th, 61st, 63rd Districts
Circuit Court Judge, 9th Circuit
District Court Judge, 8th District, Div. 1
State Ballot Proposals
Official Ballot
Language Proposal 04-1
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL OF
ANY FORM OF GAMBLING AUTHORIZED BY LAW AND CERTAIN NEW STATE LOTTERY GAMES
The
proposed constitutional amendment would:
•
Require voter approval of any form of gambling authorized by law after
January 1, 2004.
•
Require voter approval of any new state lottery games utilizing “table
games” or “player operated mechanical or electronic devices” introduced
after January 1, 2004.
•
Provide that when voter approval is required, both statewide voter approval
and voter approval in the city or township where gambling will take place
must be obtained.
•
Specify that the voter approval requirement does not apply to Indian
tribal gaming or gambling in up to three casinos located in the City
of Detroit.
Should this proposal be adopted?
Yes___ No___
YES: According to Let Voters Decide -— Yes!, “Supporters of a YES vote believe the people should have the right to vote on major gambling expansions proposed by the State. There were public votes on the Lottery and Detroit casinos. But now, racetracks want nine new casinos and other gambling interests want casino gambling machines in restaurants, bars and other neighborhood locations — without any public vote. Proposal 1 requires such plans to be approved in a statewide election and by voters in affected communities. Indian casinos are controlled by federal law, not state law. So, Proposal 1 focuses on State-controlled gambling. It’s not anti-gambling or pro-gambling. It’s pro-voter.”
NO: According to No CasiNO MoNOpoly — Vote NO on Proposal 1, “Proposal 1 would create a constitutionally protected gambling monopoly for the Las Vegas-backed Detroit casinos and Michigan’s Indian Tribal casinos. If passed, Proposal 1 could threaten the Michigan Lottery and the more than $586 million annual contribution it makes to the state School Aid Fund — that’s enough funding for 70,000 students or 11,000 new teachers. Proposal 1 also would decimate Michigan’s horse racing industry and the 40,000 jobs associated with it. Please, vote “NO” on Proposal 1.”
Official Ballot Language Proposal 04-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO SPECIFY WHAT CAN
BE RECOGNIZED AS A “MARRIAGE OR SIMILAR UNION” FOR ANY PURPOSE
The proposal would amend the state constitution to provide that “the
union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement
recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”
Should this proposal be adopted?
Yes___ No___
YES: According to Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, “The definition of marriage has recently been called into question as state laws are challenged by activist judges around the country. A “Yes” vote on Proposal 2 puts into the Michigan constitution what is current state law and what we all know to be true: marriage is an institution for one man and one woman. It does not tell people how they can live their lives. It is not an issue of benefits. It merely settles the question once and for all of what marriage is for families and future generations.”
NO: According to Michigan Equality, “This proposed amendment bans legal recognition of any union similar to marriage entered into by same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. The vague “for any purpose” language would permanently outlaw domestic partner benefits under which workers’ families and children are protected. This amendment will, for generations to come, deny the possibility of legal recognition of civil unions and thereby deny many of our citizens the benefits, rights and responsibilities available to those who are legally able to marry. This amendment discriminates against a class of Michigan citizens. Our constitution has never been used as an instrument of discrimination.”