State Ballot Proposals

Official Ballot Language Proposal 06-1
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE THAT MONEY HELD IN CONSERVATION AND RECREATION FUNDS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

Create a Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund within the Constitution and establish existing conservation and recreation accounts as components of the fund.
Use current funding sources such as state park entrance and camping fees; snowmobile, ORV and boating registration fees; hunting and fishing license fees; taxes and other revenues to fund accounts.
Establish the current Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Fund within the Constitution.
Provide that money held in Funds can only be used for specific purposes related to conservation and recreation and cannot be used for any purpose other than those intended.

Should this proposal be adopted?

__YES __NO

YES
Proposal 1 would establish the “Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund”, the “Game and Fish Protection Trust Fund” and the “Nongame Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund” within our State Constitution. Voting “Yes” will constitutionally protect boating, hunting, fishing, snowmobile, ORV, state park and forest entry fees, and camping fees that you pay from being raided to balance the state budget.

This is not a tax hike or fee increase, and will not change any fees. This protects the funds that you already pay into when you buy a license, pay DNR fees, or register your snowmobile, ORV or boat. Activities such as upkeep of boating and camping facilities, trail development, wildlife management and habitat, conservation officers, and public access sites are all supported by these funds and get no monies from the general fund state budget.

Proposal 1 has broad, bi-partisan support. It passed the House and Senate overwhelmingly and is supported by Michigan United Conservation Clubs, the Michigan Boating Industries Association, the Sheriff’s and Deputy Sheriff’s Association, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Lt. Gov. John Cherry, Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land and many others.

Provided by: Rep. Randy Richardville, Legislative sponsor of this proposal

NO
Opponents of this proposal say that this proposal is simply another attempt to earmark state revenue for special purposes and should not be put in the state’s Constitution. The Legislature needs flexibility to respond to economic conditions-not constitutional limitations that cannot be changed to meet current needs. This amendment will mean the Legislature can not use these funds for any other purposes, no matter what the other needs of the state might be. By protecting these funds, this proposal will limit the Legislature and the Governor’s ability to use their judgment in determining the best way to balance the state’s budget and to spend tax dollars to best serve current and future Michigan residents.

The language in this proposal is virtually the same as the current statutory language restricting these funds so all this amendment will accomplish is to make it more difficult and costly to change these restrictions if that is needed in the future.

Official Ballot Language Proposal 06-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.
Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)

Should this proposal be adopted?

__YES __NO

YES
Michigan’s economy is struggling badly, with working people from all backgrounds finding their jobs in danger. As we rebuild the Michigan economy, it is crucial that every person gets an equal chance to compete based on his/her merits. But, government agencies at all levels in Michigan treat people differently, based on their race and skin color - job quotas, “minority” contract set-asides, and extra points in college admissions. These practices are WRONG and it is time that we got rid of them.

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will restore fairness in how people are treated by government. This Initiative mirrors the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act and advances civil rights by prohibiting discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, sex and color. Unfortunately, those who support race and gender preferences have waged a negative campaign based on fear. Much like the die-hard segregationists, they have chosen fear as their tool.

EQUAL TREATMENT is the essence of “civil rights.” Proposal 2 will end race and gender preferences and restore fairness in public employment, public education and public contracting. Proposal 2 will end dividing us by the color of our skin. Vote YES on Proposal 2: It’s the right thing to do.

Provided by: Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Campaign

NO
Michigan this fall will decide whether it will continue to have doors open to opportunity for women and people of color, or roll back the progress we have made in addressing discrimination. Proposal 2 would amend our state’s constitution to immediately eliminate affirmative action policies in state and local governments, banning use of the best tool we have in achieving equal opportunity.

Opposing Proposal 2 are more than 200 groups joining as One United Michigan, including business, labor, religious and civic organizations. Governor Jennifer Granholm and Republican Dick DeVos both oppose the amendment. Proposal 2 is just too extreme, rolling back the positive steps Michigan has made in addressing inequities faced by women and people of color. The amendment would eliminate high school programs that encourage girls and minorities to enter math and science careers. It would ban housing and lending programs to ensure women and minorities are treated fairly when buying homes and applying for loans. After a similar proposal passed in California, lawsuits were filed to end state funding for battered women shelters and breast, prostate and cervical cancer screenings.

Michigan should continue to move forward and not roll back progress. Vote NO on Proposal 2.

Provided by: One United Michigan

Official Ballot Language Proposal 06-3
A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 160 OF 2004 - AN ACT TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HUNTING SEASON FOR MOURNING DOVES

Public Act 160 of 2004 would:

Authorize the Natural Resources Commission to establish a hunting season for mourning doves.
Require a mourning dove hunter to have a small game license and a $2.00 mourning dove stamp.
Stipulate that revenue from the stamp must be split evenly between the Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund.
Require the Department of Natural Resources to address responsible mourning dove hunting; management practices for the propagation of mourning doves; and participation in mourning dove hunting by youth, the elderly and the disabled in the Department’s annual hunting guide.

Should this proposal be adopted?

__YES __NO

YES
Proposal 3 supports professional wildlife management. Proposal 3 upholds a law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor in 2004 that designates the mourning dove a game bird and directs the Michigan Natural Resources Commission to establish a hunting season based upon sound scientific management.

Doves are the most abundant game bird in the US, currently hunted in 40 states. Biologists estimate that there are 475 million doves in this country. That is more than all species of ducks, and geese in the US combined. Michigan’s population is estimated to be six million. Doves nest several times each season producing four young a year. Doves’ life expectancy is less than a year, with or without hunting. Hunting accounts for less than 10 percent of the dove population’s mortality each year.

If Proposal 3 is passed, DNR biologist will establish a season and bag limits based upon sound scientific management. All hunters will be required to purchase a license and a dove stamp which will be used to further management of the birds. Hunting will continue to not be allowed near roads, houses or off power lines.

Provided by: Citizens for Wildlife Conservation

NO
VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 3. Vote NO on Dove Shooting. There’s NO good reason to shoot mourning doves: Doves are NOT overpopulated. Doves are shot for target practice, NOT for food. Doves are NOT harmful to humans, property or crops. There are 40 other game bird species in Michigan and there’s NO reason to add doves. It has been Michigan’s tradition to protect mourning doves since 1905, and there’s NO reason to change that now.

It’s all about the doves. The Committee to Keep Doves Protected has only one goal - to keep doves protected and restore Michigan’s 100-year tradition of protecting mourning doves, Michigan’s official bird of peace.

The Committee respects Michigan’s strong hunting heritage and represent a broad-based grassroots coalition of agricultural, conservation, humane, hunting, faith-based and community organizations and thousands of Michigan citizens who want to continue the protection of the mourning dove as a traditional backyard songbird. VOTE NO ON DOVE SHOOTING. VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL 3!

Provided by: The Committee to Keep Doves Protected

Official Ballot Language Proposal 06-4
A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT FROM TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR CERTAIN
PRIVATE PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.
Provide that if an individual’s principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125% of property’s fair market value.
Require government that takes a private property to demonstrate that the taking is for a public use; if taken to eliminate blight, require a higher standard of proof to demonstrate that the taking of that property is for a public use.
Preserve existing rights of property owners.

Should this proposal be adopted?

___YES ___NO

YES
Proposal 4 restores homeowners’ rights by amending the Michigan Constitution to prohibit local and state government from taking someone’s home or property under eminent domain and give it to an independent third party when the only reason is the promise of increased economic development or tax revenue.

Proposal 4 also requires any government that uses the power of eminent domain to take a person’s home to pay the property owner 125 percent. It requires a higher standard of proof to declare a property as ‘blighted’ and puts the burden of proof on government to show that a property meets the definition of blight.

The U.S. Supreme Court said government may use its power of eminent domain to force a property owner to sell his or her home so it can be turned over a developer who wants to make a buck off of it. Only a change in the Michigan Constitution will protect the rights of property owners, and make sure that government cannot use eminent domain just to increase property tax revenues or benefit a private developer. And it will ensure that future legislatures or governors won’t erode these property rights. Vote YES on Proposal 4.

Provided by: Sen. Tony Stamas, Legislative sponsor of this proposal

NO
Opponents believe economic development is a proper role of government. They say that the state and other units of government should continue to have the power under eminent domain to purchase private property and transfer it to a private entity. There are already limitations on this established by the Michigan Supreme Court in the case of County of Wayne v. Hathcock and this is sufficient as a limitation on the uses of eminent domain. This proposal will mean higher costs for taxpayers in order for their government to use the powers of eminent domain and there will be lost revenues from foregone projects.

Those voting NO believe that governments would no longer have the ability to use the power of eminent domain in an area-wide approach to blight eradication and that it would be harder and more expensive for governments to attack blighted areas. This proposal could discourage redevelopment in cities. Further, it would be difficult to undo these limitations once they are put into the state’s Constitution, if these restrictions are found to be too costly or too limiting in their scope.

Official Ballot Language Proposal 06-5
A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY SCHOOL FUNDING LEVELS

The proposed law would:

Increase current funding by approximately $565 million and require State to provide annual funding increases equal to the rate of inflation for public schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges, and higher education (includes state universities and financial aid/grant programs).
Require State to fund any deficiencies from General Fund.
Base funding for school districts with a declining enrollment on three-year student enrollment average.
Reduce and cap retirement fund contribution paid by public schools, community colleges and state universities; shift remaining portion to state.
Reduce funding gap between school districts receiving basic per-pupil foundation allowance and those receiving maximum foundation allowance.

Should this proposal be adopted?

___YES ___NO

YES
Properly funding public education is the economic key to success for Michigan’s future. Proposal 5 is an education ballot initiative that requires the State of Michigan to provide reasonable annual inflationary funding increases to local public K-12 schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges and higher education institutions.

Proposal 5 also requires the State to fund any deficiencies in the School Aid Fund from the General Fund. Proposal 5 will help ease the burden of rising costs by capping Retirement Fund contributions for public schools, community colleges and universities. Additionally, Proposal 5 reduces the funding gap between school districts receiving basic per-pupil foundation allowances and those receiving the maximum foundation allowance.

There is a funding crisis in education today. In school years 2001-2004, K-12 school districts saw no increase in State Aid and Michigan’s community colleges and universities had budgets slashed 15%. More than 50 local school districts in Michigan are approaching bankruptcy. Michigan must invest in public education by increasing teacher training, hiring additional counselors, math and science teachers, reducing class sizes and reducing rising college tuitions to help prepare more young people for the high-tech jobs of the future. YES, Education Proposal 5.

Provided by: K-16 Coalition for Michigan’s Future

NO
Voters Should Fail “K-16” Spending Mandate. Proponents of the “K-16” ballot proposal will tout the plan as “for education.” The reality is that the plan is not at all about “education.” Rather it’s about funding teacher retirement at the expense of cuts to other critical government services, and tax increases on individuals and working families. This plan mandates automatic increases in school spending for Michigan’s K-12 public schools, community colleges, and state public universities, regardless of revenues available.

The Coalition to Stop the K-16 Spending Mandate-57 statewide organizations, including law enforcement, fire fighters, health care providers, social service organization, taxpayers, and local governments-believes this plan is wrong for Michigan. The cost of this proposal is extraordinary. The Senate Fiscal Agency estimates it will cost at least $565 million more per year. This is on top of the recently passed FY 2006/07 education budgets totaling approximately $400 million. The only way to pay for this proposal is through cuts to other critical services or tax increases.
Despite 974 words of petition language, the proposal never mentions student achievement or tuition restraint! It does detail a guarantee for teacher retirement funding. In fact, 2/3 of the funding is earmarked for retirement costs...quite obviously never intended “for the kids.”

Provided by: Coalition to Stop the K-16 Spending Mandate

Online Information About State Ballot Proposals

Citizens Research Council of Michigan

MSU Extension

U of M Center for the Study of Complex Systems