LWVKA 2010 Voter Guide

In the November election voters will be asked to indicate whether each of two state of Michigan proposals should be approved. This section of the Voter Guide provides the text as it will appear on the ballot for each proposal. Following the text is a brief background statement compiled by the League of Women Voters of Michigan, based on information available at time of printing the Voter Guide. This background material is not intended to indicate either support or opposition by the League of Women Voters to either proposal. The League encourages voters to seek additional information from proposal supporters and opponents, as well as independent sources.

Official Ballot Language PROPOSAL 10-1

A PROPOSAL TO CONVENE A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DRAFTING A GENERAL REVISION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

Shall a convention of elected delegates be convened in 2011 to draft a general revision of the State Constitution for presentation to the state’s voters for their approval or rejection?

Should this proposal be adopted? Yes No

YES: We need to reform state government now, and the best way to do it is to have a Constitutional Convention next year. We can take back our government by voting YES on Proposal 1 on the November 2 Ballot.

Why do we elect partisan politicians we don’t know to the Boards of Michigan, MSU and Wayne State, while all the other 12 state University boards are appointed? Why not appoint them all? Do we really need a full-time Legislature—we have the 2nd most expensive one in the country? We could make it part-time, or cut its size in half. Currently, we elect Justices to our Supreme Court on a non-partisan ballot. They got on the ballot after being nominated by the two major parties. How logical is that?

Typically, opponents argue that opening the Constitution would invite unwelcome, extremist proposals and pet peeves. But a YES will trigger a convention of 148 delegates, no sitting legislators allowed, which three times before has proved too big to be hijacked. Today the need has never been stronger.

Like a 1963 car, the Michigan constitution needs a makeover. It is best put into the hands of the people.

John Logie is of Counsel to the law firm of Warner Norcross & Judd, and was Mayor of Grand Rapids from 1991–2003. Tom Watkins is a business and educational consultant and former state superintendent of schools.

NO: There are $45 million reasons to Vote No on Proposal 1. Proposal 1 will create a politically charged convention to rewrite our state constitution. It will cost at least $45 million to hold partisan special elections to elect delegates and conduct the convention.

Proposal 1 will handcuff the new leaders we elect this November for two years while the convention does its work. Rather than working to fix Michigan’s problems and get people back to work, the new governor and legislators will effectively be put on “pause” and Michigan families will continue to struggle.

Proposal 1 will create even more uncertainty and anxiety for Michigan job providers and schools, universities, and community colleges. Investments, expansions, innovations, new initiatives and reforms will be put on hold for at least two more years. We can’t afford to wait another two years to get Michigan back on track.

Leading groups representing agriculture, education, faith, local governments, manufacturing, labor, business—both large and small, transportation and infrastructure, real estate, and healthcare have joined together to urge voters to reject Proposal 1.

There are $45 million reasons to Vote No on Proposal 1.

By Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution

Official Ballot Language PROPOSAL 10-2

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? Yes No

YES: This amendment to the constitution would extend the current constitutional ban on certain felons from serving in the Michigan Legislature to include local and state elected officials and pubic employees who have policy-making or discretionary authority over public assets. People who have been convicted of a felony involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud or breach of the public trust through use of their public position would be ineligible to be elected or appointed to these offices for a period of 20 years.

Proposal 2 would help protect Michigan from individuals who seek positions of authority in state and local government after violating the public trust. This would buttress the public’s confidence in government.

Adding dishonesty, deceit and fraud to the offenses that prevent an individual from filling a seat in the Michigan Senate or House strengthens the integrity of the Legislature and public belief in the system.

Covering public officials at all levels of state and local government including universities, courts, counties, cities, townships and school districts and preventing them from serving in office after having misused a public office or governmental position of responsibility for public assets, just makes sense.

LWVMI summary of various analyses

NO: This amendment is unnecessary and an infringement on voters’ rights. Voters already can decide whether a person should be entrusted with holding elected office. In a democracy, people should be able to choose who they want to represent them. Citizenship requires vigilance.

People who have made past mistakes and paid their debt to society should not be prevented from running or being appointed to public office in the future. It is unlikely that someone convicted of a felony while in office would run for office again without the issue being raised. At that point, voters will have an opportunity to review the history and make their own judgment regarding that conviction. Banning such candidacies runs the risk of dismissing significant contributions an individual may have made or may make in the future.
This proposal has a number of vague provisions and directs the Legislature to implement its provisions. It is unclear who will enforce this constitutional prohibition or how “breach of the public trust”, “deceit” or “dishonest” will be defined, since they are not currently defined legal terms.

This statewide proposal goes too far by including local elected and appointed officials. These decisions should be made at the local level.

LWV of Michigan summary of various analyses